All Comments (142)

To John Stephens:

Your slavery trivia: “Using the Bible as a justification for slavery as generally practiced in the United States requires a fair amount of cherry picking.”

It may be so, you probably have a point looking the issue from that angle.

But I’m intrigued why god, who talked in the bible with many people, who mention slavery in his mandates to humans as if it were an accepted institution, was kind of mum about how bad was the slavery institution.

In a post above, I said that he established tough consequences if people worked in certain day he didn’t like us to work, but surprisingly no consequences for owing or trading slaves.

Does that implies that because there are no supernatural consequences established unequivocally by god in the bible, anybody can own or trade slaves today and not being a sinner?

Peace “John S.”

JAC

To "Another View":

My question & comment >>How come that god was not part of the picture? God is supposed to be the designer and all powerful that micro manage the universe, including us humans.

Your kind answer >> One reason only. Man didn't want Him in the picture. He made us with free moral agency.

Please tell us, who is man in your answer and how man communicates with god in a way that indisputably god understood man wants and man received an authentic, demonstrable true response.

Also what has the free moral agency to do with god talking with humans about slavery as it were not something despicable. It was accepted in most societies in the old past, but you know, we expect more from god. He established tough consequences if people worked in certain day he didn’t like us to work, but surprisingly nothing about slavery.

Thanks and peace "Another View".

JAC

Terry:

I appreciate your note. That's exactly my sentiment in regard to Deism.

Why there would be any defense or "ownership" to Deism still eludes me, as in "...well, the founders WERE Deists!" I would then concede, "Okay, do we then owe our allegience to Zeus?"

And then comes a *wink* and comment such as "well, we really KNOW which deity they were talking about..." And I would reply: The only specific religion that was talked about with much regard was Christianity, and there are so many writings by the founders that mentioned it specifically as a danger to the substance of a constitution, that I wonder why a Christian would bring it up. On another thread, Chris Everett produced some wonderful quotes that I can't find currently.

Finally, regarding Enlightenment: don't the writings of Paine, Madison, Jefferson just blow you away! These guys were incredible for their time and ours. I wish we had such leadership today.

“How CCNL is any different from [others] with their unending and often indecipherable repetitive diatribes, eludes me.”

This is how CCNL is different: He provides references that can easily be checked for accuracy and legitimacy.

For Gaby and for Truth

Europe experienced an "Enlightenment." That is an historical observatioin; that is my observation. But I did not say that an enlightened society is a perfect society, nor that an enlightened person is a perfected person. An enlightened person is merely someone who sees better in better light.

Even after the the "Enlightenment," there was the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, and more wars after that. But, at least, now, individual people can exist and live with an "enlightened" view of things without being tried for apostasy or heresy.

Everyone isn't enlightened. Perhaps many people cannot be enlightened because they simply do not have the capicity for enlightenment. But those who do should be permitted to be.

I think that enlightenment will come to Islamic society after a greater tribulation even than prevails now. Among Islamic societies, there is a rapid dissolution towards nihilism, as the old fundamentalist ways are challenged, and crumble.

But they will follow in the footsteps that we have already trod. Not because we as Americans or as the children of European culture are better or superior, but because we are human beings, all travelling the same road. Some of us have just gone a little before the others.

Obsession is just that - the object of the obsession makes no real difference. How CCNL is any different from Moody, Jacob Josevz or Levent Alkan, with their unending and often indecipherable repetitive diatribes, eludes me.

Using or misusing a public forum to vent your spleen and/or promote your political cause without end is the height of immaturity and pretty much meets the definition of narcissistic
self-absorption. In the end, it's both boring and irritating, but fortunately avoidable with a flick of the wrist.

>>Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

>>John Stephens,

>>References to support your contentions??

Find it in scripture for us all where what John Stephens states is not correct.

>>And you have a PhD in History from what University??

Condescending retort....to be expected.

Again returning to the topic, i.e. the Dark Age mentality of Islam--

Indeed we are "surrounded" by one billion Muslims in this easy-accessible modern world. With the koran as their guide, they have been shouting "death to the infidels" for the last 1400 years not just since 1948.

The problem now is that we can hear and smell the stench of their warmongering message.

The solution: Delete the flaws in the koran and "pink slip" all the "red-neck" imams. "Pink-slipping" all the "red neck" Christian preachers, "profits" and priests and "we are the chosen" rabbis is also part of the solution.

Hmmm, if you trace it all back to the origins of the three major religions claiming Abraham as founder/father, you find the "pretty wingie thinges" as the essence and essentials of it all. This then is the experience of it all and results in one major conclusion:

"Abrahamic” (to include Joe Smith's "Mormon-con") religions are hallucination/"pretty wingie, flying, talking fictional thingies"-based and it is now time to end the charade!!!!

John Stephens,

References to support your contentions??

And you have a PhD in History from what University??

Slavery trivia:

Using the Bible as a justification for slavery as generally practiced in the United States requires a fair amount of cherry picking.

Even when the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt, they had slaves themselves. Most slaves were actually indentured servants. All debts were cancelled after seven years and periods of indenture fulfilled. Slave owners were admonished to treat their slaves kindly, remembering that just as they were masters, so likewise they had a Master in heaven who would judge them. Some servants received the inheritance of wayward sons.

The idea of treating slaves like dogs, working them like mules from dawn to dusk, and feeding them nothing but corn meal and blackstrap molasses; chaining them up, lashing them to hamburger, siccing dogs on them, pouring hot coals down their throats, drowning them at sea during food shortages, etc. could in no way be justified by Biblical scripture.

In America, war was looming on the horizon for many years because of slavery, but the Civil War was not fought to free slaves. Many in the Union army strenuously objected to the idea of freeing slaves. The Civil War was fought for complex economic reasons, not the least of which was the northern industry dictating the price of raw materials to the South and prohibiting the South from selling on the international market. [I recommend Max Weber] The nation's capitol was located in Washington, DC as a compromise to the Southerners. The three-fifths rule in the Constitution was likewise a compromise, based on representation by numerical census. Southerners wanted their slaves to count in the political census, and argued that Blacks could do work equal to Whites. Northerners argued that Blacks were only equal to perhaps half of Whites; they compromised on each Black counting as three-fifths of a White. Even though the slaves could not vote, the slave owners got three votes for every five slaves they owned. So, ironically, slaves were enumerated to reinforce the cause for slavery.

A general prejudice against Blacks was pervasive. Even many if not most Abolitionists did not consider them equal. The Abolitionists were more like the SPCA than the ACLU.

The wealth of this nation was built on the backs of slaves. It has been estimated that restitution to Blacks would exceed one trillion dollars, but they never even received the promised forty acres and a mule. Slaves were too expensive for the average person. Rich people bought them, used them, abused them, then walked away for others to clean up the mess when slavery was outlawed. And, it was a hell of a mess. Although it has been played down over time, there were, in fact, roving bands of freed Blacks murdering Whites, much like the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya. The South was predominantly rural and nakedly vulnerable to these attacks, especially in areas where Blacks outnumbered Whites significantly. The worst nightmare of the Southerners had come true, and they were terrified. While the South was occupied by Union Forces, Ulysses S. Grant did little to protect Southern Whites, maintaining a punitive attitude towards the South in general. That gave rise to the Ku Klux Klan and a reign of terror against Blacks. Rutherford B. Hayes won no clear victory in his run for the office of President of the United States, and was elected by secret compromise with Southern politicians to leave Southern affairs in Southern hands, though publicly promising to protect Blacks. It was he who withdrew Union forces from the South, after which the Blacks were subsequently left to their fate up to and including Jim Crow laws. Freed in 1860's, given full rights as citizens in 1960's, Blacks spent about one hundred years in humiliation and degredation after being freed from slavery.

As Ron Paul has so clearly argued, the Civil War was unnecessary. The United States is the only western nation to end slavery by war. Some estimates are that slavery would have ended in perhaps twenty years through natural attrition. That seems a long time, until contrasted with the overall period of two centuries or more.

DITLD,

Your, and similar others comments in this thread, intrigue me.

You note certain thought or ideaology as 'primitive' or 'superstitious' and/or the same of 'old kings' or 'empires' that are now 'crumbled and faded'.

Consider the current empires, kings and ideaologies of our time. If you look closely, you see many empires in the world today in transition, some to grow, many to crumble.

I submit to you that 'enlightenment' born of mans 'wisdom' is not enlightenment at all. Otherwise, we should have overcome the perpetual rising and falling of mans societies and, additionally, we would have eschewed the distinct reality that we became so 'enlightened' that we can erase our very existence from this planet in a relative instant.

Enlightenment, apart from a superior mind that is not of mankinds realm, has only provided us steps backward from the true excellence of physical life and our inherent potential that human beings consistently blind themselves to.

There is a fundamental reason for all of this...and one doesnt have to be a 'fundamentalist' to understand it.

Daniel ITLD,

"I know that it will come, also, eventually, to Islam. The Islamic Priest Class will resist it; the political strongmen and dictators will resist it; the uneducated fundamentalists will resist it; nevertheless, it will irresistably, come."

I can only hope that you are right, but I do have my doubts. Plus, I have a feeling that it will not come in my lifetime or my childrens'. We have a word in Germany, it's "verbohrt", the best tranlation I can come up with is either "bull-headed" or "pig-headed", but it means a lot more than that. Like someone drilled dogma into your brain and you are unable to get it out, you stubbornly cling to it, you will defend it against any reason. Does that make sense?

"Enlightment" is a word to describe the prevailing philosophical mood of the eighteenth century, but it is also a word to describe the expansion of an individual's personal view of the world. The founders of the United States and the Constitution lived in the "Enlightenment" and they were enlightened.

I think the most important word in enlightened thinking is "tolerance." Tolerance actually has nothing to do with religious theology, it is just a way to behave towards your fellow man. When people are done beating up on each other, and when each has taken as much beating as he gives, then everyone, sooner or later gets around to tolerance; bingo!

To be enlightened means to cast off all that is primitive and superstitious in the realm of religious theology and belief. To be enlightened means to let go of the belief in a God of good and a God of evil (or Satan) engaged in a perpetual struggle; to be enlightened means to give up the idea of the gods of Olympus, or of a god sitting on a Heavenly throne, presiding over creation. The founding fathers had indeed given up those antiquated beliefs.

Then, what is left is radically altered, but if you are enlightened, then that is what you must deal with. Some enlightened people take up a Deistic view of God; some take on the belief of doubt and skepticsm; some take an existentialist leaning; some may be stoic or fatalistic; some become atheists; all are free thinkers, unbound by man-made theology of old kings and empires that are now crumbled and faded.

A person cannot choose to be enlightened; he just sees better, in better light. A society cannot purposefully steer itself to enlightenment; it just happens as the individuals of the society are better educated, and know more and more about the true nature of the world in which they dwell. It is a state of mind that just comes over men and over societies, not summoned, yet irresistable, like the seasons of the year.

I know that it will come, also, eventually, to Islam. The Islamic Priest Class will resist it; the political strongmen and dictators will resist it; the uneducated fundamentalists will resist it; nevertheless, it will irresistably, come.

JAC

A few more points, if I may:

>>How come that god was not part of the picture? God is supposed to be the designer and all powerful that micro manage the universe, including us humans.

One reason only. Man didnt want Him in the picture. He made us with free moral agency. Human beings were/are given a choice. In relative terms, some desire Gods presence in their lives...but most dont.

>>Also, why god gave some soft guidelines for their decisions on slavery and not a direct command like he did with fornication and other not so serious matters?

Consider: No difference, basically, with a loving human parent with their child. Guidelines can be in different levels, different requirements for different situations.

All the best.

PS

To the contributor of:

>>...and saw the Creator as once removed from the Creation itself (re: deists)

Did the Creator tell them He was once removed, or is this a human theory or guess?

Yet without some form of deity there is no reason to empathize with anyone in fact a Deity ensures eventual justice and without justice the only truly logical thought is what can I get away with today.

There is little evidence from history that altruism beyond the bare minimum necessary to insure the tribe's survival has ever been innate to human beings.

I've never understood the many attempts made to turn Deists into modern day Christians... they were anything but. Even a brief review of Wikipedia should disabuse anyone of that notion.
They were non-trinitarian and closely allied with the then-contemporary Unitarian movement. They didn't accept the divinity of Jesus. They did apparently hold to some but not all traditionally Christian notions regarding the afterlife and a future moral reckoning.

Deism has been associated with Platonism and even the philosophy of Confucious. In it's earliest forms Deism was quite similar in part to Gnosticism, and considered the Creator to be the Demiurge or 'craftsman' of creation. Unlike Gnosticism, Deism does not distinguish the Demiurge from the ineffable and Divine Godhead - the true Source of all things.

The Deistic framers were deeply influenced by the science of the day and the social philosophy of the Enlightenment (of which secularism, social responsibility and self-determination were critical elements) and saw the Creator as once removed from the Creation itself, which continued to run 'like a clock' under it's own power - very much a mechanism with mechanical laws that followed the scientific notions (but without the religion)of Newton, Descartes and Copernicus (a Catholic priest).

Humans in this 18th century Deist view had sole responsible for their own destiny. The Creator didn't enter into the equation of daily living.

The Deists were closely followed in time by the Transcendentalists e.g. Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau - who were decidedly non-Christian and deeply influenced by Vedanta, the Upanishads and Hinduism. Theosophy and Christian Science were not far behind.

The early founders and philosophers of Americana seem to be unequalled in the power, range and originality of their thinking, and certainly compared to today's self-important civil servants & politicians. But then, we don't expect big thoughts from our leaders these days, and while they frequently disappoint, they seldom surprise us.

Maybe we'll get both lucky & surprised in this election cycle...... any chance??

Hi Terra,

Some good points as usual. A few comments in response:

"Yes, Christians did fight against the horror of slavery."

Right. And for humane and Christian reasons.

"And yes, Christians fought for the continuation of slavery."

The motivation of the Southerners to fight for slavery was economic, not any Christian doctrine. They did claim that the Bible allowed slavery, which it did. Certainly, by their own record the Exodus Jews took slaves, especially young women, as they conquered parts of Canaan. In fact no biblical age civilization denied slavery; so it is hard to see it as religious.

In contrast, Paul asked Philemon to forgive and welcome back the runaway slave Onesimus, now a brother in Christ. The Letter is a model of forgiveness, love, and tact. Onesimus was probably later freed man and then became a Bishop. Paul asked that Philemon send Onesimus back to him for study, which he apparently did do, rather than punishing him. So it seem that Paul was for moderating the normal ferocity of the times in which he lived, at least after he quit the death squads and became Christian.

"It was not the religion that made the difference, it was the hearts of the people. It was their empathy for those who were hurt."

A basic concern for your fellows is part of Christianity, and also in many other traditions.

"That does not come through religion...but through seeing yourself in all people."

Yes, it can come from general empathy. I think it can also come from a sense of your Goddess, as well. But abolitionist leaders record that it did come to them through Christian religion.

Be well.

Again, a return to Reality:

Indeed we are "surrounded" by one billion Muslims in this easy-accessible modern world. With the koran as their guide, they have been shouting "death to the infidels" for the last 1400 years not just since 1948.

The problem now is that we can hear and smell the stench of their warmongering message.

The solution: Delete the flaws in the koran and "pink slip" all the "red-neck" imams. "Pink-slipping" all the "red neck" Christian preachers, "profits" and priests and "we are the chosen" rabbis is also part of the solution.

Hmmm, if you trace it all back to the origins of the three major religions claiming Abraham as founder/father, you find the "pretty wingie thinges" as the essence and essentials of it all. This then is the experience of it all and results in one major conclusion:

"Abrahamic” (to include Joe Smith's "Mormon-con") religions are hallucination/"pretty wingie, flying, talking fictional thingies"-based and it is now time to end the charade!!!!

To Another view:

Thanks for answer my question "What may not easy to comprehend is how gods talking with mortals make them write about slavery as a normal part of society. Can somebody explain this?"

Your answer: "God did not start slavery. Mankind did. Israel eventually wanted their own judges, kings. God, with many of those who ruled over Israel, was not part of the picture. Still, God gave them guidelines for their decisions...such as freeing those in bondage after a certain number of years."

How come that god was not part of the picture? God is supposed to be the designer and all powerful that micro manage the universe, including us humans.

Also, why god gave some soft guidelines for their decisions on slavery and not a direct command like he did with fornication and other not so serious matters?

Thanks again for your answer. Still some more explanation needed. Who else wants to jump in????

Peace Another view

Schmoozealert: (I like that name!)

I'm sorry I didn't follow the "full-of-themselves" comment. And I'm not certain any of them believed distinctly in a "creator God" with any specificity.

I think you might consider re-reading Thomas Paine.

That "man's religion" he seemed to have the biggest "beef with" might be the very one that you reference as "..we really know what diety.. was acknowledged." You'd have to check that out yourself, "The Age of Reason."

On the contrary, I'm just a little denser than most, you'll need to spell out specifically, and exactly, which diety the founders were speaking of when modeling the constitution. I'd love quotes from the Constitution that would support your position.

I'm more than willing to learn. Not schmoozed... C'mon..
I'd be eager to get some input from our readers as well, in regard to which deity was mentioned.

I've read "God on Trial" by Peter Irons recently, he's a consitutional scholar and a wonderful author who does probably the best job I've ever seen addressing the "original intent" of the men who framed the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and quotes Madison as saying:

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties... Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christianity, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? ...During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial.. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

Suffice it to say that I'm less-than-clear that the founders wanted this to be a Christian (in particular) nation, any more than they wanted it to be subject to any deity.

PS I know this is an old but well argued argument and it's been hashed around on these posts before, so sorry if I'm beating a dead horse.

I'd just add on a personal note that I was "schmoozed" for 47 years in the good 'ol Lutheran Church, ELCA. I can definitely speak the language.

Respectfully,
Jeff

Re: Thomas Paine

He described himself as a "Deist" and commented:

How different is [Christianity] to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The true Deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical, and mechanical.

A Deist, like Thomas Paine, doesnt seem to be denying a creator here...he just has a beef with some of mans 'religions'

>>Susan's Freethinkers also mention very influential secular leadership throughout this nation's history, including writings by the founding fathers themselves that would lead one to believe they were less than religious folks.

...'less than religious folk.' Hmmmm
Unless a person is just full of themselves, most admit to being human or are perhaps seen in all the glory of their human error...but still believe in a Creator God.
The contributor of the previous paragraph marked >> is not convincing.

>>We're all atheistic and/or agnostic in regard to someone else's gods (as were the founders in relation to Zeus and Apollo,) so the question is meaningless as far as "well, they all acknowledged a diety..."

???????????????????????????????????????????
Ah..but we really know what deity they acknowledged. C'mon now.

A Question: I think youve been schmoozed, not educated or enlightened.

JAC asked above:

>>What may not easy to comprehend is how gods talking with mortals make them write about slavery as a normal part of society.

>>Can somebody explain this?

There is an overall lack of understanding of the story of slavery in the bible.

Mankind, from the time of Eden, chose to live his own way. Consequently, the intentions God had for mankind were less and less understood throughout the subsequent generations. And, consequently, man started their own systems of government. Some of those governments, groups of people, tribes..however it may be segregated, came up with their own systems of the stronger ruling over the weaker. To make a long story short..thus was born slavery into the mix..among other human-devised situations.

Why does it seem God backed slavery? Why did his chosen nation embrace things like slavery?

God did not start slavery. Mankind did. Israel eventually wanted their own judges, kings. God, with many of those who ruled over Israel, was not part of the picture. Still, God gave them guidelines for their decisions...such as freeing those in bondage after a certain number of years.
All of it encompasses why God does what he does and why mankind does what he does. Simple logistics. Man wants to do things his own way. God is letting man do so..at our own request. Lessons are to be learned. One has have to ask...'Are we passing our tests?'

Much more to the story. But even with translated scripture into the King James, a student can put 2 and 2 together about who really is responsible for such things.

Regards

A Question:

You'd find an incredible amount of atheistic and agnostic philosophy related to governing and government throughout the ages in Doubt, a History, by Jennifer Michael Hecht. She's been chosen to be the Templeton Foundation scholar for 2008. It's a great book.

Susan's Freethinkers also mention very influential secular leadership throughout this nation's history, including writings by the founding fathers themselves that would lead one to believe they were less than religious folks.

We're all atheistic and/or agnostic in regard to someone else's gods (as were the founders in relation to Zeus and Apollo,) so the question is meaningless as far as "well, they all acknowledged a diety..."

Thomas Paine is an excellent example of a "deist" that had great influence on the formation of our government, yet reading him would probably make a religious person fume.

>>"Abrahamic” religions are hallucination-based and it is now time to end the charade!!!!

I thought that was only Timothy Leary's league (i.e. halluciation-based religion)

>>The fact is that the agnostic/atheist/deist voice was instrumental in founding our secular form of government, and in defeating massive and energetic efforts to found this country as a "Xian Nation."

Mr. Mark:

Interesting comments. Could you provide names of any prominent person who was agnostic or atheist or who in some fashion denied a deity that was/were one/some of the instrumental voices you refer to?

Thanks.

Mr. Mark, Arminius, and Ghostbuster: excellent posts, all.

The one thing I'd add to Mr. Mark's excellent post from this morning is that I wonder if the prominence of the recent "secularist" dialogue is in fact a direct response to the politicization of religion, particularly in the last Republican 7 years (ie Karl Rove's "values voters," the "moral" party, GWB's "higher Father...," the simple black-and-white dichotomies that define the right-wing in general) that have resulted in disasterous policy, bitter partisanship, dysfunctional government, growing indifference to the huge class differences. I wonder if folks are finally saying "enough!"

And finally, following the religiously-motivated attacks against the US on 9/ll allow us all to ask the question of whether or not religion is still a greater force for good in the world. Has this question been asked by so many in prior generations? I think it's an exciting time, and it allows another dimension into the conversation--namely, allowing all to see another side to the equation. It's exciting to see the youth interested in our coming election--they are voting on their future, and I believe they are wise beyond their years.

Thank you all for the posts.

slavery has human roots not just religious roots. You think those poor wretches laboring in the Soviet Gulag were any less slaves than the Blacks bought and paid for in Africa because they labored without pay and on starvatin rations for the government rather than a Human master?

Ghostbuster,

Good post on slavery. Yes, groups are playing the blame game and claiming the victory. They don't read much history, apparently.

I would love to visit Gettysburg. I have been to Chickamauga, lived very near the Chattanooga battlefield, and currently live 6 miles from the site of the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain. The Civil War fascinates me. Of course, here in the South, which I do love, I am exposed to those unfortunates afflicted with the 'Lost Cause' myth.

Arminius

Interesting dialogue today.

I guess it is human nature for a group to try to claim credit for all positive acts (abolishing slavery) while pinning all the blame on the other side for acts against humanity (owning slaves).

I think I agree with the overall point the Moderate is getting at. The human tradgety of human slavery requires a bit more analysis than the normal hyperbole (all Christians are to blame... all secular governments are to blame...).

I visit Antietam and Gettysburg frequently. Sometimes when strolling throught the battlefield I think about this very subject. For me, it kind of puts this whole conversation into perspective.

Mr. Mark,

On this,
"Americans owe it to themselves to learn the history of their country that wasn't taught in school."

Agreed. Isn't it interesting that what passes for history or 'social studies' textbooks in this country are selected by committees in Texas, where there is a higher concentration of the religious folk who must approve what is taught? As a result American kids get an extremely whitewashed version of the books that they use in class. Our history is so much more complex,and exciting than that. To get folks started I recommend the two books my James Loewen called 'lies my teacher told me' and 'Lies across America.'

Dear Daniel -

I agree with you that the Moderate is reading ill will into the writings of Susan Jacoby. I also believe that he should take my advice and read her book, "Freethinkers."

Moderate asked me what new info that book added to the argument. Having had a few days to ponder the question, I believe that the most-important thing Susan's book accomplishes is to show in no uncertain terms that the struggle between the secular and the sacred has been going on in earnest since the formation of the USA, that it has been ever-present throughout our history and that it continues today.

Most Americans are woefully ignorant of this fact of our history. Indeed, there are those who believe that our founding fathers were all "devout Christians," that our money always had the words, "In God We Trust," on it...and that this nation has been "under god" ever since George Washington first recited the Pledge of Allegiance at Valley Forge. Many Americans believe - incorrectly - that the emergence of a strong atheistic/agnostic voice in this country is a recent phenomenon, brought on by the publishing a 4 books within the past 3 years, or a result of the free-love '60s. They see American history as a straight line of fervent religious belief that has run uninterrupted until the last few years (or months...or weeks) when godless atheism suddenly raised its head as a ploy to make "real Americans" feel inferior and to sell a few angry/militant/intolerant books.

The fact is that the agnostic/atheist/deist voice was instrumental in founding our secular form of government, and in defeating massive and energetic efforts to found this country as a "Xian Nation." The religious voice rises and falls throughout our history, though it is interesting to note that it is strongest in times of war, when dissent is stifled and the fear of destruction melds with the fear preached by all religions.

In like measure, the secular voice rises and falls in this country. It is strongest when human rights, science and reason are to the fore (as in the late 1800s and the 1960s) while it becomes feeble whenever the hot blood of war and religion grip the national psyche.

Again, I highly recommend Susan's voice to one and all. Americans owe it to themselves to learn the history of their country that wasn't taught in school.

Moody the murderers are almost uniformly followers of your faith. Ninety percent of all the deaths in Iraq since the capture of Saddam Hussein

Yeah the whips and chains pervs have sites all over the web. They represent about 1% of all westerners if that. And peculiarly enough most of the people involved seem to be there of there own free will and the government has nothing to do with and most countrys governments would like it to stop tomorrow.

What an IRONI in the whole present world:

LOOK ALL OVER AROUND,

"ACTUAL KILLERS ALL IN CONTROL" CALLING/BRANDING WHO ARE BEING KILLED IN 'UNCOUNTALBE NUMBERS' AS KILLERS!!!!!!!!!

TO FURTHER JUSTIFY THERE NON STOPPING KILLINGS!!!

1- 5 Million Congolese recent genocied by Belgians & Israealies

2-
WITH ALL BIG TALKS, THIS IS ALL ACTUALLY WHO YOU ARE:

Statistically
-more than 1 million Iraqi's are been butchered so far
-more than 4 million displaced.
-All major cities are destroyed. No electricity, no water, no sanitation no NOTHING.

On Al Jazeera net Analyst’s are

THANKING USA (Chaos & Conspiracy Masters) for,

1- Alienating millions of the Sunnis from the US established only Shia government.

2- And then branding them ALL SUNNI CIVILIANS as allies of Bathiest Previous (US breed & Groomed) Dictator. And projecting that idea through out world through its Zionist controlled media.
3- In result PROVOKING THE US MADE SHIA ESTABLISMENT to genocide Sunni civilians “AND OFFICIALLY KEEPING CRIMINAL SILENCE SUPPORTING AND PROVIDING WEOPENS”. (On Al Jazeera net Analyst’s comments).

WELL DONE USA MONSTOROUS MASTERS.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK; YOUR DAYS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR.

Your stupid look bushy bush president recently visited Middle East and was trying to sell the same evil propaganda.

He thinks like him the world is filled with blinds and fools!!!!

No wonder WHY now the extremely abused women EVEN preferring to blow them selves up after all the humility, WHO USED TO BE LIVING PIOUS AND RIGHTIOUS LIVES.

FOR ABUSED WOMEN REFERENC YOU CAN SEE USA TORTURE CELL SNAPS & MOVIES ALL OVER ELECTRONIC MEDIA.

Once again, a return to Reality:

Indeed we are "surrounded" by one billion Muslims in this easy-accessible modern world. With the koran as their guide, they have been shouting "death to the infidels" for the last 1400 years not just since 1948.

The problem now is that we can hear and smell the stench of their warmongering message.

The solution: Delete the flaws in the koran and "pink slip" all the "red-neck" imams. "Pink-slipping" all the "red neck" Christian preachers, "profits" and priests and "we are the chosen" rabbis is also part of the solution.

Hmmm, if you trace it all back to the origins of the three major religions claiming Abraham as founder/father, you find the "pretty wingie thinges" as the essence and essentials of it all. This then is the experience of it all and results in one major conclusion:

"Abrahamic” religions are hallucination-based and it is now time to end the charade!!!!

ARMINIUS:

Thank you for the sage advice. You know, a guy who knows his beers can't be all bad.

I was just thinking awhile ago that while we're all blathering and blowing smoke, those poor Iraqis are getting their ass handed to them on a platter. I have a peaceful, contented life and then WHAM! I remember what's going on in the world.

People are wringing their hands about the suicide bombers. Does anybody out there have a clue what kind of horrendous hell American war machines rain down on combatants and civilians alike? Anybody who calls Arabs cowards knows nothing about what they're up against.

General Curtis Lemay, US Army Aircorps commanding, said that America damn well better win the war (WWII) or they'd all be tried as war criminals. The Allies dropped millions of tons of incendiary bombs on cities in Japan, where the residents built homes of wood and paper, so there were major conflagrations. Many cities, some the size of New York and Chicago, were utterly razed. Thousands and thousands of Japanese civilians were burned to death. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just icing on the cake.

Then, there's Dresden, Germany, where flames rose 15,000 feet into the sky. The bombers had to fly around the fire storm. Burning pavement flowed like water in the streets. Persons with phosphorous on them dived into the nearby river and had two choices: drown or burn alive. Every time they poked up out of the water, they burst into flame again.

The suicide bombers have a long way to go to equal the record set by America.

Yes, I love my country, and no, I'm not taking sides, but if the Arabs or Muslims or whoever want to have a 17th Century Caliphate in the Middle East and be left the hell alone to enjoy it and worship Allah, why not let them?

OIL

They got it. We want it.

I know this will probably offend The Moderate, and may be labeled as one of those "ad hominum" attacks that you've all heard tell of, but I do not know how else to say it. You read so much ill will into Susan Jacoby, when there is abosultey none intended, that I can see, that you must have a little tendency to be paranoid. I've read lots and lots of her articles on this forum, as you suggested, lots and lots of them, and I am just not seeing the poisonous, toxic, hostility that you see; I see alot of it in the commenters, but not in her. You can nit-pick away at her till the cows come home, but I think that she seem to be a pretty good person. So, that makes me wonder about you.

Oops... make that 'the papacy did not formally condemn slavery....'

Arminius

A historical note on slavery, if I might.

At least one early Christian opposed slavery: St. Patrick. A former slave in Ireland himself, when he returned to Ireland to spread the Gospels, he all but drove slavery from the island. As well as human sacrifice. He never did get the Irish to stop fighting among themselves. Seem to be a national characteristic.

This happened in the fifth century. The papacy did not formerly condemn slavery until the 19th century.

Arminius

That would mostly be followers of Islam see the horror that is Darfur.

Terra-

The pressing questions are- who are the slave owners and traders today? Who is working to free the enslaved in 2008?

It is an abomination that gets little or no media attention today.

If your interest goes beyond a little xtian bashing -please read the following link and find a way to get involved in the abolition movements of today.

http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/SaudiArabia.htm

The Moderate,
Sorry to have not gotten back to you more quickly...but life and a beautiful weekend intruded. It was 80 today...

Back to the subject- England and France outlawed Slavery before America did. It took a war for us...they passed laws or recognized that their laws did not include slavery.

In 1772 an English court declared , that Slavery was not according to English law...and slavery was not allowed. There never was a law in English common law that allowed the ownership of men. This judgement emancipated the 10 to 14 thousand slaves in England and also laid down that slavery contracted in other jurisdictions (such as the American colonies) could not be enforced in England.

1771 The French declared slavery unlawful.
1865 America ended slavery (by way of war).

Yes, Christians did fight against the horror of slavery. And yes, Christians fought for the continuation of slavery. It was not the religion that made the difference, it was the hearts of the people. It was their empathy for those who were hurt. That does not come through religion...but through seeing yourself in all people.

terra

E Favorite,
Your point was well taken. Thanks.

Freestinker,

You noted: "All religions are cults based on hallucinations! Tell me something new ..."

I could not agree more with you!!!

My previous comments on another thread:

Indeed we are "surrounded" by one billion Muslims in this easy-accessible modern world. With the koran as their guide, they have been shouting "death to the infidels" for the last 1400 years not just since 1948.

The problem now is that we can hear and smell the stench of their warmongering message.

The solution: Delete the flaws in the koran and "pink slip" all the "red-neck" imams. "Pink-slipping" all the "red neck" Christian preachers, "profits" and priests and "we are the chosen" rabbis is also part of the solution.

Hmmm, if you trace it all back to the origins of the three major religions claiming Abraham as founder/father, you find the "pretty wingie thinges" as the essence and essentials of it all. This then is the experience of it all and results in one major conclusion:

"Abrahamic” religions are hallucination-based and it is now time to end the charade!!!!

Wow says

"I think it is sad that so many Moslems in this world look at this and rationalize a justification for it, however, I do not beleive this includes the majority."

How can any believing Moslem not feel the noose tightening and fear if they slip up in word or deed they may be next in line to lose their life?

Isn't that the message the Moslem leaders have sent to the "faithful"?

The idea that anything anyone says on a blog ought to influence one's opinion of one's neighbors is astonishing. We are talking here about ideas (at least, some of us are), and although ideas certainly have consequences, I can only paraphrase Thomas Jefferson and say that other people's religious opinions are of no concern to me unless they pick my pocket or break my leg. Now, a president who tries to write his religious views into law is indeed picking my pocket, in more ways than one, and under theocracies, such people also break legs (and worse). My next-door neighbor's religious views, whatever they are, are of no concern to me and I presume that mine are of no concern to her. We've loaned each other cups of sugar and heating pads. That's what neighbors do--unless they belong to religious cults that "shun" outsiders.

CTCNL says:
"Bottom line: Mormonism is a cult based on hallucinations which has bought respectability with a $30 billion business empire, the BYU "mission matured" football team and a great choir."

Freestinker says:
All religions are cults based on hallucinations! Tell me something new ...

Hi, Parker - regarding Catholic University - despite the name and it's affiliation with the Roman Catholic church, please don't write off anyone who has ever attended there.

The many courses offered that are not directly associated with catholic doctrine are taught without any reference to it. It's a fully accredited university (like Georgetown and Loyola and many other catholic schools) and many students, especially in the graduate schools (e.g. law, gerontology, nursing, social work) are not Catholic and attend only for the fine education that's available there.

Parker, Parker, Parker,

Some more "Mormon-con":

1. "Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

2." "Moroni the golden hornblower", or "son of Mormon, the propheteer/profiteer", or "actually Nephi", or "good buds with John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elijah, and Elias all who ministered to Joseph Smith as angels" or as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Moroni

"Some scholars have theorized that Smith became familiar with the name "Moroni" through his study of the treasure-hunting stories of Captain William Kidd.[2] Because Kidd was said to have buried treasure in the Comoros islands, and Moroni is the name of the capital city and largest settlement in the Comoros, it has been suggested that Smith borrowed the name of the settlement and applied it to the angel who led him to buried treasure—the golden plates.

Complementing this proposal is the theory that Smith borrowed the names of the Comoros islands and applied them to hill where he found the golden plates, which he named Cumorah.[3]

Bottom line: Mormonism is a cult based on hallucinations which has bought respectability with a $30 billion business empire, the BYU "mission matured" football team and a great choir.

Hmmm, if the flaws of Mormonism were removed i.e. all references to Moroni and his revelations and if the flaws of Islam were removed i.e. all references to Gabriel and his revelations, there would hardly be anything left in either religion other then some version of the Commandments. Finally the start of the Utopia of Religious Convergence!!!!

Hmmm, what shall we call this potential joining? Musmors? Morms? Musmos? M&Ms? Ismors? Moisls? or Islamorms?

Typical Moslem ideology. I just don't understand how these individuals could feel justified by holding a FIVE MINUTE trial and sentencing him to death, over an oppinionated, intelectual debate about a minor belief in the Moslem religion! He had no time to get a lawyer or even a human rights attorney...NOTHING! I think it is sad that so many Moslems in this world look at this and rationalize a justification for it, however, I do not beleive this includes the majority.

John Stephens - thank you

Anonymous - you are mistaking me for John Stephens.

Since no one of the billions of humans who have died ever has given a documented report of an afterlife, neither in heaven nor in hell nor in any other place, the statistical probability of its existence approaches zero, and the documented reports equal zero.

I have therefore settled to the reasonable conclusion, quite comfortably, that there is no such thing as an afterlife, and have enjoyed and still enjoy this life and this admirable earth, nature, universe very much, including its ups and downs, its loves, its disappointments, its help to others and the help I received from others, and last not least, the feeling of co-responsibility for myself, my fellow humans and our planet. I don't need any religious proxy for these wonderful feelings and insights.

Even if billions of people believe in this and that - that is no proof at all for the truth of their beliefs. EVERYBODY thought the earth is flat.