dean

The authors of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, as well as many of the other founders, were Deist, not Christian. Democracy has its roots in Greek culture, such as the concept of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have no legitimate roots in Christian history or theology.
Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of those documents, was a Deist who dimissed most of contents of the Bible (including the entire Old Testament) as "barbaric trash" (his words). He, Paine, Franklin, Washington, et al, were all well aware of the history of the role of Christianity in government and its tendency toward dictatorial theocracies, and were very careful to include prohibitions on the establishment of a state sponsored religion.

"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." - T. Jefferson

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." - T. Jefferson

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." - T. Jefferson

"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." - T. Jefferson

Chazmo

Nice summaries, all.

I still disagree with line regarding Christianity's role in fostering democracy. I think economics is the big player in democracy, not religion. IMO, Christian ethics seems to lead more toward communal societies or theocracies than to democracy (which I think echoes what flts said). I do agree, though, that the American founding fathers came up with a democratic interpretation of their ethics -- I would call this secular in nature.

Chazmo

BTW, guys, anyone heard from Anarky (Jeff)????

cordycord

Chazmo's got it. Economics is the biggest player. Somehow I knew we'd hear from Dean, and his "our founding father's were Deists" stuff too. I don't care if Jeffereson said he practiced Krispy Kremism, the majority of the founding fathers had Christian backgrounds, which is evident in the government they crafted. Of course, they were mindful of the role of religion in past governments as well.

More than anything, Polly Anna says that when Iraq becomes a vibrant economy with a people who don't have to fear their government, those from other parts of the region will see that democracy isn't such a bad thing. Stuff like this rubs off.

No one here suggests that Middle Easterners don't have what it takes to adopt a democracy, right? I mean that's been disproven time and time again all over the world.

dean

Sorry, but that simply isn't true. It's a well propagated myth that has no basis in historical fact, nor does it have any evidence for a basis within the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, or the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 (1796):

"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 tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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."

Our founders were far more influenced by the "Great Enlightenment" and its humanistic philosophical writers such as Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire, etc. than they were by Christianity. While you may disagree with me, most historians do not.

ralper

I haven't been able to keep up with this thread today, we're busy in the office. I haven't read everything, but Chazmo mentions fear, and I agree. I think the enemy is fear. And, I think this administration is a master at using fear and scare tactics.

I've said it before, and I still believe, that this period in American history reminds me of everything I've read and heard of the McCarthy era. The only difference is the enemy is the "terrorist" instead of the communist.

Chazmo

The site was down all afternoon, Rob, so you didn't miss much.

So, the 64,000 dollar question that Rob wants to ask is... how much protection does America need to offer to / impose on itself and to the rest of the world from the fear of terrorism.

And on that note, good night and stay warm!

ralper

Chaz,

Thats a good question but not exactly the one I had in mind.

I was thinking more along the lines of how clever the administration has been in using fear to impose upon our civil rights and civil liberties and to gain approval of its agenda.

Fear is a very powerful tool/weapon and the Bush administration has mastered it's use. I just wonder how long it's going to take for the country to wake up and come out from under its spell.

ralper

"Have you no sense of decency, sir, a long last? Have you no sense of decency?"


Know what that is?

cordycord

I think that the events in Iraq are very polarizing. As such, statements made by the government can be taken as "fear-mongering". There is no way that I can say that what anyone hears and interprets is not what they think! If you think it sounds like catering to people's fear, then it is. Simple as that.

However, I think it's the "angle" at which people look at these conflicts. That's why I love calling myself a Polly Anna. In another sense, I feel like I'm taking the long approach to this conflict. I remember when the media was telling ALL OF US that the Afghan conflict would take 10,000 American lives, that NO COUNTRY had ever controlled Afghanistan--not even Ghengis Khan (there's a subtle comparison ), and that the Taliban were like the Japanese in that they would die to the last person. Well, it was a little easier than that.

Frankly, Afghanistan still sucks. I wouldn't want to live there, let alone even travel through it on a bus tour. However, we, ALL OF US, can be proud of the FACT that young women are getting educations, infrastructure is returning, and what I would consider to be our GOOD influence is seen throughout the country. BUT, it didn't take that long, and will get better.

Now Iraq hasn't had a democratic election in about, say, 8,000 years! Will there be problems? Of course!!! I am very heartened by the fact that no one on this thread is taking the Ted (I'm a drunk) Kennedy approach--Bush is a liar, our troops aren't doing any good--it doesn't take a genius to read between the lines to see that Kennedy thinks that America is evil. We on the right obviously feel that after Kennedy checks into Betty Ford, he needs a serious reality check.

My point is that Iraq hasn't even had the election yet. Give them time. Give us time. Should we argue the points of occupation in Iraq? ABSOLUTELY. Every day! But to say that Bush lies, the government is using McCarthyist tactics to further their agenda and the like is counterproductive.