If you were of the wrong denomination centuries earlier in Europe, you could literally be put to death or tortured into converting.

and in the wrong colony here at the time the documents were written, you could be jailed, and some were hung for heresy here.

Pennsylvania was much better than most...due to their Quaker heritage.

Ridiculous Sanctimonious is trying to make sure we get a first-hand taste of it for ourselves . The Puritans came here for freedom of religion and one of their early acts was to persecute those who did not believe as they did - that's how we got Rhode Island due to their attitude and actions toward Roger Williams who actually DID advocate (and walked the walk) religious tolerance.

That's not a drive, it's a short putt.

Now that was funny, coffee through nose moment.

I don't like golf

these quotes are not perceived by the right wing brain or they are mis-interpreted to mean the founding fathers were Christians.

Seriously.

RW'ers seem to suffer from a very serious cognitive defect/selective perception problem.

I'm looking forward to Chris Mooney's new book, "The Republcan Brain" to bring me up to date on the latest scientific research into this phenomea.

The book is not released unitl next month, but you can read a synopsis and critical findings here:

The Republican Brain: Why Even Educated Conservatives Deny Science -- and Reality
New research shows that conservatives who consider themselves well-informed and educated are also deeper in denial about issues like global warming.
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/154252/the_republican_brain_why_even_educated_conservatives_deny_science__and_reality

the book before.

Sounds like it will be greeted with lots of growls and groans from the Right and religious folks.

It appears the real lesson of the book/article isn't that Republicans are dumb; instead it is a very important lesson for us liberals/progressives about why reasoning with conservatives doesn't work and, in fact, may make matters worse. It means that we should reconsider our strategy of "the truth shall make you free" when dealing with Republican/tea-party/conservative types because the research indicates that it only polarizes them more. The same research seems to indicate that conservatives are more focused on negative images and defensive postures, and, the more they become involved in politics and their images and stereotypes are reinforced the more entrenched they become in their beliefs...

This is breakthrough stuff in my opinion. I have been debating with conservatives for a long time and I can't remember one mind I've changed through either reason or eloquence....time to try something else...

I'm ordering the book from Amazon now!!!!

Looks like a good book to get.

with the concept can google it and find some pretty decent explanations. What they won't find, at least I haven't found, is how to deal with these people.

If you can't reach someone with facts, then what? Actually, Fox has shown that you deal with them through fear and anger mongering. But how does that help us in the cause of getting the RWAFs to come to their senses and accept reality?

My fear is that they are lost to the world of reason and more and more people seem to be getting sucked into the void.

Authoritarian followers (Right Wing Authoritarians/RWAs) Excerpt

Once someone becomes a leader of the high RWAs' in-group, he can lie with impunity about the out-groups, himself, whatever, because he knows the followers will seldom check on what he says, nor will they expose themselves to people who set the record straight. Furthermore they will not believe the truth if they somehow get exposed to it, and if the distortions become absolutely undeniable, they will rationalize it away and put it in a box. If the scoundrel's duplicity and hypocrisy lands him on the front page of every daily in the country, the followers will still forgive him if he just says the right things. [Book 2006] The Authoritarians” by Bob Altemeyer p.100

And while most Americans came to realize what a mistake the war in Iraq has turned out to be, high RWAs lagged far behind. They listen to the news they want to hear. They surround themselves with people who think like they do. They believe the leaders who tell them what they want to be told. They make about as much effort to get both sides of an issue as the Bush administration does to foster different points of view within the White House. And if six high RWAs are sitting in a room talking about the war, and all six now have misgivings, it will still be hard for any of them to say so because the ethic of group solidarity is so strong in the authoritarian mind.

Is there any conceivable evidence or revelation that will lead them to admit the war was a mistake? I suspect some of them will eventually, begrudgingly reach that point, and others will rewrite their personal histories and say they had their doubts from the start. But others, petrified by their dogmatism, will never admit the undeniable. [Book 2006] The Authoritarians” by Bob Altemeyer p.99

It's easy to see why authoritarian followers would be dogmatic, isn't it? When you haven't figured out your beliefs, but instead absorbed them from other people, you're really in no position to defend them from attack. Simply put. you don 't know why the things you believe are true. Somebody else decided they were, and you're taking their word for it. So what do you do when challenged?

Well first of all you avoid challenges by sticking with your own kind as much as possible, because they're hardly likely to ask pointed questions about your beliefs. But if you meet someone who does, you'll probably defend your ideas as best you can, parrying thrusts with whatever answers your authorities have pre-loaded into your head. If these defenses crumble, you may go back to the trusted sources. They probably don't have to give you a convincing refutation of the anxiety-producing argument that breached your defenses, just the assurance that you nonetheless are right. But if the arguments against you become overwhelming and persistent, you either concede the point—which may put the whole lot at risk—or you simply insist you are right and walk away, clutching your beliefs more tightly than ever.

That's what authoritarian followers tend to do. And let's face it, it's an awfully easy stand to take. You have to know a lot nowadays to stake out an intelligent, defendable position on many issues. But you don't have to know anything to insist you're right, no matter what. Dogmatism is by far the best fall-back defense, the most impregnable castle, that ignorance can find. It's also a dead give-away that the person doesn't know why he believes what he believes. [Book 2006] The Authoritarians” by Bob Altemeyer p.93

The Right-Wing Id Unzipped: Excerpt

Here again we see the paradoxical nature of the authoritarian personality: rebelling against authority while hungering for it - exactly as the contemporary right wing fancies it is rebelling against big government while calling for intrusive social legislation and militarism. In the midst of dire economic circumstances, why do they expend inordinate energy brooding over contraception, abortion, abstinence education, gay marriage and so forth and attempt to transform their obsessions into law? Reich said:

The formation of the authoritarian structure takes place through the anchoring of sexual inhibition and sexual anxiety.... The result of this process is fear of freedom and a conservative, reactionary mentality. Sexual repression aids political reaction not only through this process which makes the mass individual passive and unpolitical but also by creating in his structure an interest in actively supporting the authoritarian order. The suppression of natural sexual gratification leads to various kinds of substitute gratifications. Natural aggression, for example, becomes brutal sadism which then is an essential mass-psychological factor in imperialistic wars.

Other excellent works in this new sub-discipline that I have read, and highly recommend include:

Moral Poltics, George Lakoff (cognitive linguist, MIT)

The Political Brain, George Lakoff (cognitive linguist, MIT)

The Political Mind, Drew Weston (psychologist, Emory)

The Reactionary Mind, Corey Robin (Brooklyn College)

Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics, (Marc J. Hetherington & Jonathan D. Weiler)

Looking forward to this.

I hadn't heard of it but my Kindle is anxiously awaiting it.

By the author of 'The Use of Microscopes in Psychological Research?'

Now the RW heads from my childhood can commence to explode.

They very much believed God created the Universe.

Madison, in the years after Virginia disestablished the Episcopal Church, commented on how much the church improved, and how much less corruption there was in the Episcopal clergy, once it had been disensnared from government. Up to the late 1700s, Anglican/Espiscopal priests were paid by the state (usually in bales of tobacco paid as taxes by Virginians of all faiths to their loca parish). What Madison discovered was that when state power and church office were mixed, there were a certain number of priests who were just in it for the profit. When the church offices became self sustaining--meaning all people paid fewer taxes and Lutherans, Baptists, & Quakers didn't have to pony up for Episcopalian "salaries"--the quality of the priests improved. Men got in it for the piety and for the calling, not for the weed.

I think the larger point here is that when preachers stick to preachin' and politicians stick to politickin', we're all better off.

I agree completely, this is why I no longer attend church. If they are not a "cult", they are most definitely politicians!

And it's a big stretch to say that Jefferson "believed God created the universe." The man redacted his Bible to take out all the hocus pocus.

And, I don't know if I would call Paine an atheist. Even in The Age of Reason he professed a belief in god, undoubtedly a deist one. Indeed, he was probably a non-believer but to profess that publicly would not have been a good idea. Although I'm far from an expert on Paine, I don't think he ever expressed non-belief in god.

Deists do believe a God created the world and established the laws of nature, but that's about all that being did. He doesn't answer prayers, he doesn't intervene at all in the affairs of mankind, and he certainly didn't send his son to die for our sins. The deist God and Yahweh are completely different deities.

Or was he Right Wing?

He was also a lifetime member of the Republican Party.

Enjoy your stay.

These great leaders felt about the establishment clause in the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The founders (and like many you cherry pick who the 'founders' are) had many views on religion. Most were religious although some did not express that as a fundamentalist of 2012 might.

For you to quote an open atheist (Paine) on the value of religion is someone strange. Dogs not liking cats is not exactly news. You do know of course that at the time of Paine's death he was hated in the U.S. because his views on religion. Only 6 people came to his funeral and no cemetery would accept his body. It ended up in Paris where it eventually disappeared.

You find it strange that an atheist should be quoted on the religion? I find that very, very odd indeed, my dear.

When the poster is trying to imply the self selected 'founders' were all against religion. That is intellectual dishonesty, my dear.

Not against religion.
FOR separation of church and state.

Countless people came to these shores so they could freely exercise their religion in a place where the state wouldn't give them a hassle about it.

Really.

then it begs the question of why every one of the 13 states had their own official state religion at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. One of the reasons the First Amendment was ratified was because the states did not want the federal government establishing a national religion which would interfere with the state religions.

Just curious, would it be acceptable in your view if Alabama wanted to make Southern Baptist their official state religion?

The first amendment was one of the first of the BoR they did so now states can't have an official religion anymore than the federal government can. Over the years they did that with other amendments and the last one was the 2nd amendment which they applied to the states in the McDonald v. Chicago decision in 2010.

I doubt it. I'm sure I've heard him compare himself to Thomas Paine. It might be worthwhile trying to educate a few Beckerheads on the subject.

he said something like..."Tom Paine was great, but at the end of his life he turned into a bitter atheist"

In the Preface to "The Age of Reason", Paine said he'd held these beliefs all his life, but waited til he was old to publish them.

But as the years wore on and people found out about his views on religion he was shunned by one and all. If Beck ends up like Paine -- a man without a country -- that would be fine with me.

Paine was a deist, not an atheist. He despised the religions of his day, but accepted a Clockmaker God.

Your second paragraph is correct, but pointless. Paine was hated in his day, so what? He was centuries ahead of his time, its no surprise he was hated. Or should we judge people based on a popularity of contest? Hell, even Jesus (if he lived at all) was hated in his own time. Your logic is flawed.

about the views of people living 250 years ago. I don't because I know the lives, living conditions and institutions of those people were incredibly different than we have.

I put in the second paragraph because people trying to prove that "founders" hated religion always cite Paine as one of the "founders". I think if you asked Washington, Madison, Jefferson, etc. in the late 1700s if Paine was a leader they -- and most Americans --would disagree -- to say the least.

He wasn't an atheist, despite what you and others say.

but ok he was a deist. So what? My point is whatever his religious views were, by the time of the formation of the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution he was detested by most Americans.

Irrespective of his personal beliefs he was in a very real sense one of the founders, one whose views inspired and guided the course of the Revolution, and his thoughts are more appropriately considered with regard to the intent of the founders than current right wingers would have us think--this, although in some contexts, many on the right would have us think that Paine's views support their positions (and who knows, perhaps in some ways, on some points, they might.)

Without Paine it is doubtful the Revolution would have happened -- at least at the time it did. But by time the new country was actually being formed he was shunned by most Americans.

he still remained of friendly terms with Jefferson, and after nearly being executed pursuant to orders from the Committee of Public Saftey, he then resuming his seat in the French Assembly after Robespierre's fall. He then moved back to America after the rise of Napolean, and continued to live in America until his death in 1809.

"Mankind will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"

For more quotes and references supporting the Separation of Church & State, click the link below.

"This compendium is an excellent reference for debating zealots who claim that this is a "Christian Nation", all of Founding Fathers were twice borns, and other nonsense."

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html#II

Mr. Paine was once a tax collector. He saw his parents, while growing older, attempt to survive and pay their taxes. He believed that the elderly should be cared for. He believed that women should have the right to vote.

He was close to being beheaded in france; because he vocally opposed the amount of bloodshed-the number of people going to the guillotine just for voicing "enough is enough."

Apparently, he was quite the imbiber. But, I believe Mr. Paine was even more progressive than some of his colleagues.

Ratified Unanimously by Congress, signed by President John Adams in 1797.

"As the United States is not in any sense a Christian nation"

Article VI section 2, U.S. Constitution: Supremacy Clause. Treaties and the Constitution are the Supreme Law of the land.

Article VI, Section 3, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States."

it into law.

I thought it was 5/6 rather than 4/5 but apparently the Paine in the Senate at the time, wasn't the Robert Paine on the DoI.

should also be included in your list.

I remember reading in his autobiography where he was very proud that any person or group "including the sultan of Instanbull" could, if he so chose, come rent the public hall in Philadelphia--the same building that later became Independence Hall, and speak to anyone who chose to come to hear.

For sharing true reason and sanity. Our forefathers are twirling in their graves.

excuse or twist the words. So many of them insist this is a Christian country

and or stupid