Religious Nationalism in the US

[Shadow Wolf]

No! of course not, but there are functional agnostics within the Left, religious people who tacitly endorse an anti-religious, anti-God agenda by affiliation. They fear being "uncool" by outwardly appearing woke while secretly hiding their Christian Life.

That sounds like one hella stretch.

Why is Godless an insult if you have faith in God?

It's the way you use it, which is to imply it's inherently bad to be godless, and prejudiced against atheists.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

IMOP In America's 2 party system independents are often people who do actually side with one party but they like enjoying an immunity from scrutiny by their friends of an opposing view. This is especially true if one works in academia where the slightest hint of conservatism could cost one their job and reputation. My wife is a professor at an ivy league school and mildly conservative in some areas, Liberal in others.....but she dare not express ANY view that might hint at conservatism for fear of not getting contract renewals, advancement etc. Academia is the most fascist, intolerant of all the institutions in America!

Then how'd I have a few teachers and presenters who openly expressed pro-conservative values? One of them, I overheard a student complaining to him that he offended her because she's a conservative and that documentary he showed on the war on drugs was inappropriate for bringing up the unflattering history of America.
Yes, it leaned Left overall, but I failed to find any evidence or repressive wokism or trigger happy discrimination against Conservatives.

 

[Colt]

That sounds like one hella stretch.

It's the way you use it, which is to imply it's inherently bad to be godless, and prejudiced against atheists.

If one is a true atheist then the term "godless" shouldn't be offensive. Societies that want to eliminate the influence of religion or God would be godless and welcome such a label. An ideal Atheist society would eliminate all religious influence as it is seen as a form of mental illness, a relic of the past. They would have their hoped-for godless utopia.

 

[Colt]

Then how'd I have a few teachers and presenters who openly expressed pro-conservative values? One of them, I overheard a student complaining to him that he offended her because she's a conservative and that documentary he showed on the war on drugs was inappropriate for bringing up the unflattering history of America.
Yes, it leaned Left overall, but I failed to find any evidence or repressive wokism or trigger happy discrimination against Conservatives.

I cant really comment on the film you are referring to in the war on drugs and how it may have been "spun".

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here is a preview:

195:8.4 "It required a great power, a mighty influence, to free the thinking and living of the Western peoples from the withering grasp of a totalitarian ecclesiastical domination. Secularism did break the bonds of church control, and now in turn it threatens to establish a new and godless type of mastery over the hearts and minds of modern man. The tyrannical and dictatorial political state is the direct offspring of scientific materialism and philosophic secularism. Secularism no sooner frees man from the domination of the institutionalized church than it sells him into slavish bondage to the totalitarian state. Secularism frees man from ecclesiastical slavery only to betray him into the tyranny of political and economic slavery." UB 1955

The only response I could muster for this is LOL. Gimme a break.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If one is a true atheist then the term "godless" shouldn't be offensive. Societies that want to eliminate the influence of religion or God would be godless and welcome such a label. An ideal Atheist society would eliminate all religious influence as it is seen as a form of mental illness, a relic of the past. They would have their hoped-for godless utopia.

Again, it's how you used it which is to say it's a bad thing. And because to a Christian being godless is a bad thing, they often use it that way. Like how once upon a time the word atheist was synonymous with a bad person.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If one is a true atheist then the term "godless" shouldn't be offensive. Societies that want to eliminate the influence of religion or God would be godless and welcome such a label. An ideal Atheist society would eliminate all religious influence as it is seen as a form of mental illness, a relic of the past. They would have their hoped-for godless utopia.

You really shouldn't be dabbling in mind-reading. You're not very good at it.

That poster just explained to you how your use of the word is meant to be offensive. I concur.

 

[Colt]

The only response I could muster for this is LOL. Gimme a break.

Truth needled you I take it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I cant really comment on the film you are referring to in the war on drugs and how it may have been "spun".

That's not important to the point, which you totally dodged. And no, it wasn't spun, it just included a lot about the Iran-Contra affair, America's very high incarnation rate due to petty drug offenses, and how drug abuse amd addiction are a health emergencies and should not be regarded as legal issues. That offended this conservative snowflake.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Truth needled you I take it.

There was no truth contained in that ridiculous quotation.

 

[Colt]

Again, it's how you used it which is to say it's a bad thing. And because to a Christian being godless is a bad thing, they often use it that way. Like how once upon a time the word atheist was synonymous with a bad person.

While we are on the topic of the influence of secularism in society, how would you like me to rephrase the term "godless secularism" so that it doesn't hurt your feelings?



Bad Words: California Colleges Push Students To Purge 'Harmful' Phrases Like 'Brown Bag Lunch'
Stanford University and California Polytechnic State University also discourage 'gender-based' terms like 'mother and father'

Getty Images
Susannah Luthi
December 20, 2022
If you’ve ever used the phrases "brown bag lunch" or "long time, no see," congratulations: You’re a racist, according to Stanford University.


That’s the judgment of the university’s IT Department, which is rolling out its "Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative," an effort to purge "potentially harmful terms" from the university’s websites. The guide cautions that the phrase "blind study" is "ableist" and that saying "balls to the wall" inappropriately "attributes personality traits to anatomy."

Stanford isn’t alone in its linguistic purge. Down the coast, California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo warns incoming students against saying "father and mother" or "boyfriend and girlfriend," according to a set of instruction slides for student orientation leaders obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. Suggested alternatives to mother and father include "supporter," while the university prefers "partner, beloved or lover" to boyfriend and girlfriend.

Universities and other elite institutions have increasingly embraced "woke" language in a bid to appear progressive. The Biden administration referred to mothers as "birthing people" in its 2022 budget proposal. Stanford is one of several colleges that urge students to use the term "Latinx" to describe Spanish-speaking people, even though most Hispanic people disavow the term.

Both Cal Poly and Stanford apparently worry that mere mention of words commonly used by most Americans will upset their students. They offer "content warnings" before listing problem language like "stupid" and "OCD."

The Stanford guide discourages the use of "gender-based" terms like "landlord" and "mankind." Even the seemingly progressive phrase "preferred pronouns" makes the list, since it "suggests that non-binary gender identity is a choice and a preference." The once-public Stanford list was hidden behind a university login page sometime Monday. The university did not respond to the Free Beacon’s request for comments on the change.

Stanford claims that administrators "are not attempting to address all informal uses of language," but simply "educate people about the possible impact of the words we use." Cal Poly’s language initiative has a loftier aim.

The university’s presentations, which are given to student leaders who run orientations for freshmen and transfers, state that they should do more than switch up their language and adopt gender pronouns. "In order to support trans people in their lives, allies need to dismantle the binary ideas they have of gender in their heads," one slide says.

The Cal Poly materials caution students against using words and phrases like "crazy" or "that’s lame," because they were "used during a time of eugenics against disabled folx, such as forced sterilization and institutionalization."

A Cal Poly spokesman confirmed that the slides have been used in orientation programs "for several years" to promote "using inclusive language around gender and ability." The spokesman added that the speech codes are part of the school’s efforts to promote a "welcoming" campus.

Both Stanford and Cal Poly say they are committed to free speech, which the latter institution avows as a "cornerstone" of democratic societies. But students and faculty say they feel stifled by the speech codes.

"There are people who maybe 5 or 10 years ago would have been in the trenches fighting this stuff with me, but they are even sort of throwing in the hat because it's just bigger than them," said Brian Kennelly, a French professor at Cal Poly. "I think people are just exhausted and if they can just get by unnoticed and get a paycheck that's enough for them, which is so sad."

Kennelly was the only faculty member willing to speak to the Free Beacon on the record. Two Cal Poly instructors who asked to remain anonymous said that students won’t even take rhetorical positions for the sake of argument in class, as they seem afraid of saying something that violates the social justice creed.

"My guess would be there's 30 to 50 percent of the student body who don't buy into this and believe it, but they know they just have to show up and bite their tongue and bide their time," one of these instructors said.

Stanford likewise stresses its free speech imperative. The university’s top leaders, however, have sought to temper its First Amendment mandate with concerns for those "who are negatively impacted by speech" and acknowledgment of the "additional challenge" of "outside speakers who may be controversial."

 

[Colt]

There was no truth contained in that ridiculous quotation.

Makes sense to me. I think its true and you don't like the truth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

While we are on the topic of the influence of secularism in society, how would you like me to rephrase the term "godless secularism" so that it doesn't hurt your feelings?



Bad Words: California Colleges Push Students To Purge 'Harmful' Phrases Like 'Brown Bag Lunch'
Stanford University and California Polytechnic State University also discourage 'gender-based' terms like 'mother and father'

Getty Images
Susannah Luthi
December 20, 2022
If you’ve ever used the phrases "brown bag lunch" or "long time, no see," congratulations: You’re a racist, according to Stanford University.


That’s the judgment of the university’s IT Department, which is rolling out its "Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative," an effort to purge "potentially harmful terms" from the university’s websites. The guide cautions that the phrase "blind study" is "ableist" and that saying "balls to the wall" inappropriately "attributes personality traits to anatomy."

Stanford isn’t alone in its linguistic purge. Down the coast, California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo warns incoming students against saying "father and mother" or "boyfriend and girlfriend," according to a set of instruction slides for student orientation leaders obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. Suggested alternatives to mother and father include "supporter," while the university prefers "partner, beloved or lover" to boyfriend and girlfriend.

Universities and other elite institutions have increasingly embraced "woke" language in a bid to appear progressive. The Biden administration referred to mothers as "birthing people" in its 2022 budget proposal. Stanford is one of several colleges that urge students to use the term "Latinx" to describe Spanish-speaking people, even though most Hispanic people disavow the term.

Both Cal Poly and Stanford apparently worry that mere mention of words commonly used by most Americans will upset their students. They offer "content warnings" before listing problem language like "stupid" and "OCD."

The Stanford guide discourages the use of "gender-based" terms like "landlord" and "mankind." Even the seemingly progressive phrase "preferred pronouns" makes the list, since it "suggests that non-binary gender identity is a choice and a preference." The once-public Stanford list was hidden behind a university login page sometime Monday. The university did not respond to the Free Beacon’s request for comments on the change.

Stanford claims that administrators "are not attempting to address all informal uses of language," but simply "educate people about the possible impact of the words we use." Cal Poly’s language initiative has a loftier aim.

The university’s presentations, which are given to student leaders who run orientations for freshmen and transfers, state that they should do more than switch up their language and adopt gender pronouns. "In order to support trans people in their lives, allies need to dismantle the binary ideas they have of gender in their heads," one slide says.

The Cal Poly materials caution students against using words and phrases like "crazy" or "that’s lame," because they were "used during a time of eugenics against disabled folx, such as forced sterilization and institutionalization."

A Cal Poly spokesman confirmed that the slides have been used in orientation programs "for several years" to promote "using inclusive language around gender and ability." The spokesman added that the speech codes are part of the school’s efforts to promote a "welcoming" campus.

Both Stanford and Cal Poly say they are committed to free speech, which the latter institution avows as a "cornerstone" of democratic societies. But students and faculty say they feel stifled by the speech codes.

"There are people who maybe 5 or 10 years ago would have been in the trenches fighting this stuff with me, but they are even sort of throwing in the hat because it's just bigger than them," said Brian Kennelly, a French professor at Cal Poly. "I think people are just exhausted and if they can just get by unnoticed and get a paycheck that's enough for them, which is so sad."

Kennelly was the only faculty member willing to speak to the Free Beacon on the record. Two Cal Poly instructors who asked to remain anonymous said that students won’t even take rhetorical positions for the sake of argument in class, as they seem afraid of saying something that violates the social justice creed.

"My guess would be there's 30 to 50 percent of the student body who don't buy into this and believe it, but they know they just have to show up and bite their tongue and bide their time," one of these instructors said.

Stanford likewise stresses its free speech imperative. The university’s top leaders, however, have sought to temper its First Amendment mandate with concerns for those "who are negatively impacted by speech" and acknowledgment of the "additional challenge" of "outside speakers who may be controversial."

Oh the horror! Inclusive language? Yuck!

I bet they'll be putting guns to peoples' heads to force them to comply too!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Makes sense to me. I think its true and you don't like the truth.

Of course it does. Because instead of actually asking people what they think, you make up some nonsense in your head and just ascribe that to them instead. That way, you're always right.
There was no truth in that. It was just a ignorant prejudicial screed against atheists.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

While we are on the topic of the influence of secularism in society, how would you like me to rephrase the term "godless secularism" so that it doesn't hurt your feelings?



Bad Words: California Colleges Push Students To Purge 'Harmful' Phrases Like 'Brown Bag Lunch'
Stanford University and California Polytechnic State University also discourage 'gender-based' terms like 'mother and father'

Getty Images
Susannah Luthi
December 20, 2022
If you’ve ever used the phrases "brown bag lunch" or "long time, no see," congratulations: You’re a racist, according to Stanford University.


That’s the judgment of the university’s IT Department, which is rolling out its "Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative," an effort to purge "potentially harmful terms" from the university’s websites. The guide cautions that the phrase "blind study" is "ableist" and that saying "balls to the wall" inappropriately "attributes personality traits to anatomy."

Stanford isn’t alone in its linguistic purge. Down the coast, California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo warns incoming students against saying "father and mother" or "boyfriend and girlfriend," according to a set of instruction slides for student orientation leaders obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. Suggested alternatives to mother and father include "supporter," while the university prefers "partner, beloved or lover" to boyfriend and girlfriend.

Universities and other elite institutions have increasingly embraced "woke" language in a bid to appear progressive. The Biden administration referred to mothers as "birthing people" in its 2022 budget proposal. Stanford is one of several colleges that urge students to use the term "Latinx" to describe Spanish-speaking people, even though most Hispanic people disavow the term.

Both Cal Poly and Stanford apparently worry that mere mention of words commonly used by most Americans will upset their students. They offer "content warnings" before listing problem language like "stupid" and "OCD."

The Stanford guide discourages the use of "gender-based" terms like "landlord" and "mankind." Even the seemingly progressive phrase "preferred pronouns" makes the list, since it "suggests that non-binary gender identity is a choice and a preference." The once-public Stanford list was hidden behind a university login page sometime Monday. The university did not respond to the Free Beacon’s request for comments on the change.

Stanford claims that administrators "are not attempting to address all informal uses of language," but simply "educate people about the possible impact of the words we use." Cal Poly’s language initiative has a loftier aim.

The university’s presentations, which are given to student leaders who run orientations for freshmen and transfers, state that they should do more than switch up their language and adopt gender pronouns. "In order to support trans people in their lives, allies need to dismantle the binary ideas they have of gender in their heads," one slide says.

The Cal Poly materials caution students against using words and phrases like "crazy" or "that’s lame," because they were "used during a time of eugenics against disabled folx, such as forced sterilization and institutionalization."

A Cal Poly spokesman confirmed that the slides have been used in orientation programs "for several years" to promote "using inclusive language around gender and ability." The spokesman added that the speech codes are part of the school’s efforts to promote a "welcoming" campus.

Both Stanford and Cal Poly say they are committed to free speech, which the latter institution avows as a "cornerstone" of democratic societies. But students and faculty say they feel stifled by the speech codes.

"There are people who maybe 5 or 10 years ago would have been in the trenches fighting this stuff with me, but they are even sort of throwing in the hat because it's just bigger than them," said Brian Kennelly, a French professor at Cal Poly. "I think people are just exhausted and if they can just get by unnoticed and get a paycheck that's enough for them, which is so sad."

Kennelly was the only faculty member willing to speak to the Free Beacon on the record. Two Cal Poly instructors who asked to remain anonymous said that students won’t even take rhetorical positions for the sake of argument in class, as they seem afraid of saying something that violates the social justice creed.

"My guess would be there's 30 to 50 percent of the student body who don't buy into this and believe it, but they know they just have to show up and bite their tongue and bide their time," one of these instructors said.

Stanford likewise stresses its free speech imperative. The university’s top leaders, however, have sought to temper its First Amendment mandate with concerns for those "who are negatively impacted by speech" and acknowledgment of the "additional challenge" of "outside speakers who may be controversial."

Sounds extremely loaded and very out of context.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I suggest you actually read the founding fathers.

I have. And you -- if you have also read them -- clearly did not read them with comprehension.

Many of the founding fathers—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Monroe—were deists, which holds human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems. Deists believe in a supreme being who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws—and after creation, is absent from the world. This belief in reason over dogma helped guide the founders toward a system of government that respected faiths like Christianity, while purposely isolating both from encroaching on one another so as not to dilute the overall purpose and objectives of either.

James Madison, for instance, was vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill “establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” Madison wrote his “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” in which he presented 15 reasons why government should not become involved in the support of any religion.

In his first term as president, Thomas Jefferson declared his firm belief in the separation of church and state in a letter to the Danbury, Conn. Baptists. He said: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

The Treaty of Tripoli was already discussed above.

Finally, and most obviously, if the founding fathers intended to include Jesus, the Bible, or other particular aspects of the Christian faith in the founding of our nation, they would have expressly done so. However, the ONLY two references to religion that are in the Constitution contain exclusionary language. The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . .” and in Article VI, Section III, “… no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

The Founding Fathers’ Religious Wisdom.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Makes sense to me. I think its true and you don't like the truth.

Because you've demonized atheists so badly that you just see what you want to see and imagine you can read our minds. As already noted.


I have no desire to take anyone's religion from them. I have no desire to live in a "godless utopia" whatever that even means.
I don't view religion as a mental illness. So yeah, that screed was a pile of ignorant ****.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow- citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.

George Washington

President George Washington's First Inaugural Speech (1789)

No... As you have demonstrated, the don't really teach US history any more.

It’s not shocking that politicians will say whatever to obtain or maintain power.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Love is the key, isn't it?

Yes, Natives and later Africans just loved that Christian love.

 

[F1fan]

I have. And you -- if you have also read them -- clearly did not read them with comprehension.

Many of the founding fathers—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Monroe—were deists, which holds human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems. Deists believe in a supreme being who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws—and after creation, is absent from the world. This belief in reason over dogma helped guide the founders toward a system of government that respected faiths like Christianity, while purposely isolating both from encroaching on one another so as not to dilute the overall purpose and objectives of either.

James Madison, for instance, was vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill “establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” Madison wrote his “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” in which he presented 15 reasons why government should not become involved in the support of any religion.

In his first term as president, Thomas Jefferson declared his firm belief in the separation of church and state in a letter to the Danbury, Conn. Baptists. He said: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

The Treaty of Tripoli was already discussed above.

Finally, and most obviously, if the founding fathers intended to include Jesus, the Bible, or other particular aspects of the Christian faith in the founding of our nation, they would have expressly done so. However, the ONLY two references to religion that are in the Constitution contain exclusionary language. The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . .” and in Article VI, Section III, “… no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

The Founding Fathers’ Religious Wisdom.

One reason the Founding Fathers were opposed to a state religion was the political abuse used by the King of England. Kings had divine rights and powers, which gave them unlimited power and no accountability. The phrase in the Declaration of Independence that “men were endowed by their creator” as a push back against the King’s authority via God. One claim of authority had to be met on equal terms. It was in no way an endorsement of religion. The FF certainly saw the abuses garnered by claiming divine rights as a huge threat to democracy and stability. Look at how the republicans have been using evangelicals as a means to appoint judges and elect representatives who have far right Christian agendas. They have attained control over the Supreme Court due to the simple majority vote in the Senate, but are losing in elections. This illustrates how using power to attain more control is a tactic that can lead to the disintegration of democracy.