I thought I knew what Libertarian was, but ...

[Diogenes]

I daresay your history needs some brushing up. By today's standards, the founders were Fanatical right-wing Christian fundamentalists. It is axiomatic nowadays that when a group of people doesn't change their position in a nationwide and generational leftward shift, they are at some point declared to be right-wing extremists, even though THEY haven't moved!

Same back at you. The term "Christian Fundamentalist" describes any of a number of cult movements, old and new. And while it MAY be true that the founding fathers had a stronger faith on average than many today, it is in no way true that they, on average, had the kind of "don't bother me with facts, I got FAITH" attitude that is endemic in current Fundamentalists.

You must know more of them than I do for I have never encountered such an attitude as you describe among the ones that i've met and know.

In any case you take issue with my terminology, Perhaps if I rephrase you can note my central point. By Today's standards, the founders where religious NUT JOBS!

[Diogenes]

And that they were, above all else, secularist.

That is a popular belief, but not really supported by the historical evidence. The problem is an issue of zeitgeist, and how people nowadays interpret what bit of history they know in terms of their own modern zeitgeist, thereby creating a historical anachronism.

People interpret tolerance for religion in our historical documents as evidence of secularism. It is not. Though the words used are "religious tolerance" and "establishment of religion" the meaning would be more accurately described by substituting the word "denomination". Neither the Founders, nor the Ratifying states had much tolerance for Non-Christian Religions, and those that dared to suggest such a thing were ostracized and in some cases ran out of the country. (Thomas Payne comes to mind.)

Jefferson (who was suspected of being a deist) often had to deny this charge, for it would have undone him for the public to find out he was anything but a Christian.

The whole issue comes about as a compromise between various Christian Denominations and an effort to smooth any religious conflict amongst them. If I recall correctly, at the time of the founding, Pennsylvania was Quaker, Maryland was Catholic, and Virginia was Anglican, and many states REQUIRED you to be a member of the official state religion to hold public office. A NATIONAL government could not do this without blowing apart the coalition. Therefore they added those words to mollify those who were concerned about such issues.

Notice though, how the constitution exempts the President from working on Sunday, and how it ends with a reference to Christ.


Here also are snippets from a Speech by Ben Franklin at the Constitutional convention July 28, 1787.

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?

I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service-

There are a lot of other examples.

[KitemanSA]

In any case you take issue with my terminology, Perhaps if I rephrase you can note my central point. By Today's standards, the founders where religious NUT JOBS!

I don't see much evidence of that. Can you provide? I mean, what exactly makes you think that folks like Jefferson or Washington, or Franklyn were religious "nut jobs"?

[93143]

I don't see much evidence of that. Can you provide? I mean, what exactly makes you think that folks like Jefferson or Washington, or Franklyn were religious "nut jobs"?

Note the phrase "by today's standards". It depends who you talk to...

[MSimon]

That is a popular belief, but not really supported by the historical evidence.

A lot of them were Unitarians. Which is not too far from secularist.

Now a days Unitarian = Progressive (socialist).

[MSimon]

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -Thomas Jefferson

Of course Jefferson wanted a Wall of Separation between Church and State. An idea not too popular in his time. He did set the foundation for the expression of that idea in later times.

As a member of a minority religion I think such a separation is a good idea.

[Tom Ligon]

A friend invited me to a Unitarian Church in Richmond, VA many years ago. He was their "special effects" guy. They had a pair of slide projectors driving a rear-projection screen on the stage (I saw no altar as such). The projectors dissolved between images ... the image they had up about 80% of the time was a portrait of Jefferson.

But Virginia was anything but Unitarian. The colony was founded as a King's colony, with the Church of England (now Anglican or Episcopal, which is technically "Catholic but does not recognize the Pope") as the state religion. The Massachusetts colony was established by their sworn enemies, Puritan Protestants exiled in the wake of the religious turmoil in England. Maryland was founded by Catholics who left in essentially the same brou-ha-ha. New Amsterdam was Dutch, but had be set-upon by the English. The Dutch were more tolerant, but had their own history of religious strife.

Most people of the age were religious. Most shared one thing ... they or their recent ancestors had left a country in a nasty civil war caused by changing state religion. They might disagree on who was right, but they insisted on choosing for themselves rather than having a government decide.

It is very clear to me that you cannot understand the history of this country without including a study of the religious influences. That is very different from having a state religion taught in the schools.

I always thought, even as a kid, that an official school prayer in a public school, particularly one that appealed to Jesus or Christ, was a violation of the constitution. I have never believed this means that expressions of religion in school should be prohibited or villified. And I absolutely fail to see that a moment of silence or meditation in any way coerces students to practice religion. I guess that means my beliefs in this area have always been Libertarian.

[Diogenes]

A friend invited me to a Unitarian Church in Richmond, VA many years ago. He was their "special effects" guy. They had a pair of slide projectors driving a rear-projection screen on the stage (I saw no altar as such). The projectors dissolved between images ... the image they had up about 80% of the time was a portrait of Jefferson.

But Virginia was anything but Unitarian. The colony was founded as a King's colony, with the Church of England (now Anglican or Episcopal, which is technically "Catholic but does not recognize the Pope") as the state religion. The Massachusetts colony was established by their sworn enemies, Puritan Protestants exiled in the wake of the religious turmoil in England. Maryland was founded by Catholics who left in essentially the same brou-ha-ha. New Amsterdam was Dutch, but had be set-upon by the English. The Dutch were more tolerant, but had their own history of religious strife.

Most people of the age were religious. Most shared one thing ... they or their recent ancestors had left a country in a nasty civil war caused by changing state religion. They might disagree on who was right, but they insisted on choosing for themselves rather than having a government decide.

It is very clear to me that you cannot understand the history of this country without including a study of the religious influences. That is very different from having a state religion taught in the schools.

I always thought, even as a kid, that an official school prayer in a public school, particularly one that appealed to Jesus or Christ, was a violation of the constitution. I have never believed this means that expressions of religion in school should be prohibited or villified. And I absolutely fail to see that a moment of silence or meditation in any way coerces students to practice religion. I guess that means my beliefs in this area have always been Libertarian.

Let me ask This: (a fair question) Given what you know of American History, do you think that when the founders were using the term "religion", that they were giving any thought whatsoever to other "religions", such as Islam, or where they really referring to different denominations of Christianity?

[Tom Ligon]

I think a few individuals thought it through and concluded that all religions were to be granted freedom, but it is quite clear to me that applying religious tolerance was a process with a long learning curve.

Yes, I think most people thought religious freedom would just naturally mean selecting which type of Christian you wanted to be, and with distinct limitations even there. There was an explosion of new religions in the early to mid 1800's in the US, and a few were unwelcome.

The Mormons suffered murderous persecution, including from the US government. Others of cultures with polygamy have never been welcome to engage in that practice (Muslims and others).

American Indians were essentially forcibly converted by sending their children to "Indian Schools", usually run by missionaries or other evangelical religious outfits.

New York had, IIRC, the first significant Jewish community in the US. They had a relatively easy time of it there, but were reviled elsewhere, especially in the South. I will say that in Richmond, VA, my Episcopal church was on excellent terms with a neighboring Synagogue, but there were entire communities that excluded Jews. It took WWII to get much of the population to turn away from that, and there are still certain holdouts. I approve of these holdouts voluntarily tattooing themselves with swatstikas on their foreheads so they can be identified as idiots at twenty paces.

I'm comfortable around most US Muslims (up to my armpits in them here at work, and they're all good people). Most of the country is suspicious of them due to "Islamic" terrorism (about as Islamic as the IRA was Christian) and a few instances of Muslim poplulations overseas to be touchy about religious insults.

[Skipjack]

For all those christians here that do not want secularism, always remember that provided the current trend continues, you may be a minority religion one day. I am sure that you will very much love secularism once a large part of your country are muslims...

[Diogenes]

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -Thomas Jefferson

Of course Jefferson wanted a Wall of Separation between Church and State. An idea not too popular in his time.


All of the Federalists realized that it would be impossible to form a unified nation if the religious issue was not finessed. Jefferson was not alone in this notion. Back in those days, people took religion quite seriously, and had it become a point of contention the constitutional convention would have fallen apart.

This is not to say that the words meant then what they mean now. The possibility that the US would ever have a different religion than some variation of Christianity very likely never occurred to either the Delegates OR (More importantly) to members of each state legislature which ratified the constitution.

Now this might seem like a dichotomy, but the people of that era had no difficulties with what we (who live in THIS time) would regard as a Dichotomy. The fact that White European Male Landowners could opine on "Freedom" while maintaining legal slavery and second class citizenship status for women, was simply not peculiar in their eyes.

They had just as much tolerance for religions other than Christianity as they did for freedom for slaves, despite the wording they used.

He did set the foundation for the expression of that idea in later times.

The reason for this is that the Supreme court (made up of Crackpot appointed Judges of the FDR/Truman administration) while reaching back into history for some straw to grasp in order to justify the ruling they WANTED, could find nothing better to rationalize it. Had they had anything better, such as the Notes of the Convention, or the Federalist Papers, supporting their position, they would have used that instead. Since they didn't, they ended up pinning their opinion on the private letter opinion of Thomas Jefferson, the man who was not present when the Constitution was Written and Ratified by the states, and arguably the founder who knew the least about what was decided and intended by the Writers and ratifiers.

But that's how the legal system works when you get Liberal judges.

As a member of a minority religion I think such a separation is a good idea.

And therein lies the rub. A LOT of people thought it was a good idea, Among them the Supreme Court which forced this state of affairs. Another example is Alcohol Prohibition which is mentioned in the First Amendment.

What? It isn't ? Well, Paul Revere scribbled in his diary says it was, so that's all we need to get a court ruling on it!

Seriously, you have to make AMENDMENTS to change the law. You can't "reinterpret" the meaning of existing law to claim it always meant what you wanted it to mean.

The idea has merit, but that is not the same thing as being valid without an amendment. The Supreme court short circuited the legal process by doing an end run around the people to decide the issue the way they WANTED it decided, regardless of whether it was accurate or not.



On the merit of the idea itself, I haven't personally made up my mind about this. I don't consider all religions to be equally beneficial to society and humanity, and certain ones I don't think we should tolerate whatsoever. (Kali Worship comes to mind.)

The idea has a nice ring of tolerance to it, and that is what makes it attractive to everybody, but too much of this sort of tolerance is what is killing Europe nowadays.

People may say to me "How can you talk about freedom, while suggesting that the law tolerate a favoritism of one(or more) religion(s) over others." I would have to reply that this was a common mindset of the founding era, and that a consistency just for the sake of consistency is foolish.

In any case, I haven't made up my mind. I can't figure out if the bad outweighs the good on this issue, or vice versa. I think I need to give it more thought. It's a rather academic pursuit anyway, as the current manner of interpreting the law is so open minded it's brains fall out, but it IS how the law is being applied nowadays.

[Skipjack]

presume in your country you don't have a goodly number of people who are intereted in suppressing the use of liquer and tobacco.

You presume very wrong. The prices for cigarettes have quatrubled in the last 17 years. Many people here want to quit for that reason alone. We also have a great educational campaign at schools, by the government and the healthcare providers. It does work, but we still have a lot more cigarette abusers than abusers of illegal drugs and there are still a lot of young people starting to smoke here.

I can give one more example where legalization made absolutely no difference whatsoever and that is prostitution.
It is legal in my country and it is regulated. However, we still do have human trafficing, pimps, organized crime and lowlives whereever there is prostitution. Women still get forced into prostitution and brutally beaten, tormented and even killed if they dont comply. I personally have nothing but disgust for this stuff and everyone involved with it.
I would make it illegal again here. Making it legal has done NOTHING to improve the situation. In contrary. My hometown has more brothels, swinger clubs, so called night clubs, peep shows and other scum attracting etablissements than any US town has hookers working on the street.

[Diogenes]

I think a few individuals thought it through and concluded that all religions were to be granted freedom, but it is quite clear to me that applying religious tolerance was a process with a long learning curve.

Yes, I think most people thought religious freedom would just naturally mean selecting which type of Christian you wanted to be, and with distinct limitations even there. There was an explosion of new religions in the early to mid 1800's in the US, and a few were unwelcome.

You know exactly what I mean. They talked of "Tolerance" and it was a somewhat narrow form of Tolerance. They talked of "Freedom" but it was a somewhat narrow form of Freedom. Neither concept bears much resemblance to it's modern form.

The Mormons suffered murderous persecution, including from the US government. Others of cultures with polygamy have never been welcome to engage in that practice (Muslims and others).

American Indians were essentially forcibly converted by sending their children to "Indian Schools", usually run by missionaries or other evangelical religious outfits.

New York had, IIRC, the first significant Jewish community in the US. They had a relatively easy time of it there, but were reviled elsewhere, especially in the South. I will say that in Richmond, VA, my Episcopal church was on excellent terms with a neighboring Synagogue, but there were entire communities that excluded Jews. It took WWII to get much of the population to turn away from that, and there are still certain holdouts. I approve of these holdouts voluntarily tattooing themselves with swatstikas on their foreheads so they can be identified as idiots at twenty paces.

I had never heard of Antisemitism until I was in my Twenties. Even then, I thought people were joking. Hatred towards blacks on the other hand, was far more common. There is some of that still lingering, but it is mostly dying out and what is left is mostly underground. Most of the old style racists have had a "George Wallace" Conversion. Now condemning behavior which they once thought appropriate.

I'm comfortable around most US Muslims (up to my armpits in them here at work, and they're all good people). Most of the country is suspicious of them due to "Islamic" terrorism (about as Islamic as the IRA was Christian) and a few instances of Muslim poplulations overseas to be touchy about religious insults.

When I was in my Twenties, "Muslims" were practitioners of some abstract fantasy religion in another universe, and were about as real as the "Jedi Knights."
Jimmy Carter was the first to really put "Muslims" on my radar screen.


Nowadays, i've met dozens of Muslims, and I think the Christians would wish they had such faithful followers of their religion. The one's i've met were friendly and tolerant, and just trying to make a living like everyone else.

Well, the Christians have their Westboro Baptists, and the Muslims have their Wahabbists . The current problem is that the Ayatolla types are worse in quantity and degree.

[Diogenes]

For all those christians here that do not want secularism, always remember that provided the current trend continues, you may be a minority religion one day. I am sure that you will very much love secularism once a large part of your country are muslims...

SkipJack, i'm not sure how to convey this point, so all I can do is try and repeat it in different ways. Few believe that a majority Muslim country will respect the tenets of secularism. Sharia law is being implemented in parts of England, and Muslims all over Europe are demanding exemptions and changes to existing European laws to make them comport with Islam.

Turkey was the best example of a Secular Muslim government, and now that example is broken.

If you think that a majority Muslim country would be so foolish as the Christians were to put up with other religions or even athiesm, I think you are sadly mistaken.

[GIThruster]

I have Muslim friends and I have no judgements against people based upon their religion. That said, it is certainly worth recognizing that Islam is the world's only major religion to have in its core teachings, violence and world domination.

It's in the Koran in many places. You will not find teachings like this in Hebrew Bible, nor in the Christians' New Testament, nor in the Vedas, Taoist and Buddhist writings, etc. There is certainly some violent intent in Hebrew Bible in conquering the Holy Land after their 400 year captivity, but that was not expansionist nor imperialist. It was seen as taking back what was theirs.

Islam is the only major religion in the world to teach it should conquer by the sword, forbid friendships with those outside the religion, etc. All of the Muslims whom outsiders have friendly relationships with are violating the plain reading of their scripture.

One can quibble about the history, meaning and use of terms like "fundamentalist" and "extremist" but the simple fact is, because violence against all "infidels" is at the core of the Koran, some form of Islam or another will always be dangerous to everyone else on the planet, especially when it has access to WMD's.