Thursday, January 29, 2009

Believers Squawk About Nonbelievers

I think just about everybody was surprised during President Obama's inaugural speech when he mentioned nonbelievers in a non-condescending way:
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers.

Well, first of all, the list is not comprehensive, there are lots of people here who practice Buddhism, Shinto, Santeria, Mormonism ... hey, and what about Scientologists? And I might have put these world religions in a different order, but whatever, I think he's having a little fun playing with the "Obama's a Muslim" meme that the rightwingers love so much.

Nonbelievers have been integral to our country since its inception. There is still a stigma attached to the label of atheism, but atheists have always been there, even if they haven't always called themselves that. Somebody might say, "I'm just not that religious," and what they really meant was that they didn't believe in a god.

Anyway, AOL News points out to us that some "believers" are unhappy with his choice of words.
By mentioning, for the first time in an inaugural address, the 16.1 percent of Americans who check "no"’ when asked about religion, Obama turned it into the most controversial line in his speech -- praised by The New York Times editorial board and cited by some Christians as evidence that he is a heretic, and in his well-spoken way, a serious threat.

With that one line, the president "seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian," said’ Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. "The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are.’"

Earlier this week, Jackson was a guest on the popular conservative Christian radio show 'Janet Parshall's America,' where a succession of callers, many of whom identified themselves as African-American, said they shared the concern, and were perplexed and put off by the president’s shout-out to nonbelievers. Obama's Nonbeliever Nod Unsettles Some

I know, huh? It's hard to imagine why a guy who's just been elected President of the United States of America would want to acknowledge citizens who aren't Christian. I mean, America is a Christian country, right?
Parshall noted that atheists were celebrating the unexpected mention, and indeed they were: "In his inaugural address … President Barack Obama did what many before him should have done, rightly citing the great diversity of America as part of the nation's great strength, and including 'nonbelievers'’ in that mix,’" said Ed Buckner of American Atheists.
"His mother would have been proud,"’ Buckner said, referring to the fact that Obama’s mother was not a church-goer. "And so are we."

Look, it was perfectly appropriate for President Obama (there you go, Andrea) to acknowledge the diversity of beliefs held by Americans -- his election to the presidency is proof that we as a country are able to accept diversity. And there are, actually, lots of nonbelievers.

Here's what happens. Somebody says something and it sets the nuts off, they start whining complaining about some trivial comment. They make so much noise that everybody else has to stop what they're doing and address the nutty concerns of the noisy minority. Politicians and those who fear controversy avoid mention of the thing that elicited the nutty noise in the first place, and pretty soon you've got a cone of silence around some topic, breeding ignorance. It can be sexual orientation, evolution, abortion, any of a number of things, for no good reason these topics are simply eliminated from public education and public debate, or if they are discussed the conversation is skewed to pander to the extremists.

Nah, there are nonbelievers in America, lots of them. It was great for our President to mention them without denigration, I hope the new guy has what it takes to keep pushing forward in the same way, saying what needs to be said without compromise.

42 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Certainly on the topics of sexual orientation, gender identity, evolution and religion, teachers feel impeded in engaging students. There is in fact a cone of silence, specifically because of the extreme, but as Jim points out, noisy, right.

It also leads to teachers not ending bullying and outright harassment.

January 29, 2009 12:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The cone of silence is because of leftist political correctness.

Want to talk religion in school? Most people would be fine with that. Liberals go ballistic, however, if religion is mentioned in schools because they know an open discussion would probably lead to conversions.

Evolution? All public schools teach it. What they're generally forbidden to do is mention the many problems with evolutionary theory. Liberals, again.

Sexual orientation and gender identity? Not a free speech zone because liberals are trying to transform society by teaching a viewpoint that differs from society's traditional viewpoint. Any divergence from this NEA viewpoint is not tolerated.

The problem with President Obie's statement is that it endorsed a view that all religions are ends to the same means and all are part of a wonderful patchwork of American variation.

Problem is, none of those groups cited, including non-believers, believe that. They all think their way is the best, not just a part of a beautiful rainbow of belief.

Our strength is not that everyone has chosen a different way but that they are free to.

Obie obviously doesn't get the difference but his religious viewpoint shouldn't be imposed on the rest of us.

Obvious Obie also doesn't understand that in Bethesda, where his daughter goes to school, we vacate all educational facilities at the sight of a single flake of snow.

Think of it like thunder and the pool.

You aren't in Chicago anymore, Oboe!

January 29, 2009 1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know, that O-bam-bam guy really is terribly nice guy.

Last night, he had a cocktail party at the White House for all the Republicans who didn't vote for his stimulus bill. (I'm not kidding, guys)

On Saturday, he's having dinner with Sarah Palin at the Alfalfa Club to celebrate Robert E Lee's birthday. (I'm not kidding, guys)

O-bam-bam.

He really is terribly nice!

January 29, 2009 1:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you saying "Obie" or "Oboe", AnonBigot? You never are very consistent. And are you calling President Obama Obie because it is a common name among black people in the USA?

Get off your racist high horse.

Shame, shame, shame!!


PS- RE: the snow in Bethesda comment-- See, being safe, rather than sorry, is more than just fine when it comes to the safety of our children.

STOP WHINING!!!!

RE:the snow in Bethesda. I think being safe, rather than sorry, is much more preferred over putting the lives of our children in danger.

January 29, 2009 1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There, I made the snow comment twice just because I wanted to give you an example of what being consistent is. It´s the teacher in me.

January 29, 2009 1:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And are you calling President Obama Obie because it is a common name among black people in the USA?"

to make it brief, no

I guess I'd lose at Jeopardy if the category was racist nicknames because I've never heard that before

I was thinking more along the lines of Obi-Wan from Tatooine

btw, now that we have an African American President, the time for racial hyper-sensitivity has ended

"RE:the snow in Bethesda. I think being safe, rather than sorry, is much more preferred over putting the lives of our children in danger."

Tell your homedog, Barry O.

He was the one complaining.

January 29, 2009 2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous is talking out of his ass about what teachers say, because he doesn't have any real info.

Seems to be a pattern, doesn't it?

Could we just have an anonymous time-out for a while? It makes discussion so difficult when the kids in the back of the room keep disrupting.

January 29, 2009 3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert reminds me of Charlie Brown's teachers

Awha-wah-wah!

January 29, 2009 4:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" - Please cite chapter and verse when you drivel such crap as: "Sexual orientation and gender identity? Not a free speech zone because liberals are trying to transform society by teaching a viewpoint that differs from society's traditional viewpoint. Any divergence from this NEA viewpoint is not tolerated." Just where in any of NEA's documents does it state the divergence from NEA's viewpoints is not tolerated?
Seems like you are just blowing out of your ass again! Tsk tsk - and this from an alleged adult, too.
Teacher

January 29, 2009 4:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

btw, I've been looking or examples of Obie being used as a racial nickname and coming up with nada

there is some rap singer named Obie from the 70s

an Hispanic web consultant named Obie

it's also the name of awards for off-Broadway shows

looks like Derrick was talking out of his- well, you know...what Robert said

maybe Derrick's assuming such a term is a racial nickname is a manifestation of latent racism

that's what happens when you spend too much time wasting away in Margaritaville

btw, I wonder how much the nations of the world will love Obama when they find out he's limiting his new trillion dollar stimulus spending to American-made goods

January 29, 2009 4:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again... LMAO @ AnonBigot!!!

Gotta love it.

January 29, 2009 5:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think a lot of my students experience me the way Charlie Brown experienced his teachers.

rrjr

January 29, 2009 5:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some good news for the Colombian LGBT community (www.exgaywatch.com):

Source: Blabbeando

The high court ordered changes to 42 norms that range from Criminal, Civil and Disciplinary Codes, to the special health plan available to military forces.

The Magistrates embraced a position paper submitted by their peer, Rodrigo Escobar Gil.

They ruled that the challenged dispositions did not justify the discrimination they instituted, or that the variances with regards to same-sex couples placed these people in a position of vulnerability before the law.

And in both cases, the Constitutional Court held that the right to equality was violated.

Hence, provisions such as those contained the Disciplinary and Penal Codes, which establish the right against incrimination by a spouse, should also be applied to heterosexual (sic) partners.

Another instance is that of crimes related to domestic violence; victims can be same-sex partners or aggravation imposed by law for crimes against the person.

This includes cases where reparations are made to victims of heinous crimes.

According to an update on the Blabbeando post, this also means that “gay Colombian citizens can grant foreign same-sex partners immigration rights in the same way that married heterosexual partners can sponsor their spouses for immigration purposes.”

It continues to amaze us how countries which many might consider less progressive at first glance — certainly Colombia has been rocked by the instabilities and violence of that region and it’s drug wars — are recognizing the need for equality under the law for GLBT citizens.

January 29, 2009 6:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's good news right here at home too. Anybody who thinks this country is still "right-center" can think again after reviewing this data:

Gallup reports (click the link to see the map)

...All told, 29 states and the District of Columbia had Democratic party affiliation advantages of 10 points or greater last year. This includes all of the states in the Northeast, and all but Indiana in the Great Lakes region. There are even several Southern states in this grouping, including Arkansas, North Carolina, and Kentucky.

An additional six states had Democratic advantages ranging between 5 and 9 points.

In contrast, only five states had solid or leaning Republican orientations in 2008, with Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Alaska in the former group, and Nebraska in the latter.

The most balanced political states in 2008 were Texas (+2 Democratic), South Dakota (+1), Mississippi (+1), North Dakota (+1), South Carolina (even), Arizona (even), Alabama (+1 Republican), and Kansas (+2 Republican).

The political landscape of the United States has clearly shifted in the Democratic direction, and in most states, a greater proportion of state residents identified as Democrats or said they leaned to the Democratic Party in 2008 than identified as Republicans or leaned Republican.

As recently as 2002, a majority of states were Republican in orientation. By 2005, movement in the Democratic direction was becoming apparent, and this continued in 2006. That dramatic turnaround is clearly an outgrowth of Americans' dissatisfaction with the way the Republicans (in particular, President George W. Bush) governed the country.

With Democratic support at the national level the highest in more than two decades and growing each of the last five years, Republican prospects for significant gains in power in the near term do not appear great. But the recent data do show that party support can change rather dramatically in a relatively short period of time....


Meantime, downtown at the Washington Hilton the RNC is having it's winter meeting and it appears most of them are drinking the kool-aid. Salon reports: "The Comeback Starts Now:" Welcome to the Republican National Committee's winter meeting -- and the GOP's alternate reality, where happy days are nearly here again.

...To the Republican base, and the members gathered at the Hilton, the House GOP's unanimous, losing vote against an economic stimulus bill on Wednesday wasn't a Bronx cheer aimed at a popular new president, but rather a heroic stand on behalf of the American public. Playing to the hardcore grass roots, the party's leaders made clear Thursday that they plan to stick to their new formula, the one they think will lead them back from the wilderness -- even if it sounds pretty similar to the one that got them there in the first place.

....the crowd at the RNC ate up the GOP dream weaving. The party does have problems, McConnell told them, but they're all about image: "Ask most people what Republicans think about immigrants, and they'll say we fear them. Ask most people what we think about the environment, and they'll say we don't care about it. Ask most people what we think about the family, and they'll tell you we don't -- until about a month before Election Day." But the solution to all that isn't to change policies, he said; it's just to communicate them better. His first example? "Workers need to know that we're not anti-union -- we're pro-employee."

"The Democrats mean to use this opportunity of unchallenged power to explode the size and scope of the federal government, to take control of entire sectors of our economy, to crush the conservative opposition through parliamentary procedure and redistricting," he [RNC Chairman, Mike Duncan] told RNC members, winning applause. "The goal is to indoctrinate a generation of American children to the gentle comforts of the nanny state ... The only thing standing between their agenda and success is the Republican Party."

That is, of course, exactly what Democrats want voters to remember when they go to the polls in 2010 -- that the Republicans' first instinct was to stand between Obama's agenda and success...


Let's hear it for the Grand Obstructionist Party. (Bronx cheer)

January 30, 2009 7:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Democrats have ascended because voters wanted to protest the Bush administration policy and had nowhere else to go.

Notice your poll didn't mention any issues. Americans don't believe in socialism and in two years the effect of this enormous pork-barrel stimulus bill will be clear.

Your story correctly points out that party affiliation change quickly. Remember that early in 2002, George Bush had approval ratings in the 80s.

Obama has made some key mistakes in record time. Most hoped he was kidding when he said he wanted to rewrite NAFTA during the campaign. Now, his new stimulus bill is limited to American-made goods and services. In the 1930s, protectionism turned a bad recession into a depression.

January 30, 2009 8:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now that the rude trolls, detractors, and distractors have had they're way on the topic here, i thought i would fuel the fire with some real significant food for thought.

From some of the world's greatest thinkers, inventors, AMERICAN PRESIDENTS, innovators, and scientific leaders and most famous of writers, comes the following, which clearly points to the unbeliveable heresy, hypocrisy, and treasonous lies about the nature of American society and our strengths and weaknesses, as directly in context to the question of President Obama's very clear and simple statement.

A statement which did nothing more than fully acknowledge the simple reality that there is now, and has always been, a portion of American society and culture that is decidedly NON religious.

These people, as fellow citizens and human beings, have also contributed to the framework of our society, and will most assuredly continue to do so, whether christian, muslim, hebrew, atheist, agnostic, or darwinian. Read what follows please and get a clue instead this insane and fanatically religious hypocrisy.

These religions continue to try to foist onto the rest of the American people, a history as a country which, based on the following evidence, cannot possibly be true.

This you will find, in the following quotes, in light of the context of their so called "complaints" of the supposedly heretical and unpatriotic and "un-American" nature of President Obama's dialogue:

I have one word: Bullhockey.

-----------------------------------
Abraham Lincoln

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

- Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865).
-----------------------------------

Andrew Carnegie

"I don’t believe in God. My god is patriotism. Teach a man to be a good citizen and you have solved the problem of life."

- Andrew Carnegie, Scottish-born American industrialist and philanthropist
-----------------------------------

Benjamin Franklin

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies."

"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."

-Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor

-----------------------------------

Galileo Galilei

"They know that it is human nature to take up causes whereby a man may oppress his neighbor, no matter how unjustly. ... Hence they have had no trouble in finding men who would preach the damnability and heresy of the new doctrine from the very pulpit."

-Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer

-----------------------------------

Helen Keller

"There is so much in the bible against which every insinct of my being rebels, so much so that I regret the necessity which has compelled me to read it through from beginning to end. I do not think that the knowledge I have gained of its history and sources compensates me for the unpleasant details it has forced upon my attention."

-Helen Keller, American lecturer

-----------------------------------

James Madison, American president and political theorist (1751-1836).

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial."

"In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

-----------------------------------

-John Adams, U.S. President, Founding Father of the United States

"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

-----------------------------------

Frank Lloyd Wright

"I believe in God, only I spell it Nature."

Frank Lloyd Wright, American architect (1869-1959).
-----------------------------------

Susan B. Anthony

"I was born a heretic. I always distrust people who know so much about what God wants them to do to their fellows."

- Susan B. Anthony, American suffragist (1820-1906).
-----------------------------------

Thomas Jefferson (Deist)

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. " – Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity." –Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

"Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat

January 31, 2009 1:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maryanne

Some interesting quotes.

I think some may be out of context but some certainly not.

I think you might be missing a point though. Here's Barry's statement again:

"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."

Nobody believes this and it is not supported by any of your quotes above. All these individual groups think their beliefs are the best for everyone. Most if your quotes seem to say atheism is best. Our modern-day atheists have even taken to public advertising to push their beliefs. All these groups cited believe their way is the best and it's an insult to all of them for the President to say their belief systems are equivalent.

An analogy is if, instead of saying free speech is great, he said it's great that we all disagree on everything.

Barry would have been better to say our freedom of thought, speech and religion makes us great not our "patchwork" of disagreement.

Jefferson wasn't a believer but he held to Christian principles because his heritage was Judeo-Christian, the same as ours.

btw, thanks for including Darwinism as a religion. A lot of TTFers are Darwin-deniers.

January 31, 2009 10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the quotes Maryanne… I enjoyed them (and the history lesson) entirely.

President Obama stated:

“For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers.”

To which Anon complained:

“Nobody believes this and it is not supported by any of your quotes above. All these individual groups think their beliefs are the best for everyone.”

Actually many people believe this Anon, including myself, and I know I’m not alone. In fact, I’d like to point to the basic philosophy and tenets of the Unitarian Universalist church as just one example:

(from http://uua.org/visitors/6798.shtml)

“There are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:

The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

Unitarian Universalism (UU) draws from many sources:

Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;

Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;

Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.
Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

These principles and sources of faith are the backbone of our religious community.”

If you attend a UU service, you find readings from the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, and sayings and poetry from Native Americans, American poets, Mahatma Ghandi, Biship Tutu, and many, many others.

I was in a UU church in Virginia recently and was fascinated to see a ceiling high mural painted on one wall that was divided into about 8 different sections. In each section was a scene from a different major world religion, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Muslim, Pagan, and several others.

It is true that many religions teach that they are the one “true” religion. However, only the most radical elements of most religions see the need to force everyone to convert to their own particular belief system. By far the bulk of the religious people I know are content to practice their religion and have no problem letting other people believe, live, and worship in their own particular way.

For the most part though, it doesn’t matter what we believe, because the Mormons are scouring birth and death records all over the world in their quest to uncover everyone’s genealogy. When they figure out that you’re dead, you will be baptized in the Mormon faith – no matter whether you are a Hindu, Muslim, atheist, Jane, or a Christian. At this point the only exception that I know of is Jewish Holocaust victims, whom the Mormon Church has agreed to stop baptizing. ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449727,00.html )

According to the story, “In May, the Vatican ordered Catholic dioceses worldwide to withhold member registries from Mormons so that Catholics could not be baptized.” I don’t know how successful the Catholic Church has been in keeping their records from the Mormons though.

Of course, if you’re a Catholic, and you don’t believe the Mormon’s have a “true faith” then how could their posthumous rituals affect your place in heaven? Why bother keeping the records secret? Of course, if you do believe in the baptismal right, baptizing everyone after they’re dead (and no one is looking) is a great way to “build up the numbers” of your faith in the Celestial Kingdom. Too bad the other religions didn’t think of this first.

But I digress.

I’ll see you all later in Mormon heaven.

Peace,

Cynthia

January 31, 2009 12:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not religious, but do consider myself a very deeply spiritual person, and have seen and felt the magic and the majesty of the hand of Grand architect in my own life on many occasions.

As someone that has suffered extreme abuse, lies, character assasination, bigotry, blatant half truths and public misrepresentation, and blatant discrimination in my own life, and from from many that claim to have a religious (primarily christian)basis for such behaviors, i tend to take a very guarded view of all modern day religious institutions.

That being said, i was NOT advocatiing atheism or agnosticism as and end all, or be all.

I was simply responding to what seemed to be a insultingly and ridiculously errant backlash, based on lack of historical fact instead of religious histrionics, which seem to me being obviously promoted to help place this New President in the worst possible light.

To publicly state that this man is a "threat", for making a statement so comparatively mild to some of what i highlighted above, should simply beg the question to be asked - why would any minister or group of people rely on falsehood and overblown fearmongering, when in fact honesty and integrity of thought and expression is supposed to one of the highest tenets of these religious schools of thought.

Loving best always,
Most sincerely,


Maryanne

January 31, 2009 1:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."

Nobody believes this and it is not supported by any of your quotes.


On the contrary, everybody knows there are many nonbelievers as well as adherents of non-Christian faiths who reside here in this country. It appears believers of one of the "fables" Jefferson talked about don't always comprehend that fact. Of course the vast majority of US citizens are Christian, but that doesn't mean everyone is.

We most certainly are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers. In 2001, BeliefNet found nonbelievers were approximately 13% of the US population, and non-Christians were 4%. In 2007, The Pew Forum found those numbers had grown to 16.1% of Americans who were nonbelievers and 4.7% who were adherents of non-Christian faiths.

Gallup has continued it's 4 day reporting of their daily tracking data from 2008. Today Gallup reports its 2008 data (N>350K) shows that 65% of Americans report "religion is important in my daily life," while 35% do not. There are plenty of nonbelievers in this Nation and even more who feel religion is not important in their daily life.

January 31, 2009 1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cynthia

Of course you're right about these religions who believe all religions are a path to the same truth. As a matter of fact, I believe there have been some Unitarian presidents. There's also, I believe a B'hai faith that believes something like that. I've read a lot of C.S. Lewis and he quite while thought of in the evangelical community so you might be amused to know he believed a variation of this. While he didn't believe all faiths are equally valid, he did believe that all non-Christian religions contain partial revelations. He believed that Christianity was the only perfect path and the only way to achieve salvation but thought you could learn some things about God from other religions. I think his views on that are not well known and would shock a lot of Christians.

Anyway, I digress. The fact is even Unitarians believe their all faiths vision is right and should be spread. Obama is President of all Americans and should simply endorse of freedom of religion not say our strength is this Unitarian or B'hai concept.

On this:

"It is true that many religions teach that they are the one “true” religion."

Most do.

"However, only the most radical elements of most religions see the need to force everyone to convert to their own particular belief system."

See, this is a generalization. For example, a Biblically based Christianity would be opposed to "forcing" anyone to feign belief. This was the topic of the Protestant reformation, that each individual is accountable directly to God. The last thing we'd want to do is "force" anyone to convert. If any Christians are doing that, and I'm not aware of any that are, they are not doing so based on any biblical teaching.

In the Muslim world, however, forced conversion is the accepted path. Muslims, at the time of the crusades, marched through the Mid-east, Asia Minor, North Africa and Spain and would put conquered peoples on the chopping block saying "Praise Allah or die!" Even today, the heads of all major Islam sects believe converting from Islam to another religion is a crime deserving death.

So, all religions aren't equivalent. Islam, 500 years younger than Christianity, is going through it's reformation, going back to the basics and strictly interpretting the Koran. The result is apparent.

When Christianity went through its reformation, going back to basics and strictly interpretting the Bible, the result was more individual freedom of thought and the liberal democracies we now see.

"By far the bulk of the religious people I know are content to practice their religion and have no problem letting other people believe, live, and worship in their own particular way."

You've formulated a dichotomy here that I think is inaccurate. Christians who try to follow biblical patterns neither want to "force everyone to convert to their own particular belief system" nor are they "content to practice their religion and have no problem letting other people believe, live, and worship in their own particular way". They believe in engaging the culture and trying to persuade other to enjoy the benefits they have.

January 31, 2009 1:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We most certainly are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."

Bea, you truly are an idiot.

No one denied the above. You've referenced only half the statement. The problem is in making the generalization that this is our strength. Without making a conclusion, it is fair to say that some people are right and some are wrong. Some religions are good and some are not.

Few people think it is a strength for us to hold that all religions are equivalent. The President shouldn't be endorsing this view in his inaugural speech.

January 31, 2009 1:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Few people think it is a strength for us to hold that all religions are equivalent. The President shouldn't be endorsing this view in his inaugural speech.

I disagree. In America, all religions are equivalent in the sense that each citizen is free to choose which, if any to believe. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Obama's statement, which did not say anything about "equivalence" of religions, is correct. We do derive strength from our patchwork heritage and we are nation that permits diversity of beliefs.

January 31, 2009 3:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"all religions are equivalent in the sense that each citizen is free to choose which, if any to believe"

Here we go, on a trip down Vocabulary Lane with Aunt Bea. Definition of equivalent:

"equal in force, amount, or value"

We're all agreed that each citizen is free to believe what he chooses. Our Judeo-Christian heritage has assured this.

That's not the same as saying that all religions have equal value.

The great thing about freedom is that when it's unshackled, truth will win out. Just because there's a level playing field for speech doesn't mean that truth is relative and all beliefs equivalent.

"Obama's statement, which did not say anything about "equivalence" of religions, is correct. We do derive strength from our patchwork heritage and we are nation that permits diversity of beliefs."

That's what the linking of the two statements implies, that all beliefs are part of this "strong" patchwork and equally significant. All people should strive to convince others of the truth as they see it and not become content with a "whatever" attitude.

January 31, 2009 3:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon asserted:

“Obama is President of all Americans and should simply endorse of freedom of religion not say our strength is this Unitarian or B'hai concept.”

Obama said:

“For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers.”

If one rereads the UU philosophy carefully, there is no mention of “the strength” of our nation coming from a “patchwork heritage.” In fact the themes it promotes isn’t limited by national boundaries: “The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all.”

The UU philosophy doesn’t seem to espouse any “equivalence” or “superiority” of any religions either – in fact it seems to go out of its way NOT to – carefully citing inspiration from several different philosophies – cherry picking the best ideas from each.

I don’t know if Obama has ever visited a UU or B’hai church, or is familiar with their teachings. He seems to be a relatively well read, worldly wise, and intelligent individual, so I wouldn’t be surprised, but if he has, it’s a shame he didn’t mention these faiths as well when he said “a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and nonbelievers.” It certainly would have been more inclusive.

Bishop E.W. Jackson is upset because Obama "seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian, the overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are."

Bishop Jackson however doesn’t seem to have a problem with America’s Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and non-believers being redefined as “Christians.”

The Anons seem to be complaining that Obama has promulgated and “equivalence” of religions.

(Some Anon quotes:
“So, all religions aren't equivalent.”
“Few people think it is a strength for us to hold that all religions are equivalent. The President shouldn't be endorsing this view in his inaugural speech.”

And in a response to Aunt Bea’s comment “"Obama's statement, which did not say anything about "equivalence" of religions, is correct”:
“That's what the linking of the two statements implies, that all beliefs are part of this "strong" patchwork and equally significant.)

Allow me to borrow another quote from Anon:

“Here we go, on a trip down Vocabulary Lane …”

Definition of equivalent:

"equal in force, amount, or value"

Please get out your thesaurus and point out to me the word in the next two sentences which means “equal in force, amount, or value”:

“For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers.”

OK. Sorry. That was a trick question. There isn’t any.

Nor does the “linking of the two statements” necessarily imply anything about equivalence or superiority. When a football team wins a game, everyone who played contributed to the victory. Some arguably may have contributed more than others, and their individual statistics may improve, but there is no harm in mentioning that Player X, who didn’t actually score any points, also contributed by tackling 5 opposing players.

Our own country’s southern economy was built on slave labor before the Civil War. Were all of those blacks Christians when they arrived here in America?

Much of the railroad system in the western part of our country was built by Chinese immigrants. How many of them were Christian when they arrived?

Of course Native Americans weren’t Christian when the Europeans arrived. They would make a much larger portion of our society now if early European Christians (including Christopher Columbus, funded by the devoutly Catholic king and queen of Spain) hadn’t done such a thorough job of killing them off.
From http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1137346505

“By conservative estimates, the population of the United States prior to European contact was greater than 12 million. Four centuries later, the count was reduced by 95% to 237 thousand.

In 1493, when Columbus returned to the Hispaniola, he quickly implemented policies of slavery and mass extermination of the Taino population of the Caribbean. Within three years, five million were dead. Las Casas, the primary historian of the Columbian era, writes of many accounts of the horrors that the Spanish colonists inflicted upon the indigenous population: hanging them en mass, hacking their children into pieces to be used as dog feed, and other horrid cruelties.”

What seems to be happening here, in the wake of the last election, and the removal of an evangelical Bush from the Bully Pulpit, is that a small group of Christians (I don’t want to offend all of them) are chafing at the fact that their favorite theological viewpoint is no longer being reinforced, espoused, promoted and evangelized from the top of our political system. Now, without Sarah Palin defining what “Real America” is like, where are these folks to look to for guidance?

In reality, they seem upset that Obama didn’t place Christianity on a pedestal above the other religions and reinforce their own beliefs in their superiority.

Bummer dude.

Peace,

Cynthia

January 31, 2009 6:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama's statement said nothing about "equivalence" and it did not imply anything about it either. If you want to know what he was "implying," why limit your analysis to two lines of the speech? Here they are in bigger context:

And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that, "Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth.

And because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.


He's clearly not speaking about any equivalence of these faiths. He says "we are shaped by every language and culture" but he does not say or imply we are shaped in equal measure by them. He's telling everyone who's willing to listen to focus on what we have in common rather than our differences. President Obama told the world we Americans have lived through hatred and oppression of racial minorities and managed to rise above it. He's urging others to join us on that path of reconciliation,of healing old wounds, and he's urging us to continue along our path of overcoming old hatreds and "ushering in a new era of peace."

In his statement immediately preceding the comments in question, President Obama tells "those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror" they will not win. He tells everyone there's another way, a better way forward beyond the boundaries of tribe.

In the Muslim world, however, forced conversion is the accepted path.

In some Muslim nations like Iran or Afghanistan when the Taliban ruled, in Muslim nations where religious leaders hold political sway, your statement may be true. But in secular Muslim nations like Turkey, which is over 99% Muslim, your statement is not true. Turkey's Constitution provides for Freedom of Religion. The danger comes when religious extremists gain political power and enact religious laws as the laws of the land, relegating those who do not adhere to that faith as second class citizens or worse.

February 01, 2009 8:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bea

All major Muslim sects believe that anyone who renounces their former Muslim faith must die:

"Apostasy in Islam (Arabic: ارتداد, irtidād or ridda‎) is commonly defined as the rejection in word or deed of their former religion (apostasy) by a person who was previously a follower of Islam.

The four major Sunni Madh'hab (schools of Islamic jurisprudence) and the Twelver Shi'a Jafari madhab agree that a sane adult male apostate must be executed."

In Turkey, the government doesn't enforce it but it's a belief of the Islamic clerics and the government doesn't generally prosecute those who enforce sharia. It's a central belief and one of many ways Islam differs from Judeo-Christianity. They aren't equivalent.

Forced conversion was how Islam spread through Western Asia and North Africa. It was only stopped by militarily superior European Judeo-Christian societies.

February 02, 2009 5:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It’s a shame that there aren’t some Muslims reading and responding the remarks by the Anon. It could clear up lot of issues.

As a comparison though, I think it would be useful to put up a few passages from the bible: (Deuteronomy, in this case):

13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

And John 15:6:

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

Was this the inspiration for the Catholic Church to burn people at the stake?

Anon noted:

“Forced conversion was how Islam spread through Western Asia and North Africa. It was only stopped by militarily superior European Judeo-Christian societies.”

To which I have to point out that forced conversion was how Christianity was spread through the Americas:

(From http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/hands-on-classroom/classroom/pages/projects/grade11/lesson9/04-Spanish-Imperialism.htm )

“Spanish imperial rule in Latin America was closely related to missionary activities. This was the result of the papal concession to the Spanish Crown that encouraged a close relationship between the colonial government and the church. The Spanish agreed to maintain the churches and monasteries in the colonies and the church promised not to interfere in the running of the colony. All church interventions in the colonies had to be approved by the King including petty matters such as the building of a new church. Because missionary duties came under the control of the colonial government, many Native Americans were forced to convert to Christianity.”

Of course, papal armies had been “converting” people in Europe for centuries. Jan Hus was executed by the Catholic Church because

“Hus spoke out against indulgences, but he could not carry with him the men of the university. In 1412 a dispute took place, on which occasion Hus delivered his address Quaestio magistri Johannis Hus de indulgentiis. It was taken literally from the last chapter of Wycliffe's book, De ecclesia, and his treatise, De absolutione a pena et culpa. The pamphlet stated that no pope or bishop had the right to take up the sword in the name of the Church; he should pray for his enemies and bless those that curse him; man obtains forgiveness of sins by real repentance, not through money.” (From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hus ) Hus’s execution later lead to the Hussite Rebellion… about 15 years of Hus’s followers battling the Catholic church, it’s proxies, and several royal armies.

Of course there was the Peasant’s War ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants'_War ) as well, coming on the heels of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses, also expressing concern about indulgences and the corruption of the church. It lead to the Protestant Reformation, and an estimated 100,000 died.

The power of the papal armies didn’t really start to decline until the end of the 18th century, when Napoleon reached an armistice and annexed the Papal States in 1797 ( http://asv.vatican.va/en/doc/1797.htm ). Battles continued afterwards, and the military power of the Papal States really didn’t come under full control until after several battles with Italian armies in the 19th century. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_states )

The fact that “Christian” churches no longer have sufficient power to force people to convert came only after centuries of bloodshed with religious, imperial, and non-religious forces. Taking away “ultimate” church authority over political and military realms has led us slowly, painfully, to the freedoms we enjoy, protected by a secular government, in this country today.

There’s so much more fun history I’d like to write about, but it’s WAY past my bedtime.

Peace,

Cynthia

February 03, 2009 1:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cynthia's right. It would be great if followers of Islam were here to defend their faith from Barryo's BS.

BTW, Barryo, you left these quotes out of your incomplete cut and paste from Wikipedia:

1. Some groups within Islam such as the Shi'a Ismaili reject death for apostasy altogether.

2. According to Cyril Glasse writing sometime before 2001, death for apostasy was "not in practice enforced" in later times in the Muslim world, and was "completely abolished" by "a decree of the Ottoman government in 1260AH/1844AD."[22]

Some modern Islamic writers, especially those belonging to the Ahmadiyya sect, the followers of which are deemed to be non-Muslims in many Muslim countries, have attempted to prove that the death penalty for an apostate is not mandatory in Islam.[15] S. A. Rahman, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, argues that there is no indication of the death penalty in the Qur'an.[23] Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed argue that the law of apostasy and its punishment by death in Islamic law conflicts with a variety of fundamentals of Islam.


3. This article needs sources or references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or those affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources. (January 2009)

February 03, 2009 11:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cynthia

I think you missed my point.

It's not that there aren't some calling themselves Muslims who are tolerant and some calling themselves Christians who are intolerant.

It's that when Muslims go back to the basics of the Koran, they will believe that physical force is a legitimate means of conversion and when Christians go back to the basics of the Bible they will believe that moral suasion is a legitimate means of conversion.

Bea

As we've discussed before, it is not appropriate to paste every article in entirety.

Bottom line is that all major Sunni and Shiite lines agree on this.

If any Muslims are reading and would like to add their thoughts or perspective, I'd love to hear it.

February 03, 2009 1:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Barryo

As you must know, the three entries I posted are not the entire Wikipedia article. I felt those three lines are important for the readers of Vigilance to be aware of, especially number three, which tells us that that the sources cited in the article about "Apostasy in Islam" are not considered "reliable" by Wikipedia.

February 04, 2009 9:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon conjectured:

“I think you missed my point…. It's that when Muslims go back to the basics of the Koran, they will believe that physical force is a legitimate means of conversion and when Christians go back to the basics of the Bible they will believe that moral suasion is a legitimate means of conversion.”

Actually, I didn’t miss your “point.” The statement I was responding to was:

“All major Muslim sects believe that anyone who renounces their former Muslim faith must die:”

Which was followed by an incomplete cut and paste from Wikipedia. The above statement is not a “point” at all, but a sweeping generalization, which as Aunt Bea has pointed out is inaccurate and misleading.

If one bothers to read the ENTIRE Wikipedia page more carefully, one finds little support for the assertion that “when Muslims go back to the basics of the Koran, they will believe that physical force is a legitimate means of conversion.”

The “four major Sunni Madh'hab (schools of Islamic jurisprudence) and the Twelver Shi'a Jafari madhab” are NOT the Qur’an, and they are NOT religious sects, (although each system is associated with a particular sect) they are differing judicial systems (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh ) based on differing interpretations of the Qur’an, and in fact, “According to Wael Hallaq nothing of the apostasy law are derived from the Qur’an.”

So the sweeping statement about “Muslims going back to the basics of the Koran” is about as accurate as someone pointing out Deuteronomy 13:6-9 (as I did in the previous post) and concluding that “when Christians go back to the basics of the bible, they believe that all non-believers should die.” Although I can easily see how someone would draw this conclusion, especially given the murderous history of the Catholic Church. “Moral suasion” as the major means of conversion (for the Catholic Church at least) only came about in the last century and a half.

Peace,

Cynthia

February 04, 2009 9:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If one bothers to read the ENTIRE Wikipedia page more carefully, one finds little support for the assertion that “when Muslims go back to the basics of the Koran, they will believe that physical force is a legitimate means of conversion.”"

That's because that was not what the wikipedia page was about. It was about apostasy. And again, the major branches of Islam, that the vast majority of Muslims worldwide belong to agree on this.

The forced conversion of conqured peoples is a historical fact. Didn't happen that way in lands where Christian missionaries went.

"So the sweeping statement about “Muslims going back to the basics of the Koran” is about as accurate as someone pointing out Deuteronomy 13:6-9 (as I did in the previous post) and concluding that “when Christians go back to the basics of the bible, they believe that all non-believers should die.” Although I can easily see how someone would draw this conclusion, especially given the murderous history of the Catholic Church. “Moral suasion” as the major means of conversion (for the Catholic Church at least) only came about in the last century and a half."

Cynthia, you've missed the Protestant Revolution. It happened 500 years ago.

The issues were the role of the Bible and the Church.

Protestants believed, and believe, that the Bible is the only infallible guide to life. Catholics believe church teaching is too.

Protestants believe each man is responsible directly to God. Catholics believe we need to go through the church.

All the issues you talk about start here and that's why all your examples are about the Catholic Church.

February 04, 2009 12:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon stated:

“That's because that was not what the wikipedia page was about. It was about apostasy.”

Excellent point Anon. But unfortunately this very same point also highlights the fact that your unreferenced, out-of-context quote was referring to the treatment of APOSTATES, NOT the forced conversion of non-believers into Islam. So it doesn’t really support your contention that “It's that when Muslims go back to the basics of the Koran, they will believe that physical force is a legitimate means of conversion and when Christians go back to the basics of the Bible they will believe that moral suasion is a legitimate means of conversion.”

In fact the excellent point you bring up actually undermines your argument. An apostate is (from dictionary.com) “a person who forsakes his religion, cause, party, etc.” So the out-of-context quote was referring to people who were already Muslims, and decided to forsake that religion – not people that were being converted TO Islam.

If you wanted to support your contention about forced conversion, you should have linked to texts that noted dates and locations where such events actually occurred. This would have made your grandiose statement far more difficult for Aunt Bea and I to pick apart.


Another Anon quote:

“The forced conversion of conqured peoples is a historical fact. Didn't happen that way in lands where Christian missionaries went.”

Dude, you seem to be forgetting the American west. O.K, so arguably the missionaries that went out west didn’t hold guns to the heads of the Indians and force them to convert. They really didn’t have to. The Indians had watched generations of their ancestors die at the hands of a white American populace and government that Bishop E.W. Jackson likes to remind people is “distinctively Christian.” I find it hard to believe that those who converted to Christianity did so entirely on the basis of “moral suasion.” I suspect much of it had to do with self-preservation. And it wasn’t just Catholics that participated in the genocide and conversion of Native Americans. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_(Christian) )

African American slaves didn’t have a lot of choices when it came to conversion either. It’s hard to a imagine a slave saying something like “Well, I see what you’re saying about Jesus, Master Bob, and he seems like a great guy, but I really find the teachings of Buddhism resonate more with me. Would you mind if I converted to that instead?”
( http://cghs.dadeschools.net/slavery/antebellum_slavery/plantation_slave_life/diet_religion/religion.htm )

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery )

( http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/748257/converting_african_american_slaves.html )

Here again, it wasn’t the sole domain of the Catholic Church to do these conversions.

Anon cajoled:

“Cynthia, you've missed the Protestant Revolution. It happened 500 years ago.”

I did not mention it per se; however, if you go back a couple of posts, you’ll see I mention “Martin Luther’s 95 Theses,” which many people regard as a major catalyst for the Protestant Revolution. In fact I don’t see how I could mention ML and his thesis without someone automatically thinking of the Revolution, unless one only has a passing familiarity with Christianity. I’m a big fan of Martin Luther and think he had some wonderful ideas. He could well have saved millions of lives from the ravages of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, as the cases of slaves and Native Americans show, his concepts did not end the coercive tactics either directly employed or later exploited by Christians to convert people to their faith.

I happen to be a big fan of Martin Luther King as well, but that’s another story.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

February 05, 2009 10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, Cynthia, Native Americans weren't forced in any way to convert to Christianity and your statement, "I find it hard to believe that those who converted to Christianity did so entirely on the basis of “moral suasion.”", is based on nothing more than bias.

While the treatment of Native Americans was a disgrace, no one coerced them into any religious conversion. They were always free to practice their pagan religion. Early contact, such as Pocohantas, resulted in conversion as the story of Christianity was heard.

African slaves were also never coerced into converting. Many continued to observe pagan African religions in America. Conversion was obviously widespread but the Christian story resonates well their experience. Christianity, btw, is currently expanding faster in Africa than anywhere on Earth.

Ask yourself a question, Cynthia:

Would you feel saver in a devout Christian land or a radical Muslim regime?

February 05, 2009 10:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon stated:

“Well, Cynthia, Native Americans weren't forced in any way to convert to Christianity and your statement, "I find it hard to believe that those who converted to Christianity did so entirely on the basis of “moral suasion.”", is based on nothing more than bias.”

And your contention that, after centuries of genocide by Christians, Native Americans were totally unaffected, free and unbiased in their religious choice, is NOT based on bias???

And your contention that, after generations of slavery, African Americans had a totally free and full choice to choose any religion they wanted, most of them somehow miraculously “chose” the religion of their masters, is also NOT based on some kind of bias???

Do we live on the same planet???

Anon asked:

“Would you feel saver (sic) in a devout Christian land or a radical Muslim regime?”

Obviously a loaded question. I will endeavor to respond to it with a suitably loaded answer:

I would feel safer in a devout Muslim land than a radical Christian regime. That’s why I did NOT vote for McCain / Palin.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

February 06, 2009 9:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, my contentions weren't based on bias. They were facts and you've offered none to dispute them. There are no accounts, that I know of, of forced conversions of Native Americans or slaves, even on an episodic basis.

As for your aversion to a "radical" Christian land, could you specify one so we can know what you're talking about?

In a land which radically applied biblical truth, you'd be completely safe.

If you think John McCain is a radical Christian, I think you've already discredited your own intelligence so there's not much to add.

February 06, 2009 1:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon stated:

“No, my contentions weren't based on bias. They were facts and you've offered none to dispute them. There are no accounts, that I know of, of forced conversions of Native Americans or slaves, even on an episodic basis.”

Actually I included several links to support my claim but you seem to have ignored them entirely, so here are a few more, and this time I’ll quote part of it directly so you don’t hurt your fingers cutting and pasting the link.

From http://users.erols.com/igoddard/roger.htm
“Roger Williams, a Christian minister by training, argued most vigorously against the forced conversion of the Natives to Christianity. Williams believed that forced conversion violated Christian principles and was one of the most "monstrous and most inhumane" acts forced upon the Native peoples of North and South America. Roger called forced conversion "Antichristian conversion" that was like compelling "an unwilling spouse...to enter into a forced bed." Ignoring Roger's appeal to the sanctity of property and individual conscience, European settlers rushed forward to rape not only the Indian's lands but their minds as well.”
And from the Encyclopedia on Religious Freedom (page 463):
“Mandates from the Spanish Mainland would shape how Spanish life was brought to North America. Specifically, the Comprehensive Orders for New Discoveries of 1573 dictated that Indians could no longer be militarily forced into conversion.”
From: http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/arc_features/newworld/weapons_of_destruction4.html
“The first recorded instance of tax, though it is not thought of as a tax, is forced labor to support the invaders. Columbus thought it his decided lot from God to force the natives to work as part of their "conversion" process. Columbus forced the Hispaniolas to work the gold and silver mines and sugarcane plantations. The average life expectancy of a mine worker when this practice moved to the interior of Mexico was three to four months. The American natives were not exempt from this cruel practice. (1)”
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_identity_in_the_United_States
“In the nineteenth and twentieth century, particularly until John Collier's tenure as Commissioner of Indian Affairs began in 1933, various policies of the United States federal and state governments amounted to what some consider an attack on Indian cultural identity and attempt to force assimilation. These policies included the banning of traditional religious ceremonies, forced cutting of Indian boys' hair, forced "conversion" to Christianity by withholding rations, forcing Indian children to go to boarding schools, boarding schools where the use of Native American languages was not permitted, freedom of speech restrictions, and restricted allowances of travel between reservations.[17] In the Southwest sections of the U.S. under Spanish control until 1848, where the majority (80%) of inhabitants were Indigenous, Spanish government officials had similar policies.[18]”
From:
http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Native+American+reservation
“The reservation policy had another motive for the US government, and that was to ensure the total destruction of the Plains Indians' way of life. By removing their horses and guns, and splitting the ethnic groups up as well as mixing them together, the US government hoped to weaken traditional group structures and eventually remove the Indian problem altogether. To this end Indian children were removed from their parents and sent away to schools off the Plains to be taught how to be like the ‘white man’. This policy became commonplace in the last two decades of the 19th century. At school the children were banned from using their native language and forced to convert to Christianity. The hope was that on returning to the reservation, these new Americanized Indians would further undermine their people's culture.”
If you like, you can even buy a book on the topic of forced conversion of the Indians from Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Mission-Examination-conversion-California-Missions/dp/B000GF0PHM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234148898&sr=8-1
It’s called “Mission Indian Life, An Examination of the Thesis of S.F. Cook on the Forced conversion of Indians in the California Missions.”
From http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/history-california :
“The Native American’s society was impacted dramatically by this loss of nearly half of the Native American population in California. Such a dramatic loss in a societies population can disrupt their ability to rebuild their population, which creates difficultly in passing on their culture to future generations. Without a strong population to protect their culture, European colonization was hard to resist and the Native American society did not have the population to successfully resist the European colonization. The Native American culture was not encouraged by the Europeans, who forced the Native American’s to convert to Christianity and leave their Native beliefs and culture behind, making it very hard for the Native American’s to preserve their own beliefs and culture.”
It seems my “bias” suffers from a lot of independent support.

Anon asserted:
“In a land which radically applied biblical truth, you'd be completely safe.”
The problem is everyone has their own version of “biblical truth.” It depends on whose version you’re referring to. If you could get three religious scholars from 3 different Christian sects to agree on 3 different passages from the bible, it would be a minor miracle in itself.
Anon said:
“If you think John McCain is a radical Christian, I think you've already discredited your own intelligence so there's not much to add.”
I never thought or wrote that McCain was a radical Christian. You’ll have to think of another way to try and discredit my intelligence.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

February 08, 2009 10:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cynthia:

"I would feel safer in a devout Muslim land than a radical Christian regime. That’s why I did NOT vote for McCain / Palin."

Cynthia later:

"I never thought or wrote that McCain was a radical Christian."

February 09, 2009 4:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As you should be able to see when you put the two statements right next to each other, I did not state that McCain was a radical Christian.

Following on the heels of Bush’s blatant disregard for separation of church and state, McCain’s pandering to the radical elements of the “Christian Right,” and Palin’s penchant for banning books, the establishment of a radical Christian regime is not a far stretch. It would likely start with severely diminishing women’s reproductive and contraceptive choices, increasing illegal state funding to Christian churches, and move on from there. I’m sure the next move would be to entirely ban marriages for gay and lesbian folks – unless they are first forced to convert to heterosexuality.

I strongly believe that all men were created equal, and that our government should support that in every possible way. It should not be taken over by radical Christian elements that redefine it as “all heterosexual men are created equal,” and then possibly later, “all heterosexual Christian men are created equal.”

McCain doesn’t have to be a radical Christian to have an unwitting hand in the formation of such a regime. He just has to go along for the ride. I have no desire to live in such a regime.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

February 09, 2009 9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i'm a new anon. who has never posted before, but upon reading this argument i would like to mention some of my thoughts, just thoughts, not conclusions or truths:

on the subject of religion and Christianity (a proper noun gets upper-case, no divinity skew intended)

people here seem to be using the terms interchangably. IMO, many Christians are not religious and many religious people are not Christian.

the same thing with spirituality, which gets a bad rap these days among some religious people...many spiritual people are not Christian and many Christian people are not spiritual. Christianity in the truest sense of its definition, includes and embraces all who fall short of whatever ideal is the "flavor of the month" for that era. it is possible to be non-spiritual, and still be a Christian...from what i have learned Christianity is a process which begins with imperfect and never gets beyond it...this is not a shortcoming, but rather a very missed beauty of one of the most positive things about Christianity.

also remember that the founding fathers were rebeling against a form of dogmatic, opressive, even state-run religion, they were not necessarily against all religion, but instead FOR freedom of religion.

as far as whether the pendulum indicates Democrat or Republican at any given time: a pendulum is not an indication of which side is more correct, or wrong. pendulum swings are more indicative of what has already passed, not what is current, therefore cannot indicate the "temperature" of any precise moment... nor does it suggest who is correct...it is simply a measurement.

personaly, i don't see why believers and non-believers cannot simply "love" each other and get on with business. you usually can't change anybody's stripes anyway, and plain old respect never hurt anyone. any religion threatened by someone who is a non-believer is not founded in faith based on an omnipotent force anyway...otherwise why would a non-believer be a threat. of course this is not true in extreme cases...i would say Hitler was a threat to the religion of the Jewish people.

oh, i am getting way too deep...i think we make everything way too complicated and it think that is one thing Jesus and many other wise religious sages have been trying to tell us.

now i feel like i need a million disclaimers to keep from being picked apart like a swimmer in a piranha invested body of water.

remember, these are just musings.

March 25, 2009 7:48 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

New-Anon, these are good comments but I'm afraid no one will see them on this old thread. Why don't you look at some of the newer discussions on this blog and join the conversation?

JimK

March 25, 2009 8:30 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home