Lilairen, you miss the whole point of cjhoworth’s point there – “While these ideals are held by peaceful honest people of all sorts, and not exclusively Christians, it is a fact that American Christianity has historically supported them, and most Christians continue to do so today.”
Reading “sole property” into her post is assuming that she’s in total agreement with the Falwells and Robertsons who make the “this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles” claim – a stance she was at pains to distance herself from.
I have never been threatened by a Christian in any way. On the contrary, I find most of them to be harmless, and their women most accomodating and friendly.
I might have missed the point of cjhoworth’s post if I hadn’t been responding to Soup_du_Jour; given that I was responding to the latter rather than the former, I suggest you may have missed the point of mine.
There’s no vast liberal conspiracy to destroy religion, because, frankly, you have to care about something in order to expend the effort to destroy it.
Liberals couldn’t care less what you believe in, as long as you do not try to impose those beliefs on others, or infringe upon their rights to do as they wish. I know it’s flattering to feel that liberals fear and despise Christian power, but it’s just not the case. As a historian, though, I for one resent the recent efforts to edit history to the religious right’s liking.
From the earliest days of the nation until the present, efforts have been made to amend the Constitution to include recognition of God and Christianity. The repeated failure of those attempts led to a new strategy in recent years - namely, to rewrite history to claim that God and Christianity have always been the force behind the founding of our nation, even if it wasn’t “in writing”. In reality, nothing has been lost in the apparent “secularization” of society. It wasn’t there to start with. America was never “a Christian nation”.
The religious folk of early America were not happy with the new Constitution, even from the beginning. Many pseudonymous pamphleteers attacked the “godless” nature of the American Constitution. One writer in the * Virginia Independent Chronicle * warned the public of the “pernicious effects” of the Constitution’s “general disregard of religion.” Thomas Wilson of Virginia said the “composers” of the Constitution “had no thought of God in all their consultations.” Rev. Timothy Dwight of Yale University said: “The nation has offended Providence. We formed our Constitution without any acknowledgement of God . . . The Convention, by which it was formed, never asked even once, His direction, or His blessings, upon their labours. Thus we commenced our national existence under the present system, without God.”
Early American society was a lot more secular than we’ve been led to believe. While most colonists gave nominal adherence to Christian values in the late eighteenth century, only 6.9 per cent of US citizens were registered as belonging to churches in 1800. (Considering also that a “church” is loosely defined to include a meeting in a home.) The number rose to 15.5 per cent in 1850 and 43.5 per cent in 1910 and only exceeded 50 per cent in 1942. Over time, our society has become more religious, rather than less so.
One German observer, Gottlieb Mittelberger, summed it up neatly in 1754: “Pennsylvania is heaven for farmers, paradise for artisans, and hell for officials and preachers.” Philadelphia may have already acquired twelve churches by 1752, but it had *fourteen * rum distilleries.
The 1891 * History of Dartmouth College * lamented: “In 1798 the state of religion was so far reduced that but a single member of the class of 1799 was publicly known as a professing Christian.” Such unbelief wasn’t limited to the universities either. Rev. Ashbel Green, of the Second Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia (The “Asa Green” referred to in Jefferson’s journalsI quoted in my last post) was chaplain of the US Congress from 1792 to 1800. He complained that very few members of Congress attended prayers and attributed two-thirds of the absence to the prevalence of free thought among politicians. Such unbelief wasn’t limited to the educated either. The historian of Windham County, Connecticut wrote in 1880 that the post-revolutionary period was one where, “ . . . secular affairs were most flourishing, but religion had sadly declined . . . Infidelity and Universalism had come in with the Revolution and drawn multitudes from the religious faith of their fathers. Free-thinking and free-drinking were alike in vogue.”
I hope all of you realize H4E won’t read any of this, and if she happens to see it by accident, she’ll quickly close her browser and turn on the 700 Club. She “Knows” the “Truth” thus other people’s facts are completely irrelevant.
Not to be an nitpicking little busybody, but which denominations of Christianity do you consider to be specifically American? Or are you saying that (since I did not find the phrase "American Christianity anywhere in cj’s post, nor a place where you replaced what she said with said phrase, so I’m asking you:)) Christianity as it has manifested itself in America has supported those three principles? Because I have to disagree with you on that one. Not all Christians have, and for that matter some are rather notorious for not supporting “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” for all people. Or even for all men. It was the Bible, remember, that was quoted when supporting slavery. It has been used to support anti-female activity/action, and you can see people on this board using it against the feminist movement. It is now the Bible being used to support anti-gay thought legislation, activity, etc., and you can see it on this very board from American Christians.
I do think that many American Christians have tried to support life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But all of them, since the 17th century? Sorry, Poly, I gotta disagree.
[on preview]
Mothchunks, I think I got your dose of Christian threatening/abuse when I was in high school. I think just about every member of this board who isn’t straight got their share of yours as well. You must have had quite the quiet childhood;)
Well thanks for that. I’m sure H4e will be touched by your compassion and hope that, while she might not have closely examined things people took time out of their day to write/find for her, she will this time.
No, really.
Could we have one thread in GD, JUST ONE, where people don’t immediately start think-posting that the person in question isn’t going to open her mind? Do you think maybe that shows a lack of respect that, if presented to me, would tell me the people talking at me were wasting my time?
Ok, my mistake. Sure there’s a chance that a devout, born-again christian will completely revise her views on American history and law, thus agreeing with the infidels that god really isn’t supposed to be flaunted and central to everything we, as Americans, do. Yeah, there’s a good chance of that (and I say this having read many of h4e’s posts). Mea culpa.
Kalt, perhaps it is because I see people saying “she’ll never change” and then she doesn’t, much. But when people don’t say that, she does listen. Whether or not you feel it is due, giving someone respect makes them listen a lot more than not doing so does.
And I say that having read every single post H4e has made that’s still able to be viewed. Okay, I might have missed a dozen or so, but she and I get into the same threads. Go figger…
gobear, for you to say that I have no knowledge of H4e’s posting history you must not remember that I’ve been with you in just about every thread featuring her. I’ve seen her change when she was given respect and I’ve seen her simply say “my ball. I go home now. Bad non-Christian!” when people started attacking her. But if you honestly want her to change you have to lay off her. If it pains you to think you’re pandering to someone who’ll waste your time (and must thus include the “she’ll never listen” “caveat”), there’s a remedy for that: don’t post to respond to her at all. The world will not collapse in a giant heave if you don’t.
Think of it this way: if someone were going to try to convince you that God existed and the Bible was the inspired word of God, would you be more willing to listen to someone who approached it from Poly’s point of view, or would you rather be told first-thing “your thoughts are bilge and you are utterly devoid of reason, logic or single, solitary fact”?
Before this turns into a pile-on, I have one question for His4Ever and Jersey_Diamond and those that think as they do:
Why do you consider it necessary to label our country as a Christian nation? In a very real sense we already are a Christian nation, since the majority of the population practices some form of Christianity. Why the need for official notice on this? Our nation has gotten along fine for almost 227 years without an official religion.
At best, it’s a poor revision of history. At worst, I feel you’re truly succceed and people like myself will be imprisoned or killed for the “crime” of idolotary and/or homosexuality.
American law is based on the U.S. Constitution not the Declaration of Independence, and the DoI is, frankly, a rather hypocritical document. The founding fathers specifically excluded women and non-whites from having a voice in demoocracy.
I was rebutting two assertions, namely that the US was founded on equality and freedom, and that equality and freedom were Christian principles. Neither of those statements is true
She posted something you believe was bilge. Poly, for his part, felt her original comment was worthy of re-education. Not “she’s totally ignorant so let’s insult her”, but “let’s share with her what the truth actually is”. I have noticed that the best way to get H4e to understand where I (or whoever) is coming from has a definite lack of insults thrown in. YMMV, but I don’t recall you reaching her with your own personal style.
I could just as easily call some of your posts bilge, but I recognize that the way to get you to see my POV isn’t to insult you.
I know you don’t think highly of her or her thoughts or much of anything else about her. We all know there are some people on this MB who wouldn’t be terribly sad were she to leave. However, while she’s here why not make some effort to educate her without leaving a sour taste in her mouth?
Beside which, if you feel the need to insult her, there is a forum for that. Both you and she are aware of its whereabouts:)
I’m not going to outright tell you what to do, as I think you know by now. However, isn’t it rather a waste of your time to post something knowing that the person to whom you’ve directed the post isn’t going to listen? That’s precisely why I’ve been (I think) polite to her thus far and why I’ve taken several hours to compose my thoughts here. If I didn’t think she or her bedfellows (so to speak;)) would listen I wouldn’t bother writing the post with them in mind. It’s precisely because I have seen my method work before (albeit most strongly not here but in email) that I continue to use it. At best we re-educate her. At worst we re-educate someone else. What’s the harm in trying*?
*[sub]I know we’ve tried before. But really, how hard is it to lay off insulting her? There’s even a specially-provided place for it should you get fed up with whoever.[/sub]
Whatever anyone thinks of H4E, she hasn’t been here in this thread, so why is anyone discussing her outside of what Polycarp asked us to discuss (which were her ideas, not her character)? The OP was Polycarp’s, not H4E, and he explicitly asked that we talk about the substance of the claims, and not flame H4E.
As to the issue of Christian values: it doesn’t make sense to say that those particular values, interpreted as we understand them today, were or were not characteristic of Christianity. Certainly, they have become very important to most Christians today. But they were not always so for all the Christians of that period, and even less so before that period. It’s not that you couldn’t find support for them if you tried, but they were not necessarily the big ticket items, central to the Christianity practiced in revolutionary times the way they are made out to be, and it’s ahistorical to pretend that people of the past had modern sensibilities, anymore than it is that Washington would have approved of the fantastic President’s Day prices on the Dodge Escort. Other, also laudable values took precedence: in Washington’s take, for instance, the prime values included justice, loving mercy, charity, humility and a pacific temper of mind. Equality and liberty, remember, were controversial political principles, and they and their interpretation remained controversial well into the next century among Americans.
On the subject of fabricated examples of the piety of the founding fathers, I’ll close with this little gem. A popular Madison quote that comes up a lot is “Religion is the foundation of government.” It’s been featured in countless instances of testimony on issues of school prayer and so on, quoted by Senators, bandied about by talk show hosts. It even has a cite: it comes from the text “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments”
But wait, where in that text can this statement be found? It turns out that it has been “interpreted” out of the following passage in Section 15. You tell me if this is a fair interpretation of Madison’s words, and whether using this passage to support government sponsored religion is a legitimate usage, or a perverse travesty.
“Because finally, “the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his religion according to the dictates of conscience” is held by the same tenure with all his other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consider the “Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of government,” it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis.”
The latter, pun – and my statement included “historically.” While I can agree with the implication of your posts that many vocal Evangelicals fail to demonstrate support for those principles today (though many of them would disagree, nuancing their stance) and one finds regular instances of values-imposition ranging from the “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion” campaign to Prohibition, I’m talking about Joe Q. Public, member and moderately regular attender of the First Methodist Church or St. Mary’s or their equivalent, good citizen, from 30 or 50 or 80 years ago, who sees what he conceives of as Christian values and what he conceives of as American values as going hand in hand. I refuse to allow the Falwells and Robertsons to claim an exclusive right to what Joe Q. stood for all those years, and pervert it into their personal vision of what a theocratic Amerika might be.
But that’s a minor sidelight on the main theme, IMHO. Have I cleared up the disagreement sufficiently to satisfy you?
On His4Ever: The lady is staunch in her beliefs, and quite accepting of what people “on her side” tell her. And often what they have to say is so sufficiently slanted and skewed from the facts as to make the December thread that most irritates you individually look to you like objective reportage in comparison. She’s quite capable of listening to another POV – IMHO, she has a harder than usual time grasping a perspective significantly different from her own – but if it’s presented in a way that doesn’t flame her, she’ll do her best to understand and respond intelligently. I speak from experience, being moderator of a forum on another board where she posts regularly, and on which we tend to disagree on a regular basis.
And do not forget that not only the person you’re responding to, either directly or obliquely, but numerous third party posters and lurkers, are reading what you say. The most important impact of your post may be on somebody you never know you’ve affected, the conservative Christian who feels that “something’s just not right about what I’ve been told here” and needs the facts in order to decide what’s right.
gobear, I don’t demand that everyone share my POV, but you’ll recall me posting several times that I’ve committed myself before God to “strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being.” That emphatically means you, and I’ve stood at your side in a number of fights. But it means His4Ever too.
I should have mentioned the final irony: “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” is Madison’s case against a bill in the Commonwealth of Virginia that would have provided “a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion.”
One key quote: “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?”
“Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.”
The entire document is a powerful case for separation of church and state in the full meaning of that concept, as well as for civil liberties in general and libertarian defenses of an individual’s right to be free from coercion, including monetary.
“Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it.”
