America was founded as an enlightened multicultural Nation

[ding]

Too funny.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

#162 m reply to #161

Too funny.

yeah. What Ben Franklin said about Original Sin is real funny, knowing there are people like you who believe in a “Bugbear set up by Priests (whether Popish or Presbyterian I know not) to fright and scare an unthinking Populace out of their Senses” and go around claiming that Ben Franklin’s religion Is the same as the hocus pocus pushed by your priests (Popish and Presbyterian).

Its hilarious alright.

I’m glad you read this:

“Benjamin Franklin on Original Sin; It is. “ .. every whit as ridiculous as that of Imputed Righteousness. ’Tis a Notion invented, a Bugbear set up by Priests (whether Popish or Presbyterian I know not) to fright and scare an unthinking Populace out of their Senses, and inspire them with Terror, to answer the little selfish Ends of the Inventors and Propagators. ’Tis absurd in it self,”​

 

[badger2]

Yes, Franklin's 'Inventors and Propagators' have been at it since at least the Neolithic, when they got the bright idea of projecting guilt, fear and troubled spirit onto their victims/scapegoats as a protection-racket enterprise.

 

[badger2]

#151: Thanks for the excerpting. We have Seidel's book, and it's a gem of information anarchy.

 

[badger2]

Post #2 is problematic because the constitutional concept "founding influence" excludes the Indigene, who was already in North America for the previous 120 centuries. Kuklos exothen, is the cone-headed reasoning attached to this problematic.

 

[badger2]

A note on the inessentiality that attempts to legitimize itself as essential (or necessary):

'A cursory reading of George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address might give the impression that he thought religion was necessary for society to succeed:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports....Whatever may be conceded on the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

"National morality" here means something akin to societal or collective morality, as opposed to the government as moral agent. Alexander Hamilton wrote these words, not George Washington. Hamilton was not referring to the government needing divine aid or religion requiring government aid, but to society requiring a morality Hamilton thought religion provided.

This was also less a moral exposition than a political attack on Jefferson's new Republican party. Biographer Ron Chernow has pointed out that these comments "arose from [Hamilton's] horror at the 'atheistic' French Revolution." Interestingly, although Washington included this sentiment in his final speech, he omitted Hamilton's next sentence: "does it [national morality] not require the aid of a generally received and divinely authoritative Religion?" Washington's edit suggests that he believed that any religion, not just Christianity, could replace morality. The Farewell Address conceives of religion and morality as two separate, distinct things -- not as synonyms expressing the same thought, though Christian nationaIists misread it that way.
....
These founders were not saying that religion is the source of morality or that an individual's morality cannot exist without religion. They were claiming that religion is necessary for societal morality. And they were wrong.'
(Seidel AL, The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American, pp. 44-7)

 

[Taz]

#1. We will start with the Puritans

The first group of “Mayflower” Christians to set foot on what was to become Massachusetts’s soil were separatists meaning they left the Church of England behind. Those separatists were eventually absorbed into the following groups of non-separatist Puritans who under Congregationalist Churches maintained a loyal relationship with the Church of England until the revolt against King Charles in 1776 was declared.

In no way should the early separatist Puritans be confused with the Revolutionary War Separatists. Many of the 1776 separatists were not Christian in a Puritan/Calvinistic sense at all. They were more philosophically aligned with the modern liberal mindset of the times when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

“So who, then, were the Puritans? While the Separatists believed that the only way to live according to Biblical precepts was to leave the Church of England entirely, the Puritans thought they could reform the church from within. Sometimes called non-separating Puritans, this less radical group shared a lot in common with the Separatists, particularly a form of worship and self-organization called “the congregational way.” What’s the Difference Between Puritans and Pilgrims?​

If "multicultural" means "White", then ok.

 

[Taz]

#11 reply to #3.

The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

The problem Protestant Christian nationalists like you have is your pretending that today’s freely chosen and congenial Catholic/Protestant/Mormon Christianity (mostly now supportive of Judaism) is unambiguously somehow identical to the one dominant Protestant Christianity of 1776 British Colonial America.

You don’t recognize the change.

Back then before religious liberty was enshrined in the Constitution there was no tolerance by Protestant Christians for Catholics and Jews and other religions from around the world.

What liberal enlightened founding fathers saw was the necessity for the central government to not favor one Protestant sect over another Protestant Sect.

So the Federal Government forbade itself from endorsing Anglicans over Baptists, Luther over the Roman Pope, Quaker over Calvinism. or even Christianity over Judaism, and so on.

In that time the Fathers of our great nation had seen no European system of religion that regulated morals (when Christians were not killing and torturing other Christians and adherents to other religions) and civic duty as Christianity did within a sect that reached levels of security and prosperity under theirs monarchies. They had no way of knowing what the common uneducated mass of humanity would do in a free society liberated from authoritarian rulers aligned with God themselves.

There was no data on atheists running society because there was never that many around.

So when you tell us that the First Amendment keeps the Federal Government fromi interfering with state established religions, you are firgetting the most important part - the granting of every single citizen the right to believe in whatever religion they choose or no religion at all. And every single citizen falls under the protection of the Constitution as George Washington said it to a Hebrew congregation.

“For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. ,”​

in other words a citizen who behaved himself as good and supportive of civil doctors cannot be coerced by the states to think or believe our support what the preference of the state they live in wants them to believe.

That’s true Freedom if Religion and Christian Protestant Nationalists just can’t seem to recognize that freedom of religion or no religion is an inalienable right. Not to be messed with.

Different denominations isn’t multiculturalism. All religions fraction. Every single one.

Because people like to make up their own stories.

 

[ding]

#11 reply to #3.

The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

The problem Protestant Christian nationalists like you have is your pretending that today’s freely chosen and congenial Catholic/Protestant/Mormon Christianity (mostly now supportive of Judaism) is unambiguously somehow identical to the one dominant Protestant Christianity of 1776 British Colonial America.

You don’t recognize the change.

Back then before religious liberty was enshrined in the Constitution there was no tolerance by Protestant Christians for Catholics and Jews and other religions from around the world.

What liberal enlightened founding fathers saw was the necessity for the central government to not favor one Protestant sect over another Protestant Sect.

So the Federal Government forbade itself from endorsing Anglicans over Baptists, Luther over the Roman Pope, Quaker over Calvinism. or even Christianity over Judaism, and so on.

In that time the Fathers of our great nation had seen no European system of religion that regulated morals (when Christians were not killing and torturing other Christians and adherents to other religions) and civic duty as Christianity did within a sect that reached levels of security and prosperity under theirs monarchies. They had no way of knowing what the common uneducated mass of humanity would do in a free society liberated from authoritarian rulers aligned with God themselves.

There was no data on atheists running society because there was never that many around.

So when you tell us that the First Amendment keeps the Federal Government fromi interfering with state established religions, you are firgetting the most important part - the granting of every single citizen the right to believe in whatever religion they choose or no religion at all. And every single citizen falls under the protection of the Constitution as George Washington said it to a Hebrew congregation.

“For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. ,”​

in other words a citizen who behaved himself as good and supportive of civil doctors cannot be coerced by the states to think or believe our support what the preference of the state they live in wants them to believe.

That’s true Freedom if Religion and Christian Protestant Nationalists just can’t seem to recognize that freedom of religion or no religion is an inalienable right. Not to be messed with.

Different denominations isn’t multiculturalism. All religions fraction. Every single one.

Because people like to make up their own stories.

Diversity scares you.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

#11 reply to #3.

The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

The problem Protestant Christian nationalists like you have is your pretending that today’s freely chosen and congenial Catholic/Protestant/Mormon Christianity (mostly now supportive of Judaism) is unambiguously somehow identical to the one dominant Protestant Christianity of 1776 British Colonial America.

You don’t recognize the change.

Back then before religious liberty was enshrined in the Constitution there was no tolerance by Protestant Christians for Catholics and Jews and other religions from around the world.

What liberal enlightened founding fathers saw was the necessity for the central government to not favor one Protestant sect over another Protestant Sect.

So the Federal Government forbade itself from endorsing Anglicans over Baptists, Luther over the Roman Pope, Quaker over Calvinism. or even Christianity over Judaism, and so on.

In that time the Fathers of our great nation had seen no European system of religion that regulated morals (when Christians were not killing and torturing other Christians and adherents to other religions) and civic duty as Christianity did within a sect that reached levels of security and prosperity under theirs monarchies. They had no way of knowing what the common uneducated mass of humanity would do in a free society liberated from authoritarian rulers aligned with God themselves.

There was no data on atheists running society because there was never that many around.

So when you tell us that the First Amendment keeps the Federal Government fromi interfering with state established religions, you are firgetting the most important part - the granting of every single citizen the right to believe in whatever religion they choose or no religion at all. And every single citizen falls under the protection of the Constitution as George Washington said it to a Hebrew congregation.

“For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. ,”​

in other words a citizen who behaved himself as good and supportive of civil doctors cannot be coerced by the states to think or believe our support what the preference of the state they live in wants them to believe.

That’s true Freedom if Religion and Christian Protestant Nationalists just can’t seem to recognize that freedom of religion or no religion is an inalienable right. Not to be messed with.

Different denominations isn’t multiculturalism. All religions fraction. Every single one.

Because people like to make up their own stories.

Diversity scares you.

It should. If you mean a nation with a hodgepodge of religions, cultures and yes, races. That was NOT the country the Founders envisioned

 

[ding]

#11 reply to #3.

The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

The problem Protestant Christian nationalists like you have is your pretending that today’s freely chosen and congenial Catholic/Protestant/Mormon Christianity (mostly now supportive of Judaism) is unambiguously somehow identical to the one dominant Protestant Christianity of 1776 British Colonial America.

You don’t recognize the change.

Back then before religious liberty was enshrined in the Constitution there was no tolerance by Protestant Christians for Catholics and Jews and other religions from around the world.

What liberal enlightened founding fathers saw was the necessity for the central government to not favor one Protestant sect over another Protestant Sect.

So the Federal Government forbade itself from endorsing Anglicans over Baptists, Luther over the Roman Pope, Quaker over Calvinism. or even Christianity over Judaism, and so on.

In that time the Fathers of our great nation had seen no European system of religion that regulated morals (when Christians were not killing and torturing other Christians and adherents to other religions) and civic duty as Christianity did within a sect that reached levels of security and prosperity under theirs monarchies. They had no way of knowing what the common uneducated mass of humanity would do in a free society liberated from authoritarian rulers aligned with God themselves.

There was no data on atheists running society because there was never that many around.

So when you tell us that the First Amendment keeps the Federal Government fromi interfering with state established religions, you are firgetting the most important part - the granting of every single citizen the right to believe in whatever religion they choose or no religion at all. And every single citizen falls under the protection of the Constitution as George Washington said it to a Hebrew congregation.

“For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. ,”​

in other words a citizen who behaved himself as good and supportive of civil doctors cannot be coerced by the states to think or believe our support what the preference of the state they live in wants them to believe.

That’s true Freedom if Religion and Christian Protestant Nationalists just can’t seem to recognize that freedom of religion or no religion is an inalienable right. Not to be messed with.

Different denominations isn’t multiculturalism. All religions fraction. Every single one.

Because people like to make up their own stories.

Diversity scares you.

It should. If you mean a nation with a hodgepodge of religions, cultures and yes, races. That was NOT the country the Founders envisioned

I give them more credit than you do.

 

[Andylusion]

#11 reply to #3.

The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

The problem Protestant Christian nationalists like you have is your pretending that today’s freely chosen and congenial Catholic/Protestant/Mormon Christianity (mostly now supportive of Judaism) is unambiguously somehow identical to the one dominant Protestant Christianity of 1776 British Colonial America.

You don’t recognize the change.

Back then before religious liberty was enshrined in the Constitution there was no tolerance by Protestant Christians for Catholics and Jews and other religions from around the world.

What liberal enlightened founding fathers saw was the necessity for the central government to not favor one Protestant sect over another Protestant Sect.

So the Federal Government forbade itself from endorsing Anglicans over Baptists, Luther over the Roman Pope, Quaker over Calvinism. or even Christianity over Judaism, and so on.

In that time the Fathers of our great nation had seen no European system of religion that regulated morals (when Christians were not killing and torturing other Christians and adherents to other religions) and civic duty as Christianity did within a sect that reached levels of security and prosperity under theirs monarchies. They had no way of knowing what the common uneducated mass of humanity would do in a free society liberated from authoritarian rulers aligned with God themselves.

There was no data on atheists running society because there was never that many around.

So when you tell us that the First Amendment keeps the Federal Government fromi interfering with state established religions, you are firgetting the most important part - the granting of every single citizen the right to believe in whatever religion they choose or no religion at all. And every single citizen falls under the protection of the Constitution as George Washington said it to a Hebrew congregation.

“For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. ,”​

in other words a citizen who behaved himself as good and supportive of civil doctors cannot be coerced by the states to think or believe our support what the preference of the state they live in wants them to believe.

That’s true Freedom if Religion and Christian Protestant Nationalists just can’t seem to recognize that freedom of religion or no religion is an inalienable right. Not to be messed with.

Different denominations isn’t multiculturalism. All religions fraction. Every single one.

Because people like to make up their own stories.

Diversity scares you.

It should. If you mean a nation with a hodgepodge of religions, cultures and yes, races. That was NOT the country the Founders envisioned

I give them more credit than you do.

Have you learned nothing from the world around you?

All of the countries with extreme diversity have been disasters. And all the places with very homogeneous societies, are the ones worth living in.

You can all it being "scared" but the fact is, that is the reality.

The more diversity you have, the more of a nightmare it becomes.

There is no example of a truly diverse country, that wasn't a mess.

In all my years, I have yet to see one single example where diversity had a positive outcome.

By definition, in order to achieve any goal, everyone in a group or team, must have the same goal. A diversity of goals, leads to disaster.

How can two people who want to go in opposite directions, end up achieving either goal together?

Well obviously they can't. You have to have a homogeneous goal, to achieve it together in a group.

It is not possible to have a wide diversity of goals and cultures and purposes, and end up achieving anything.

 

[ding]

#11 reply to #3.

The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

The problem Protestant Christian nationalists like you have is your pretending that today’s freely chosen and congenial Catholic/Protestant/Mormon Christianity (mostly now supportive of Judaism) is unambiguously somehow identical to the one dominant Protestant Christianity of 1776 British Colonial America.

You don’t recognize the change.

Back then before religious liberty was enshrined in the Constitution there was no tolerance by Protestant Christians for Catholics and Jews and other religions from around the world.

What liberal enlightened founding fathers saw was the necessity for the central government to not favor one Protestant sect over another Protestant Sect.

So the Federal Government forbade itself from endorsing Anglicans over Baptists, Luther over the Roman Pope, Quaker over Calvinism. or even Christianity over Judaism, and so on.

In that time the Fathers of our great nation had seen no European system of religion that regulated morals (when Christians were not killing and torturing other Christians and adherents to other religions) and civic duty as Christianity did within a sect that reached levels of security and prosperity under theirs monarchies. They had no way of knowing what the common uneducated mass of humanity would do in a free society liberated from authoritarian rulers aligned with God themselves.

There was no data on atheists running society because there was never that many around.

So when you tell us that the First Amendment keeps the Federal Government fromi interfering with state established religions, you are firgetting the most important part - the granting of every single citizen the right to believe in whatever religion they choose or no religion at all. And every single citizen falls under the protection of the Constitution as George Washington said it to a Hebrew congregation.

“For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. ,”​

in other words a citizen who behaved himself as good and supportive of civil doctors cannot be coerced by the states to think or believe our support what the preference of the state they live in wants them to believe.

That’s true Freedom if Religion and Christian Protestant Nationalists just can’t seem to recognize that freedom of religion or no religion is an inalienable right. Not to be messed with.

Different denominations isn’t multiculturalism. All religions fraction. Every single one.

Because people like to make up their own stories.

Diversity scares you.

It should. If you mean a nation with a hodgepodge of religions, cultures and yes, races. That was NOT the country the Founders envisioned

I give them more credit than you do.

Have you learned nothing from the world around you?

All of the countries with extreme diversity have been disasters. And all the places with very homogeneous societies, are the ones worth living in.

You can all it being "scared" but the fact is, that is the reality.

The more diversity you have, the more of a nightmare it becomes.

There is no example of a truly diverse country, that wasn't a mess.

In all my years, I have yet to see one single example where diversity had a positive outcome.

By definition, in order to achieve any goal, everyone in a group or team, must have the same goal. A diversity of goals, leads to disaster.

How can two people who want to go in opposite directions, end up achieving either goal together?

Well obviously they can't. You have to have a homogeneous goal, to achieve it together in a group.

It is not possible to have a wide diversity of goals and cultures and purposes, and end up achieving anything.

I'm not talking about diverse goals. Besides, I'm pretty sure we have always been a nation of people with diverse goals. It's our differences which which propel us forward. You will have a hard time finding anyone in biology or in business who doesn't believe diversity is good.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

It's our differences which which propel us forward

It WAS our UNITY as one nation under the God of Israel that united us and blessed us. We are not to be a "multicultural" nation in any way

 

[ding]

It's our differences which which propel us forward

It WAS our UNITY as one nation under the God of Israel that united us and blessed us. We are not to be a "multicultural" nation in any way

Being diverse doesn't necessarily mean being multi-cultured but our heritage was more multi-cultured than most nations.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It WAS our UNITY as one nation under the God of Israel that united us and blessed us.

NOT REALLY. Religiosity was at a low point when the thirteen colonies became the UNITED States.

There is a reason that there was no mention of the God of Israel or his supposed son was mentioned in the Constitution. Many of the founders knew that the damned god of Israel would divide us more than unite us.

 

[ding]

It WAS our UNITY as one nation under the God of Israel that united us and blessed us.

NOT REALLY. Religiosity was at a low point when the thirteen colonies became the UNITED States.

There is a reason that there was no mention of the God of Israel or his supposed son was mentioned in the Constitution. Many of the founders knew that the damned god of Israel would divide us more than unite us.

Half of the states had established state religions at the time of ratification. I wouldn't call that the low point of religiosity.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Half of the states had established state religions at the time of ratification. I wouldn't call that the low point of religiosity.

Here is what the father of our country had to say about your ‘god of Israel/Christianity UNITING us. It’s bull. George was there - he saw nothing but animosities which have existed among mankind caused by difference of sentiments in religion”

George went on to say that the historic differences in religions “appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated.“


Earlier in this conversation.

Here George Washington mention’s what Christian Nationalists refuse to hear.

“.. ...the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present {1790s} age.

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." [George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]

Sorry dude, I’m seeing nothing about Christian religion in the 1770s in the eyes one of our most consequential founding fathers fathers being what it was that united the original thirteen colonies to forge a new nation.

And your great idea is to bring up the states establishing their own official religion as a basis for what united the founding generation. Do you realize how absurd that is with the esteemed George Washington looking over your shoulder?

 

[ding]

Half of the states had established state religions at the time of ratification. I wouldn't call that the low point of religiosity.

Here is what the father of our country had to say about your ‘god of Israel/Christianity UNITING us. It’s bull. George was there - he saw nothing but animosities which have existed among mankind caused by difference of sentiments in religion”

George went on to say that the historic differences in religions “appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated.“


Earlier in this conversation.

Here George Washington mention’s what Christian Nationalists refuse to hear.

“.. ...the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present {1790s} age.

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." [George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]

Sorry dude, I’m seeing nothing about Christian religion in the 1770s in the eyes one of our most consequential founding fathers fathers being what it was that united the original thirteen colonies to forge a new nation.

And your great idea is to bring up the states establishing their own official religion as a basis for what united the founding generation. Do you realize how absurd that is with the esteemed George Washington looking over your shoulder?

Not sure what that has to do with my destroying your argument but George also said. “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

George Washington
Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

 

[NotfooledbyW]

.reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

That is not in conflict with Washington’s preference for “the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age,” as opposed to Christianity’s historical record of “religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."

It’s Christianity that was historically divisive and repulsive.

it is yet another absurdity that you think the WASHINGTON quote you cited regarding national morality limits Washington to divisive Christianity as the only religious principle that existed at the time.

Washington spoke of “the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age,” which certainly could include the attractiveness of Deism and rational religion to many of our founding fathers.

It makes no sense that Washington was referring to divisive Christianity as a model for our national morality.