Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Freedom From Atheism!


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Freedom From Atheism! Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 1/29/2016 1:09:42 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
but they do. they both have a religion and a god.
How does putting the "INGODWE TRUST" on currency in any way infringe on any action you would choose to take in your daily lives?


Would you accept having "IN SATAN WE TRUST" or "IN VISHNU WE TRUST" on your currency?


Nice idea but mightn't it be better to be democratic about it:
"IN GOD/SATAN/YEHWAH/ALLAH/BUDDHA/VISHNU/<deity of your choice>* WE TRUST"
( * = delete where applicable)

Unfortunately, the act of deleting inappropriate deities from the currency would be criminal as it's a crime to deface the currency. So, to cater to all tastes legally, one might be reduced to something along the lines of:
"IN OUR PERSONAL FAVOURITE SPIRIT IN THE SKY WE TRUST".

Somehow something is lost somewhere along the way and it doesn't seem to have the same cachet a the original does it? And of course animists and atheists could quite legitimately argue that they are excluded by the emphasis on 'spirit' and "sky", so further reduction is needed:
'IN OUR PERSONAL BELIEF SYSTEMS WE TRUST"

Now that has a pleasing democratic feel about it doesn't it? So pleasing it is almost worth ignoring the inherent tautology .......

_____________________________



(in reply to ifmaz)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 1/29/2016 3:03:56 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Christians, Muslims, Jews, all religions demand equal rights: Freedom from Atheism and atheistic secularism.

Thats all they ask.

Equal rights.

How is it fair that atheists get to demand freedom from religion and that religious people must accept the atheist agenda?

So how do religious people get freedom from atheism?



But that is so easy:

1. burn all atheists at the stake

2. stone them

3. drown them as witches

What is the big deal? It was so easy back in the 16th century, and Islamists are quite accomplished at it today. Perhaps Christians should join with Islamists. Not much difference in their treatment of apostates.




Well having them go back to the thinking of the 16th century would give you all kinds of ammo to proclaim them as evil, so I can understand why you would hope that. But I don't think it's going to happen. So I guess you will just have to stick to dragging up the crusades and random asshats and hope it's enough to fuel the hate.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 1/29/2016 3:45:31 AM   
DominantWrestler


Posts: 338
Joined: 7/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Christians, Muslims, Jews, all religions demand equal rights: Freedom from Atheism and atheistic secularism.

Thats all they ask.

Equal rights.

How is it fair that atheists get to demand freedom from religion and that religious people must accept the atheist agenda?

So how do religious people get freedom from atheism?



But that is so easy:

1. burn all atheists at the stake

2. stone them

3. drown them as witches

What is the big deal? It was so easy back in the 16th century, and Islamists are quite accomplished at it today. Perhaps Christians should join with Islamists. Not much difference in their treatment of apostates.




Well having them go back to the thinking of the 16th century would give you all kinds of ammo to proclaim them as evil, so I can understand why you would hope that. But I don't think it's going to happen. So I guess you will just have to stick to dragging up the crusades and random asshats and hope it's enough to fuel the hate.


You mean the crusade started by Pope George Bush?

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 1/29/2016 6:45:09 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/george-bush-memos-rumsfeld-scripture-push-iraq-war-article-1.411419
http://www.alternet.org/story/140221/bush's_shocking_biblical_prophecy_emerges%3A_god_wants_to_%22erase%22_mid-east_enemies_%22before_a_new_age_begins%22
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/president/spirituality.html

And the religious wonder why atheism is growing daily


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to DominantWrestler)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 1/29/2016 7:04:36 AM   
Staleek


Posts: 361
Joined: 6/1/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/george-bush-memos-rumsfeld-scripture-push-iraq-war-article-1.411419
http://www.alternet.org/story/140221/bush's_shocking_biblical_prophecy_emerges%3A_god_wants_to_%22erase%22_mid-east_enemies_%22before_a_new_age_begins%22
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/president/spirituality.html

And the religious wonder why atheism is growing daily



That's true. On the other hand...

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-morally-permissible-to-kill-people-if-they-have-dangerous-beliefs?share=1

Atheism has it's fair share of absolute loonies too.

I think that when people focus on the religion (or lack thereof) part and ignore the loony part we're in danger of associating people with loonies even though they're very different in their overall outlook on the world.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 1/29/2016 7:08:38 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek

I think that when people focus on the religion (or lack thereof) part and ignore the loony part we're in danger of associating people with loonies even though they're very different in their overall outlook on the world.

I'll second that.

K.

(in reply to Staleek)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 1/29/2016 7:24:37 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/george-bush-memos-rumsfeld-scripture-push-iraq-war-article-1.411419
http://www.alternet.org/story/140221/bush's_shocking_biblical_prophecy_emerges%3A_god_wants_to_%22erase%22_mid-east_enemies_%22before_a_new_age_begins%22
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/president/spirituality.html

And the religious wonder why atheism is growing daily



That's true. On the other hand...

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-morally-permissible-to-kill-people-if-they-have-dangerous-beliefs?share=1

Atheism has it's fair share of absolute loonies too.

I think that when people focus on the religion (or lack thereof) part and ignore the loony part we're in danger of associating people with loonies even though they're very different in their overall outlook on the world.

Oh, Im not disputing that, lol I was just backing up your points.
Im not calling for anyone to be killed...neither would I...
To suffer explosive diarrhea during a date, yes.
Id like freedom from anyone elses religion, whether it be from christians, jews, hindus, mulims,
Especially when it comes to making laws about denying other peoples rights, equality under the law.
such as this dumbarse topic...





_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Staleek)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 1/29/2016 3:53:20 PM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

15 pages with mostly RO ranting.....
SO yeah it was discussed, ad nauseam



such an evil way to characterize legitimate opposing arguments.

there is nothing legitimate about your argument in this particular situation.




If that were true you would be able to support that claim now wouldnt you, and you didnt did you, cough


Oh fuck me... In your reality you think you just handed Lucylastic her ass don't you?

You have failed over and over again to make any case whatsoever for this "oppression" of theists thst you claim exists.

Babbling on like this just males you look stupid.


_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 1/29/2016 4:55:51 PM   
FullCircle


Posts: 5713
Joined: 11/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
but atheists do believe in contemplating and ciphering what is right and wrong based on their highly intelligent minds and then they follow what their self decides is good bad whatever do they not?

You don't need a highly intelligent mind to consider if actions have negative consequences. Unless you are a psychopath you have this thing called empathy. It didn’t come into existing through going to Sunday school either. It came into existence by witnessing hurt caused by actions and therefore not wanting to repeat them.
If you are religious, you have to ask if it hurts god (getting no definitive answer). If you are not religious, you only have to ask if it hurts someone? Apparently there are many things that offend god but fewer that offend the average atheist.


_____________________________

ﮒuקּƹɼ ƾɛϰưϫԼ Ƨωιϯϲћ.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 1/29/2016 6:45:24 PM   
ifmaz


Posts: 844
Joined: 7/22/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
but they do. they both have a religion and a god.
How does putting the "INGODWE TRUST" on currency in any way infringe on any action you would choose to take in your daily lives?


Would you accept having "IN SATAN WE TRUST" or "IN VISHNU WE TRUST" on your currency?


Nice idea but mightn't it be better to be democratic about it:
"IN GOD/SATAN/YEHWAH/ALLAH/BUDDHA/VISHNU/<deity of your choice>* WE TRUST"
( * = delete where applicable)

Unfortunately, the act of deleting inappropriate deities from the currency would be criminal as it's a crime to deface the currency. So, to cater to all tastes legally, one might be reduced to something along the lines of:
"IN OUR PERSONAL FAVOURITE SPIRIT IN THE SKY WE TRUST".

Somehow something is lost somewhere along the way and it doesn't seem to have the same cachet a the original does it? And of course animists and atheists could quite legitimately argue that they are excluded by the emphasis on 'spirit' and "sky", so further reduction is needed:
'IN OUR PERSONAL BELIEF SYSTEMS WE TRUST"

Now that has a pleasing democratic feel about it doesn't it? So pleasing it is almost worth ignoring the inherent tautology .......


To be in line with the current state of US currency the bills would have to reference a single religious entity, as it is 'IN GOD WE TRUST', thus it must be 'IN SATAN WE TRUST', 'IN VISHNU WE TRUST', or 'IN THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER WE TRUST'. The point is those who would have no issue with 'IN GOD WE TRUST' or 'IN JESUS WE TRUST' are usually the same people who would take major offense to 'IN SATAN WE TRUST' or 'IN VISHNU WE TRUST'. Sometimes they're the same sort of people who would then argue the US as a Christian nation, completely forgetting (or willfully ignoring) the Treaty of Tripoli.

Anyway, substituting one religious figure for another and gaging 'offense level' is usually a pretty good religious litmus test.

Personally I'd rather go back to "e pluribus unum" ("out of many, one" or "one from many" )

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 1/29/2016 7:25:36 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
but atheists do believe in contemplating and ciphering what is right and wrong based on their highly intelligent minds and then they follow what their self decides is good bad whatever do they not?

You don't need a highly intelligent mind to consider if actions have negative consequences. Unless you are a psychopath you have this thing called empathy. It didn’t come into existing through going to Sunday school either. It came into existence by witnessing hurt caused by actions and therefore not wanting to repeat them.
If you are religious, you have to ask if it hurts god (getting no definitive answer). If you are not religious, you only have to ask if it hurts someone? Apparently there are many things that offend god but fewer that offend the average atheist.


Quite a few assumptions here.
quote:

you have this thing called empathy. It didn’t come into existing through going to Sunday school either.


Genetic twin studies suggest that anywhere from a quarter to more than half of our propensity to be giving and caring is inherited. That leaves a lot of room for nurture, and the evidence on how parents raise kind and compassionate children flies in the face of what many of even the most well-intentioned parents do in praising good behavior, responding to bad behavior, and communicating their values.

A couple of weeks later, when faced with more opportunities to give and share, the children were much more generous after their character had been praised than after their actions had been. Praising their character helped them internalize it as part of their identities. The children learned who they were from observing their own actions: I am a helpful person. This dovetails with new research led by the psychologist Christopher J. Bryan, who finds that for moral behaviors, nouns work better than verbs. To get 3- to 6-year-olds to help with a task, rather than inviting them “to help,” it was 22 to 29 percent more effective to encourage them to “be a helper.” Cheating was cut in half when instead of, “Please don’t cheat,” participants were told, “Please don’t be a cheater.” When our actions become a reflection of our character, we lean more heavily toward the moral and generous choices. Over time it can become part of us

In other words there your conjecture that empathy (as well as other virtues) is not supported through sunday school isn't supported.
Kids learn behavior.

quote:

If you are religious, you have to ask if it hurts god (getting no definitive answer).

Several objections.
Religious is not the same as believing. I believe you mean if someone is a believer.
Second: being a believer does not remove from you garden variety empathy that you had mentioned previously. One doesn't need to consult God to know that an action that hurts another is wrong.

Third - it is your conjecture about getting no definitive answer. First, my prayers are usually answered, if not in the way or timeframe I'd prefer. Second, getting an answer on an ethical or moral question - you have resources other than god. Parents, pastor, elders, etc. Third - Very few people would suggest (except probably here) would suggest that following a moral code is easier than following your natural conscience. It is much easier to follow your conscience.
People tend to forgive themselves, or justify themselves. A moral code in black and white doesn't really allow that. Thou shalt not steal - does not make exception for a pack of gum.

To return to your point - about there are more things that offend god - and fewer things that offend the average atheist. Most major religions are based upon someone that spent a lot of time pondering moral questions - far more than the average person. And following that - hundreds and thousand of moral people think and study the issues of the day. Whether this is buddha, or judaism, or christianity.

So the accumulated wisdom is greater than any person is likely to spend in their lifetime. In the christian tradition, bonhoffer, kierkegaard, Pope John Paul II, thomas aquinas, paul, peter - all built on the work of Jesus. Not to mention various councils - nicea, trent etc.

So its not surprising that the system of morality is more developed than that of the average atheist, is it?

(in reply to FullCircle)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 1/29/2016 8:01:44 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

who would then argue the US as a Christian nation, completely forgetting (or willfully ignoring) the Treaty of Tripoli.


Secularists make much cloth undeserving out of the treaty of tripoly.

First, consider the time frame. Fledgling nation - and denied the protection of england, the barbary pirates were causing severe depradation in the fledgling nations mercantile fleet.

By the time Jefferson became president, the tribute demanded was 20% of GDP. The point is that the founding fathers were desperate to cut a deal.

quote:


According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes,

"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.[14]



Second, the treaty negotiated and signed in Tripoli had no Article 11, the section by which you are claiming the US is not a christian nation.
None. It did not exist; in its place was a letter to the pasha, and that phrase or sentiment is not in the letter either.

Third.
The treaty was supplanted by the treaty of 1805, and is thus not part of US canon.

Fourth.

The 1783Treaty concluded between the US and Britain, establishing the US, started with the words..


quote:

In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.
It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts . . .


Fifth.

Sam adams was prsident when the treaty was signed.

quote:

Adams expressed his religious views on numerous occasions, but his call for a National Fast Day on March 6, 1799 is the most expressive:

As no truth is more clearly taught in the Volume of Inspiration, not any more fully demonstrated by the experience of all ages, than that a deep sense and a due acknowledgment of the growing providence of a Supreme Being and of the accountableness of men to Him as the searcher of hearts and righteous distributor of rewards and punishments are conducive equally to the happiness of individuals and to the well-being of communities.... I have thought proper to recommend, and I hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the twenty-fifth of April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain, as far as may be, from their secular occupation, and devote the time to the sacred duties of religion, in public and in private; that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore His pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to His righteous requisitions in time to come; that He would interpose to arrest the progress of that impiety and licentiousness in principle and practice so offensive to Himself and so ruinous to mankind; that He would make us deeply sensible that "righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" [Proverbs 14:34]."

Note the contrast Adams draws between things "secular" and "sacred." Clearly Adams did not labor under the illusion that he had to have a "secular purpose" for declaring a national day of prayer ("Lemon test"), nor did he believe that government could never "advance religion," but rather, had a duty to do so. Thus Tocqueville wrote,

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other...In the United States, if a political character attacks a sect [denomination], this may not prevent even the partisans of that very sect, from supporting him; but if he attacks all the sects together [Christianity], every one abandons him and he remains alone.
(The Republic of the United States of America and Its Political Institutions, Reviewed and Examined, Henry Reeves, trans., Garden City, NY: AS Barnes & Co., 1851, Vol. I, p. 334-335)



Sixth.

That same treaty, makes clear in numerous locations that the US is a Christian nation.

For example
quote:

Glory be to God! Declaration of the third article. We have agreed that if American Christians are traveling with a nation that is at war with the well-preserved Tripoli, and he [evidently the Tripolitan] takes [prisoners] from the Christian enemies and from the American Christians with whom we are at peace, then sets them free; neither he nor his goods shall be taken.



Seventh:

If treaties are going to be used to establish the religious commitment of the nation, then it's essential that we look at all of the treaties. In 1822, the United States, along with Great Britain and Ireland, ratified a "Convention for Indemnity Under Award of Emperor of Russia as to the True Construction of the First Article of the Treaty of December 24, 1814." (16) It begins -- as many treaties did -- with these words:

"In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity."

Only Christianity teaches a Trinitarian view of God. If the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli does in fact make Christianity null and void in America (which it does not), the Treaty of 1822 reestablishes Trinitarian Christianity as the official religion of the United States.

http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/tripoli.htm

(in reply to ifmaz)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 1/29/2016 8:45:27 PM   
ifmaz


Posts: 844
Joined: 7/22/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

who would then argue the US as a Christian nation, completely forgetting (or willfully ignoring) the Treaty of Tripoli.


Secularists make much cloth undeserving out of the treaty of tripoly.


Is it odd that only the religious express this viewpoint?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
...
Second, the treaty negotiated and signed in Tripoli had no Article 11, the section by which you are claiming the US is not a christian nation.
None. It did not exist; in its place was a letter to the pasha, and that phrase or sentiment is not in the letter either.


This is the first I've ever heard of Article 11 not existing. The sources I found expressing the same ideas are questionable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Third.
The treaty was supplanted by the treaty of 1805, and is thus not part of US canon.

(snip arguments about referencing a supreme being in other treaties/documents)


Are you attempting to say that because a later treaty was created the original treaty is to be disregarded? If one views the treaty in terms of law then your point is understandable, but you seem to be indicating something more. The later treaty does not change the text of the original treaty's article 11 -- the one you claim to not exist yet very clearly exists in every printing of the treaty. Would you also claim Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists does not exist?

The Declaration of Independence includes the phrase "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". Merely mentioning "Nature's God" does not, in any way, mean the United States is a Christian nation. It would be just as preposterous to suggest the United States is founded on Judaism as it predates Christianity and some US laws coincide with the 10 Commandments, which are of Jewish origin.

If the US was indeed a Christian nation, why have the establishment clause of the First Amendment?

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 1/29/2016 8:59:56 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
If the US was indeed a Christian nation, why have the establishment clause of the First Amendment?



The answer to this, and for that matter the question of the Tripoli Treaty, is simple, the US can be a Christian nation without being a theocracy. The treaty at most confirmed that we are not a theocracy, as did the first amendment.
As for the first you must keep in mind that conflict between Christian doctrines had recently caused wars in Europe (see N Ireland well into the 20th century) and the first was stating that no brand of Cristianity could be establihed as a state religion, not just Chritianity vs Islam, or whatever religion or non religion you may want to use.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to ifmaz)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 1/29/2016 10:15:01 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

who would then argue the US as a Christian nation, completely forgetting (or willfully ignoring) the Treaty of Tripoli.


Secularists make much cloth undeserving out of the treaty of tripoly.


Is it odd that only the religious express this viewpoint?


A great deal less odd than atheists attempting to ignore more than 1000 references to god in founding of our country and seizing on an obscure clause, in a treaty that was in place for a few years.
quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
...
Second, the treaty negotiated and signed in Tripoli had no Article 11, the section by which you are claiming the US is not a christian nation.
None. It did not exist; in its place was a letter to the pasha, and that phrase or sentiment is not in the letter either.


This is the first I've ever heard of Article 11 not existing. The sources I found expressing the same ideas are questionable.


Questionable - why? They are listed in several books.

research conducted by a Dutch scholar, Dr. C. Snouk Hurgronje, published in The Christian Statesman in 1930. Hurgronje located the only surviving Arabic copy of the treaty and found that when translated, Article 11 was actually a letter, mostly gibberish, from the dey of Algiers to the ruler of Tripoli.

Insofar as I am aware, Hurgronje is the definitive source for the arabic text.

More interesting comments here: http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.php


quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Third.
The treaty was supplanted by the treaty of 1805, and is thus not part of US canon.

(snip arguments about referencing a supreme being in other treaties/documents)


quote:

Are you attempting to say that because a later treaty was created the original treaty is to be disregarded? If one views the treaty in terms of law then your point is understandable, but you seem to be indicating something more. The later treaty does not change the text of the original treaty's article 11 -- the one you claim to not exist yet very clearly exists in every printing of the treaty. Would you also claim Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists does not exist?

The Declaration of Independence includes the phrase "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". Merely mentioning "Nature's God" does not, in any way, mean the United States is a Christian nation. It would be just as preposterous to suggest the United States is founded on Judaism as it predates Christianity and some US laws coincide with the 10 Commandments, which are of Jewish origin.

If the US was indeed a Christian nation, why have the establishment clause of the First Amendment?



My points are as follows:

1. Barlow spoke no arabic; and was a religious skeptic. For a treaty to be in force, both sides must have a common understanding. If I offer you 100,000 for your house and you require $200,000 - I am sure you will not vacate the premises when I go to move in.

2. The moslems were engaged in jihad (yes, even then!) - and preyed upon the shipping of christian nations. This is a matter of historical record. The US had reason therefor to say that it was not a christian nation.

If, in fact the founders had intended to convey that we were not a christian nation - that same text would have been included in subsequent treates. If, however, the text was a fig leaf; or if it was merely accepting a disagreeable language for the sake of getting a deal - it would not be included in subsequent treaties. It was not.
To the contrary, texts reaffirm that we are. These were the treaties you summarily dismissed.

3. The US had several hundred citizens in captivity; had little military might. Negotiating treaties meant sending an envoy (several weeks) negotiating and (several weeks)awaiting his return. There is a point at which one says - we accept this wording because it doesn't change a thing on the ground; we know what we are; and because we want our citizens back.

4. It is also important to note what the text actually says:

quote:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fact-checking-barton-part-v-treaty-tripoli#sthash.wflizuA2.dpuf


The government is NOT founded upon a christian relgion. That is not to say the US was not a christian nation, founded by christians upon christian principles. For example - the papal estates were founded upon Catholicism - it is the only religion allowed. England is a Protestant state - the King or Queen must be Anglican.

A war with Catholics - would not have brought the US in against the muslims; a war with anglicans would of course not either.

The government is formed and founded upon the principles of a republic/democracy, one man one vote. Not upon the diving right of kings etc.

While it may seem legalistic, saying what the government is or is not - is not a reflection on what the nation is or is not. James II (the king of the UK) was Catholic. The majority of his subjects were protestant. One could not say that England was a catholic nation. The distinction between government and nation matters.

5. Regarding Danbury - your comment is rather shabby.

Jefferson and others came from Virginia where one had to be a member of the Church of England. Many religions in the US - catholics in massachusetts; baptists in Virginia; had suffered discrimination in colonies where there were an established religion.

While he, along with James Madison, stoutly opposed established churches as existed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and other states (while recognizing that, as President, he had to respect them), he was deeply committed to religious liberty. Jefferson’s letter must also be read in context of his declaration in the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom: “Almighty God hath created the mind free….” The “wall of separation” exists to affirm natural rights, including those of faith and religious worship. The “wall” does not imprison the free exercise of religion. Rather, Jefferson sought to prevent the domination of particular sects, making free the religious practices of all. (from heritage.org).

If you wish to read a fascinating history of the early debate about state religions:https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=when%20did%20massachusetts%20stop%20having%20a%20state%20religion

has copies of original newspaper articles, state constitutions etc.

6. Finally, since you summarily dismissed multiple listings of why the US could be considered a christian nations - including the peace treaty of 1783, and the treaty of 1822, there is no point to giving you more citations. However, calling the us a christian nation historically does not rest upon a single quote in the declaration of independence.

It rests on the body of evidence - of thousands of citations in the founding fathers papers; in hundreds of supreme court sayings, in declarations such as holidays; in historical citations such as the detoqueville I quoted, and in the actions and beliefs of its inhabitants. If you say that the US is not a christian nation it would be hard to explain the blue laws - some of which linger to this day (why bars were closed on Sunday - and why some counties are "dry" for example.


< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 1/29/2016 10:18:25 PM >

(in reply to ifmaz)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 1/30/2016 10:03:49 PM   
ifmaz


Posts: 844
Joined: 7/22/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
Is it odd that only the religious express this viewpoint?


A great deal less odd than atheists attempting to ignore more than 1000 references to god in founding of our country and seizing on an obscure clause, in a treaty that was in place for a few years.


The Treaty of Tripoli is but one example. Additionally, a reference to 'god' does not necessarily mean 'Jesus' or the Christian god. One would think that if the country was to be founded on Christian principles, 'Jesus' would appear somewhere in the Constitution, or indeed any document relating to the founding of the country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
This is the first I've ever heard of Article 11 not existing. The sources I found expressing the same ideas are questionable.


Questionable - why? They are listed in several books.

research conducted by a Dutch scholar, Dr. C. Snouk Hurgronje, published in The Christian Statesman in 1930. Hurgronje located the only surviving Arabic copy of the treaty and found that when translated, Article 11 was actually a letter, mostly gibberish, from the dey of Algiers to the ruler of Tripoli.

Insofar as I am aware, Hurgronje is the definitive source for the arabic text.

More interesting comments here: http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.php


Perhaps I could take your claims remotely seriously if you didn't continue to cite poorly written religious websites. Yale, for instance, shows Article 11 in the Treaty. Yale is generally held in a higher regard than the Tekton Ministry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
...
My points are as follows:

1. Barlow spoke no arabic; and was a religious skeptic. For a treaty to be in force, both sides must have a common understanding. If I offer you 100,000 for your house and you require $200,000 - I am sure you will not vacate the premises when I go to move in.


And this changes Article 11 of the Treaty how, exactly?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
2. The moslems were engaged in jihad (yes, even then!) - and preyed upon the shipping of christian nations. This is a matter of historical record. The US had reason therefor to say that it was not a christian nation.

If, in fact the founders had intended to convey that we were not a christian nation - that same text would have been included in subsequent treates. If, however, the text was a fig leaf; or if it was merely accepting a disagreeable language for the sake of getting a deal - it would not be included in subsequent treaties. It was not.
To the contrary, texts reaffirm that we are. These were the treaties you summarily dismissed.


Sorry, I'm not seeing any treaty that says the United States is founded on the Christian religion. Quite the opposite.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
3. The US had several hundred citizens in captivity; had little military might. Negotiating treaties meant sending an envoy (several weeks) negotiating and (several weeks)awaiting his return. There is a point at which one says - we accept this wording because it doesn't change a thing on the ground; we know what we are; and because we want our citizens back.


Seems awfully convenient, given the Founding Fathers' deist tendencies, that there are extremely few, if any, documents saying the US is following Christian principles and is a Christian nation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
4. It is also important to note what the text actually says:

quote:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fact-checking-barton-part-v-treaty-tripoli#sthash.wflizuA2.dpuf


The government is NOT founded upon a christian relgion. That is not to say the US was not a christian nation, founded by christians upon christian principles. For example - the papal estates were founded upon Catholicism - it is the only religion allowed. England is a Protestant state - the King or Queen must be Anglican.
...


Are you now suggesting Article 11 exists? I believe your last post said it did not. Which is it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
5. Regarding Danbury - your comment is rather shabby.

Jefferson and others came from Virginia where one had to be a member of the Church of England. Many religions in the US - catholics in massachusetts; baptists in Virginia; had suffered discrimination in colonies where there were an established religion.

While he, along with James Madison, stoutly opposed established churches as existed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and other states (while recognizing that, as President, he had to respect them), he was deeply committed to religious liberty. Jefferson’s letter must also be read in context of his declaration in the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom: “Almighty God hath created the mind free….” The “wall of separation” exists to affirm natural rights, including those of faith and religious worship. The “wall” does not imprison the free exercise of religion. Rather, Jefferson sought to prevent the domination of particular sects, making free the religious practices of all. (from heritage.org).


The entirety of the Bill of Rights exists primary due to the British. The Founding Fathers essentially wanted a government opposite that of the British monarchy and how the British treated their subjects. As the British forced colonials to house soldiers, the Third Amendment was born, and so forth.

This does not change the fact that Jefferson envisioned a "wall of separation" between the government and religion because mixing religion and politics rarely turns out well. It seems the religious think if they don't get their way they are somehow persecuted, or there is a 'war on religion', or something equally absurd. Religion is supposed to be a personal experience with one's chosen deity, why are the religious trying to cram their views down everyone else's throats? They're becoming worse than the anti-rights advocates who wish to disarm everyone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
...
It rests on the body of evidence - of thousands of citations in the founding fathers papers; in hundreds of supreme court sayings, in declarations such as holidays; in historical citations such as the detoqueville I quoted, and in the actions and beliefs of its inhabitants. If you say that the US is not a christian nation it would be hard to explain the blue laws - some of which linger to this day (why bars were closed on Sunday - and why some counties are "dry" for example.


Are you seriously suggesting that the US is a christian nation and citing Prohibition as a source? Prohibition was started by housewives using religion (among other things) to interfere with government in an attempt to legislate morality several hundred years after the founding of the country. As it was later repealed, what does this mean to your flimsy argument? Last Sunday I received a package from Amazon, delivered via the United States Postal Service. Does that not also damage the credibility of your "blue law" claims?

Regarding the cite of holidays as a source of the US being a Christian nation, it's laughable: the federal government recognizes Christmas along with Martin Luther King day, Thanksgiving, New Year's Day, and several other secular holidays. Perhaps this means the US government follows the same religion of Martin Luther King as it recognizes a day for him? Several Jewish friends of mine give gifts on Christmas, does that mean they are Christian?

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 1/30/2016 10:15:01 PM   
Dvr22999874


Posts: 2849
Joined: 9/11/2008
Status: offline
Anybody ever listened to the Rowan Atkinson track where he is the devil ? It's on his album "Rowan Atkinson Live in Belfast". Very funny I though and he didn't get smitten with thunderbolts because of it either.

(in reply to ifmaz)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 1/31/2016 2:51:16 AM   
Greta75


Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline
FR

I'm a total Atheist, and I think the balance needs to be there to allow everybody to practice whatever they want and not to step on each other toes intentionally to try to stop each other from their practices, as long as those practices don't harm people.

Again, I am someone who doesn't mind all religious group publicly celebrating their own festivities, whatever.

When Fox News Started the War on Christmas segment. They show a group of militant Atheists trying to get any Nativity scene displays for Christmas removed.

I am disgusted by those Atheists. I mean the thing about being Atheist is, about following yourself instead of a fictional book written by humans. But it also means, there is no universal direction on what it means to be Atheist aside from the common denominator that we all believe God is one big lie and falsehood created by human beings who want to control other human beings.

Still, as an Atheist, if people wanna take that lie seriously and keep believing in it. As long as they aren't harming others, I don't care.

Having a Nativity scene for example, with cute baby Jesus on display shouldn't be seen as something threatening or offensive.

And I think all Militant Atheists need to chill. I mean to me, it doesn't even make sense.

For example, if Twilight fans think Edward Cullen is real. And if they declare some Twilight day and stick his statue out there in public in celebration of their special occasion. Why do I care?

As for Militant Christians, I've stopped being worried about them. I'm just going to hell in their eyes. And that's okay by me. I am going to hell in their imaginary after-life. So it's like whatever, great! Satan sounds like the cooler dude anyway. I bet Jesus don't even have alcohol in heaven.

I'm more worried about Militant Muslims who wants to draw your blood while you are still of this world.

I think Atheists should spend more time focusing on the real enemy who is the real threat to Atheism, than bothering with Fundie Christians. Who will get heavy condemnation anyway, EVEN by their fellow moderate Christians.







< Message edited by Greta75 -- 1/31/2016 2:53:22 AM >

(in reply to Dvr22999874)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 1/31/2016 3:04:59 AM   
CodeOfSilence


Posts: 235
Status: offline
I'm bloody tired of the atheist "crusade" coming from America.
In Europe we have plenty of secular nations and it didn't take any of those "satan cribs" to push it there.

Although making a bit fun of the indoctrination that comes with most religions is healthy there seems to be a complete lack of understanding the good that religion brings.
Oh all these fucking documentaries from The God Delusion to Religulous. They are the most subjective crock of shit I've ever seen, even though they are pretty well produced.
There is absolutely no balance to consider the charities that religion has not only brought forward but enforced through out the ages, no room to discuss the fact that it was Christian monks who kept the knowledge of the ancients alive in Europe during the "Dark Ages" and Muslim scholars in the Middle East. There seems to be willingness to take the philosophical debate any further; to recognize that Religion is one of the few organized forms of morality and enforces obligations before rights.

And that the enforcement of rights before obligations may be what is causing all the problems in the world today.

And I say all of this like the agnostic I am, refusing what most of you probably gladly do when in the company of religious friends on general principle.

I agree with Greta on the fact that I do not care so much for militant christians anymore, or radical ones (since we do not have militants out here). They simply aren't a big threat anymore to anyones liberty.
The militant muslim is somewhat a bigger threat but IMO he's just trying to fill a void himself.

Sometimes I feel as if the self-professed, "out of the closet", atheists are the most intent on spreading their views.



< Message edited by CodeOfSilence -- 1/31/2016 3:09:53 AM >

(in reply to Greta75)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 1/31/2016 10:22:47 AM   
ifmaz


Posts: 844
Joined: 7/22/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75
...
When Fox News Started the War on Christmas segment. They show a group of militant Atheists trying to get any Nativity scene displays for Christmas removed.
...


If the nativity scenes were created using taxpayer monies or on state property then I'd agree with the "militant" atheists. Oklahoma, for instance, allowed the 10 Commandments on state property and refused to allow the Satanic Temple to display a statue as well, favoring one religion over another in clear violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Eventually Oklahoma spitefully decided to not allow any religious displays on state property, which, arguably, was the goal of the Satanic Temple in the first place.

(in reply to Greta75)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Freedom From Atheism! Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.156