A challenge- name ONE single president who never mentions

God, or a personal belief in a "higher power" in ANY of his political discourse.

Go right back to George Washington himself-
I've looked, I cannot find one-

While 'religion' has never seemed as oppressive and suffocating in the political arena as it is today- I have yet to find one single president who did not make mention to 'God' or "Creator"s or "Higher Power"s something that is often seen as 'nut job' talk by several posters here at DU-

I in NO way advocate a 'national religion'- but I also object to the disdain and judgmental attitude that anyone who dares suggest that having a 'spiritual' aspect to ones life, equates with insanity-

Any Takers?

JFK invoked God, very directly far more than I would EVER have thought-
But he's not alone- and not the only Democrat to do so.

And his speeches make reference to "the Almighty," I think.

he even uses 'god'-

war?

(Assuming you're talking about bush.)

President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals.

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
====================================================================================================================================

Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day. His history degree from Yale makes him mindful of the importance of the moment. He knows he's making "history-changing decisions," Evans says. But Bush doesn't keep a diary or other personal record of the events that will form his legacy. Aides take notes, but there's no stenographer in most meetings, nor are they videotaped or recorded.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-01-bush-cover_x.htm
====================================================================================================================================

:hi:

something about God telling him there would be no casualties.

Usually when one hears voices, however, it's cause for alarm.

Even as a Christian, I've never understood saying that God was talking to you. Oh, I could grok the occasional eerie coincidence or odd feeling and such, but not actual words for pete's sake.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, I loved the headline in the Onion that went something like "Voice of God turns out to be Cheney on the intercom."

and my own personal opinion is that the notion that 'god' chose bush to lead him into war, is a kind of pr move- one that is being used to exploit a segment of the population.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if some ex-presidents didn't secretly believe they were doing 'god's will' when they made some of their decisions.-

I'm not justifying what is happening in this administration, or the way 'religion' is being USED to manipulate people, what I am trying to point out is that while there is- by Constitutional Declaration- to be NO 'National Religion' there is, by Constitutional Declaration to be the freedom for anyone to believe in a religion, or embrace a spiritual life, without fear of being hated, demeaned, or shunned either.

Tolerance- of ALL people-

By private people -- sometimes people forget that no one has to have their lifestyle given the "seal of approval." Yes, people should be free from crimes committed against them that rob them of their person, property or work, but no way should anyone have to be forced to "like" something. Tolerance just means you grit your teeth, and go on whittling -- I fear for a nation where the "good" and the "bad" are legislated -- the authoritarian fascist police state. I am free to call religious people crazy, so long as I don't burn down their houses, stalk their kids or shoot their dogs. Understand the difference? Maybe the second isn't so "nice," but that's the RIGHT that I have -- the right to my opinion. Other people have the right to their predilictions, but they DO NOT have the right to me endorsing their delusions.

sexual orentaion slurs? ethnic slurs?

After all, if you have the right to 'like' whatever you do, and if you aren't robbing them of their person, property or work- how about the right to simply 'be' without shame or ridicule?

Oh, that this world didn't require legislation to treat each other with common respect and dignity- from all directions- but we are notoriously BAD at that- Ask MLKjr. Ask Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Ask Matthew Shepherd, or the folks in NOLA- Hey, didn't BABs have every right to say what she did about the 'folks who were underprivlidged' without anyone batting an eye???

I guess i am a bleeding heart liberal- i don't feel anyone should be made to feel any aspect of their being is something to be ashamed of, or thought less of for-

The government is also not in the business of protecting everyone's feelings.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

but have you noticed how many things are 'bleeped' out on the radio and tv???
And you might want to ask Mr.Stern about his 'rights' to say what he wants, without being muzzled- now, an awful lot of what he has to say i find really crass- and 'over the top'- (my 22yr old son listens to him, and is looking forward to monday)- but i can always turn off the radio-

Beyond that though, I'm not addressing 'peoples' feelings- I'm addressing a kind of 'hatred'- like ethnic/racial/creed/sexual denegration of a person simply BECAUSE we acknowledge that some of us have a deeply held, and vital part of 'who we are' (spirituality)-
I would NEVER denegrate a person because they did not embrace a 'spiritual' life- all I ask is to be shown the same respect-

Guess that leaves us with the question of 'hate-speech'-

and i'm so tired i can't see the keyboard anymore so i'm gonna quit here-

thanks for the input-
blu

"Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes."

Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865, Washington D.C.

The Almighty has His OWN purposes...

Lincoln knew what he was talking about.

I get so sick of politicians, athletes, musicians, movie stars and other celebrities who think that they "own" God and can make God do little tricks for them like win the war, or score the next touchdown, or get them that Grammy. And it is preachers too who think and act this way with their pontificating "Oh Lord, hear our Prayer..blah blah blah" Do you really think that God is listening, Reverend Robertson, Reverend Falwell when you pray for hateful or selfish things?

All these so-called "Christians" need to go and reread Matthew Chapter 6 where Jesus tells his followers to pray in private and to not make an idiot out of themselves by trying to show off in public. Basically if you read it you'll see that Jesus opposes school prayer too...

Matthew 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

comparison to bush- and there in lies the 'fruit'- in my belief.

No arrogance, no 'I'm right and your wrong' only "may what I do BE right" -

Tremendous difference between bush and Lincoln.

Whenever I hear so-called religious people making a big show of praying and worshipping God. Usually the loudest worshippers are the biggest hypocrites.

"we pray humbly not that God is on our side, but that we are on God's side."

object to with this admin. They seem to be trying to force THEIR beliefs on every American! I'm a Catholic and fairly religious, but Shrub pissed me off with his claims about following God's guide etc! He and his RW followers are trying to tell EVERYONE if you don't believe in everything that we do, you're WRONG!!!!

Everyone is free to believe as they choose, and Shrub isn't willing to accept that!

said that Muslims worship the same god as 'Christians' alienating his 'base' of the far right, who disagree vehemently-
But I know exactly what you are saying- and I don't approve of the way this administration keeps mingling 'religious' and 'governmental' issues.

My frustration, is with those vehement atheists, some of whom I've gone head to head with here on DU who fall as far off the chart against any 'spiritual' beliefs rational, sane, and devoted progressive Democrats may hold, as those on the opposite end of the spectrum.

I'm not about forcing anyone to believe anything they aren't willing to- but neither should they be able to take away the rights of others who do embrace a spiritual side of themselves.

And looking back throughout the history of this nation, I find more outward and overt references to a belief in something "intellect" could never prove exists, than I ever realized was there.

I have yet to see an example of anyone being denied their constitutional right to practice their religion - anywhere.

But then again, I've been kinda tied up with the "War on Christmas" and all, so maybe I missed it.

:P

It's nonsense like that that makes the 'believers' look ridiculous .

what I am refering to.
This post was something I'd been thinking of writing anyway.
Last night I read several posts refering to those who believe in the existance or the posibility that a spiritual, or non..... tangible ... realm may indeed exist, makes someone a (exact quote) "nutjob"-

We all have differing opinions, beliefs, perspectives, and lifestyles- I would not claim that anyone who didn't accept my 'view' as theirs was insane, demented, deluded, ignorant or stupid- and all I ask is the same degree of tolerance or respect in return.

If you'd like me to cite some exact incidences that have happened recently, I'll do so- Demeaning someone for their spiritual beliefs, or lack there-of is a kind of bigotry and hatred too.

As for how one 'looks'- that (in my opinion) should be the last thing that enters into a persons decision to reject, or accept a way of thinking, or perspective about life.

When a gay person is ridiculed solely on the basis of their sexual orentation, that is wrong. When a person who professes a belief in something that involves the spiritual dimension in their life is ridiculed, and ostracised, that is also wrong-
It's hard enough to buck some of the ' right wing' predjuice against those of us who part company with hard line fundementalism, it is all the more discouraging to find it also so rampant in this community where diversity is (i've thought) something to be celebrated, and accepted rather than excluded or belittled for.

Sorry, but I can't be silent in the face of predjuce-

(edited in an attempt at clarity)

They don't. They are simply others opinions on your opinions.

You absolutely cannot compare someone disagreeing with your opinion on matters of religion to someone who is CONCRETELY discriminated against - under the law (i.e. minority groups).

No one is preventing you from doing anything, whereas some people absolutely are being denied the ability to do specific things - by legislation.

Is it rude to call people names because they differ from you? Sure! It should be socially unacceptable to be mean, belittling, aggressive, etc when unprovoked, and for the most part it is. That is why most of us find RWers and their behavior repugnant. I also see DUers get spanked by other DUers for being unnecessarily hostile or rude.

But, you have to take responsibility for putting your opinions out there in the realm of public comment, to be held up to examination. If you feel strongly about them (like in matters of faith), WHO CARES WHAT THEY THINK????

Like I said, I have some irrational superstitions (petty things), but I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE THINKS about them, they are my silly superstitions - tee hee!

of dreaming of a more perfect world- and wanting to point out ways in which we, who claim the better path (as opposed to 'conservatives') fall far short of where we say we are.

sorry- it's not that i care what someone thinks- it's the acceptance of people calling others 'lesser than' based on the fact that they disagree with them- denegrating the person, not the belief.

(and deeper layers than i seem to be able to convey)

There is no God.

:shrug:

And you do. We don't need a God to tells us.

not for me. Nobody needs to TELL me what is right or wrong. Biblegod says it's okay, and in fact commands, killing one's own children for being disobedient, and tells us just what is the right way to sell daughters for profit, and to whom we can do so.

Do we depend upon that guidance for morality? Or do we use our own reason?

just as easily. That's reasonable isn't it?

societies, political entities (nation states, provinces, city councils), tribes, families, individuals.

You know: people.

--Cause there ain't nobody else down here.

Usually people inventing rules for themselves within their social organizations.

All the religious instruction people follow or have ever followed was invented at some time by someone no more divine than themselves. (Usually committees of people in fact and there's nothing divine about a committee even though the madness of a committee far exceeds the madness of one person) They pull their rules out of a hat, and say it came from a burning bush. They don't think they're lying when they claim the rules are unquestionable because they were divinely inspired, but then again Pat Robertson doesn't think he's a lying spiteful shitbird either.

SLap "God Says:" on the cover of a collection of these rules and sayings and it's now "Divine wisdom", a book that came from Heaven.

It's all people and only people. And ever was only people.

But people do make rules that have to be followed even if they aren't received "from God." You'll notice that people enforce their laws down here. Angels don't go around locking murderers up and forcing thieves to make restitution. People acting together do that.

Franklin Steiner, in his book The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents, categorized Madison among "Presidents Whose Religious Views Are Doubtful."

Here is something I found attributed to James Madison:

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize every expanded prospect."

You probably have already researched this site, but I will post the link for the benefit of those who would like to look into this.
It has a section entitled "Summary of Religious Views" for each president.

http://www.geocities.com/peterroberts.geo/Relig-Politics/PresOrder.html

Edit to add this: "James Monroe left almost no documents or speeches pertaining to religion, so there are no quotations from Monroe here."

I'm not limiting this to 'religion' per se, but to the notion that there exists something, that cannot be "intellectually" based entirely. The belief in a Deity or Spiritual dimension that isn't ... provable, but which influences our decisions, and perspectives and life in this world.

from their Innagural Addresses-

Never happen! How socially acceptable is it to proclaim in public that you have no faith in other people's myths?

Do you think that any candidate of any party can ever be honest that they may not believe in God?

No! You have to lie and project piety to even consider running for public office, the stigma of being a non-believer is so great.

Seems like most of the general public equates non-belief with perversion and depravity.

Who is the real persecuted class here?
DU is the only place I can be HONEST about my non-belief in a public setting (not incl family & friends).

Been thinking about political office, but telling others that "I don't believe like you" would not stand sufficient. Someone would keep prying/wheedling and make a non-issue a big issue. Still, I have not shut out the possibility of public service; why should I be denied if my qualifications were as good as, or better than someone else?

NoFederales

were perverted or depraived because you do not embrace the notion of a 'god' in any form.
I would rather that someone be HONEST and say they don't believe in something they do not- but when i'm doing that, do i have to say that because I DO see life from a different perspective that i'm a 'nutjob'? or that you are?

DU is a place where i believed people can be who they are, and not rejected just because someone doesn't happen to share the exact same outlook- I'll gladly give you room to believe what you do, without labeling you- or calling you something 'less than' me- can I simply ask for the same from you?

As for an Athiest President being socially acceptible- that is something that bears questioning, and discussing. Just as there has (to my knowledge) never been a 'single' (non-married) president, or a woman, or a person of color, or Native American, Asian, .... name your 'excluded class'acceptability- as of yet.

Call me an idealist- call me a dreamer- I want this 'party' to be the party that really IS the 'big tent' - Where there is shelter, and acceptance for all of us- without prejudce or the need to 'excuse' hide, or apologize for our diversity.

Isn't that what defines a liberal / progressive mindset?

Sure, you see folks on here let their hair down, so-to-speak, about how frustrated they feel having religiosity crammed down their throats so much these days, and they feel free to express that in basic terms here. Included in those numbers are people from one end of the spectrum to the other - atheists to the very devout.

While I am not a religious person, I know I probably believe things that other folks would think were silly or nutty. I don't feel a need to demand acceptance of those things, and if I air them, I have to live with the consequence that some people will think I'm a nut for believing it - that's life!

This is why some people (myself included) value privacy when it comes to individual belief.
It is sooooo subjective, and no one should have to explain, apologize, or seek acceptance for their individual beliefs - atheist or true believer.

But, if you throw it out there, in the public realm, you have to expect comment & opinion.

frustration here- you'd rather that anyone who is spiritual- stay in the closet- or face the kind of bigotry that our gay/lesbian brothers and sisters are forced to live with??
I don't want to hide the fact that i believe if we all treated others with compassion and humility, that everyone, from the very 'least' to the most 'revered' have equal value and rights in this world, based in large measure by the life of a man named Jesus Christ- and be judged as insane- or weak minded- or deluded.
Do i not have a voice too? or should i shut up because people don't like the way i think?- I'm not 'judging' or discounting anyone when i say what, and why i believe what i do- i'm not looking to force anyone to agree, simply not to dis' me for using my voice to speak my own personal view.- without attacking theirs.???

Am i articulating this wrong???-

Not me! You can talk about God, aliens, your favorite color, socialism vs communism, who REALLY killed Kennedy, etc, ALL DAY LONG and no one can stop you! That's the beauty of the 1st Amendment - you can voice your opinion on any damn thing you want and no one can throw you in jail for any of it!

Just as you cannot stop me from having an opinion on your opinions, and talking about those too.

You cannot expect to throw your opinions out there, especially if they are entirely subjective in nature, and have no one counter you - that is completely unrealistic.

example of what I object to-
Hyernel (527 posts) Mon Jan-02-06 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
15. If christian nutjobs ever get any influence in the Democratic Party...


...I'll never vote Dem again.

Our goal should be to secularize through education. NOT to adopt the same ignorant fucking brain disease that the GOP is using to control the voting morons in this country.

Reality...not fantasy.



Can I not allow myself to be transparent about a part of who i am without being slurred?

You will never hear me slurring any person who is an Athiest as being insane, destined for hell or any other personal attack- We all are who we are, and shouldn't be judged on anything other than our individual actions- and words. anything less is bigotry- and prejudice.

Maybe to you it seems petty- to my son being called a n..g.er isn't petty. I don't particularly appreciate being called a c..t either simply because i'm female- being called poor white trash is something i've grown accustomed to- but that doesn't make it acceptable. I don't have to put my 'belief' out there Justita- when I read posts like the one I copied above, I don't need to say ANYTHING- and yet still be wounded by the unfair judgement of someone who is not judging 'me' Bluerthanblue, but the 'catagory' that i happen to belong to-

Why should anyone object to racial, ethnic, or any other kind of slur- or degradation if it isn't directed at them personally???? because it is WRONG- to judge another, not by their actions, but because they are a member of a certian 'group'- even if that group is incredibly diverse.

I really cannot agree that saying something rude about someone's beliefs is the same as making racial / ethnic / sexual slurs - one is 100% transmutable and the other is 100% not.

You are also choosing to believe that the poster is specifically referring to YOU.
Perhaps he is not.
Do YOU consider yourself to be a Christian nutjob?
His degree of both Christian and nutjob are certainly open to interpretation.
Maybe the poster considers himself a Christian, but not a nutjob; and wouldn't consider you a Christian nutjob either.

There are way too many variables for you to claim he means YOU.
Do you think Pat Robertson is a Christian nutjob?
Maybe that is who he means, esp in light of Robertson's influence on the Christian Right & republicans.

If you look for offense, you'll find it every time.
Simply being a woman can make me feel offended by lots of verbal diarrhea I hear, sometimes even on DU, but I decide for myself what degree of offense I feel. It could ALL offend me, or I can choose to let some of it affect me not one bit.

It would be fabulous if everyone was respectful and dignified to everyone, all the time, without exception, in every case.
That will NEVER happen in real life, so pick your battles: will it be a "War on Christmas" or a war on ALL our civil liberties?

people use the same justification to say that 'gay' people have a choice to be who they are. For me, life without a spiritual dimension wouldn't be life- I'm quite serious about that- If i was forced to believe that all that is proven, seen, and witnessed is all their is- i couldn't continue to live-
It would be pointless- and it IS often very painful.
I don't go 'looking for offense' as a matter of fact, i often would choose to cut alot of slack- to those who DO intend to offend- I've said many times that being called a bitch is to me, a compliment, as I find dogs to be some of the worlds most precious, gentle, wonderful creatures.

Pat Robertson, as a PERSON- who hides his cruelty, fear, greed, desire to control, and lack of true self esteem behind a mantle of 'religion' is not someone I admire or envy- He is a mean, lost, pittiful man, who does great harm to many people- and someone I do not share much in common with- But I AM lumped with him, by many- simply because of the 'label' he wears and that is something called predjuice.

If your last sentence is true- then why do any of us bother with anything. We'll never be able to change everything- we'll never be able to 'right every wrong' so why even bother- ?? I guess my point is, that it begins with each one of us as individuals- to brighten the corner where we live- to attempt to be that change- will we succeed- i (along with you) honestly doubt it- but if we give up without trying, we have not only doomed ourselves to more of the same, we've doomed the rest of the world too-

peace-
I believe we see each others perspective- I won't demand you stand with me- or curse you for standing where you do- We both desire a better world- We both have our corners to bring light to-

thanks for your considerate discussion.
Blu-

both in the early 1800's.

One got married while in the White House, the other remained single.

fiance died before they married- and he never sought out another woman. He did live for many years with another 'companion'- a man named King- Lots of 'speculation'- but that is the way humans are..?

Grover Cleveland was the other?? but he married while in office- and it is rumored that he paid child support to the woman who later became his wife?.
Cleveland was post civil war- 1880's

Buchannan was earlier- he left office in 1861-

Thanks for the correction, and for the infor to search more thoroughly-

"Name one president who wasn't a white male"
Hell, JFK was a big risk at the time because people were afraid that a non-protestant would lose a lot of votes.
Sad, but that's the way things are, and probably will be for quite some time.

You can't begin to compare occasional references to a creator with Bush's never-ending reference to good Christian folks and bible verses and even sinners. It isn't just Bush, it's the entire Administration and bible readings and closing the women's office in order to open the faith-based office. Faith based programs in the labor dept for pete's sake. There's never been anything like this. If Kennedy had tried bringing in Catholics the way Bush is bringing in fundies, the country would have gone flipside. I count Catholics like Roberts in the fundie category, I never knew any Catholics like them when I was growing up.

Even the Declaration of Independance refers to a Creator.

to promote themselves.

Most presidents, when discussing God, aren't as specifically reffering to the Christian God as Bush is.

And, when they do mention God, they do so with humility, not pride, and certainly not arrogance.

something many people such as myself struggle against, and bear the backlash of.

My 'beef' is the knee-jerk 'to hell with anyone who is religious, they are wacko- weak- infantile- nutjobs' response that many of us who are very FAR removed from what bush is doing, while still beliving in and living our lives not wanting to deny or apologize for having a spiritual dimension as a part of our life.

Tolerance- that's all i'm asking for- not 'special rights' simply not to be judged 'less than' or sterotyped, based on extreemist examples, of 'faith'-

Believe me, i outraged at what is being done in the name of 'god' by this administration- perhaps even more outraged as a person who is being judged by the 'extreemist' members of a very diverse community. Especially when its done by the people who I choose to associate with in large part because of their liberal, and tolerant stand on most all valuable life issues.

What, we haven't had any atheist Presidents? Don't nee to do a lot of research for that.

Are there any atheist Senators? Representatives? Governors? If there are, I don't know of any.
Hell, I seem to recall there's a state where it's illegal to even run for political office and be a declared athiest.

I love it when this country's dominant religion cries about "persecution". :eyes:
It's almost like that chain e-mail that goes around...the one that says something like "since we Christains are 90% of the country, we should tell the other 10% to shut up!!!"

Mentioning god is not the same as government endorsing a religion. Or is that too complicated a thought?

god has been mentioned by the presidents of this nation so far, implies that they entertained a notion that a power that is not 'provable' could exist.
I IN NO WAY expect this government- nor do I want it to 'endorse' a religion. My frustration, is the pendulum swing- I just find it not only sad, but very frustrating that people hear the word "god" and jump directly to the bush association/interpretation and reject, judge, and discount a persons perspective as being 'one and the same' as his-

People don't have to mention faith, spiritual life, or god, for me to listen to them- nor do i immediately discount their perspective if they clearly state they do not believe in a 'god'- it's the 'group think'- the 'guilt by association' the predjuce here on DU of all places, that I find disillusioning.

Not evangalizing, preaching, any of that shit- just asking for some room to be 'authentic' without fear of being rejected summarially because of any 'spiritual' dimension or association.- period.

Is THAT too much to ask?

But that's why the "flying spaghetti monster" was created. Why, if you believe in Jesus, you're sane and need the laws on your side, as opposed to getting hauled off to an asylum, if you believe in FSM or a talking toaster waffle, or something? Someone has to explain that to me -- until then, any belief in any material religious phenomena (ghosts, gods, saints, etc.), is no different than believing your Scooby-Doo bobblehead doll is telling you to kill your neighbor.

When discussing religion Atheists refer to the religious as insane, etc for one simple reason: that is the rock upon which Atheism is built. We could be more polite and try dancing around the subject. But it doesn't work as we are ultimately driven back to that rock.

"Why don't you believe in God?"

"Why should I?"

"Don't dodge the question. What makes you think God exists?"

"Because there is no reason to believe It does."

"Sure there is. Look at everything around you, blah, blah, blah."

"But there is zero evidence for any specific supreme being or even any non-specific supreme being having done all that."

"It is all a matter of faith."

"So belief for the sake of belief."

"Yes."

"Wouldn't that be the very definition of insanity?"


We, the Atheists, are going to hell (assuming God is evil and punishes people for not worshipping It as opposed to punishing people for harming others), and you, the religious, are insane (even if you're right; believing in something with no rational basis for that belief makes you insane; nothing personal, that's just the English language).

There IS no middle ground. I know you'd like there to be. You may even have faith in that possibility.

But then, we're right back where we began, aren't we? :evilgrin:

that exist today would have had their discoverers, and inventors to have been seen, and locked up for being insane 1000 yrs ago.

I simply don't believe we have 'arrived' yet.

And insanity (part of what makes this such a hair trigger issue for me) is NOT believing in something that cannot be proven by scientific fact beyond a doubt-

That would make anyone who believes in evolution insane. And those of us who do, aren't insane for accepting this theory as the best explanation so far.

Native Americans who live in concert with the earth, and nature are insane???

Not by my measure- and yes, i DO know what constitutes sanity- from up close personal as well as professional experience.

Closing the mind to what cannot be seen or proven, is something that fits far better in the 'conservitive' mindset- Not the progressive, liberal, open minded one.

Atheists, who disbelieve in a supreme being because It's existence can not be proven, can not be "progressive, liberal, open minded". And ccording to Poppy Bush we can't be "good Americans".

Since you would probably consider "progressive, liberal, and open minded" the very definition of a "good American" (I would) then we see again that, Left or Right, Atheists just aren't welcome in this country.


As I said, there is no middle ground. You think we're evil. We think you're nuts. Which is why I usually ignore these threads. It's a waste of your time and mine.

The real question is, do you believe any of this has anything to do with determining how this country should be run? I would hope not.

If something cannot be proven, doesn't mean it doesn't exist-

I do NOT think Atheists are evil- in any way shape or form. I don't think they are nuts- I think they do not share a common way of seeing a slice of life on earth- they are not 'less' than me- nor i greater than them- or 'chosen' or any of the other things I'm often accused of.

And an Atheist is a person who doesn't believe in a 'god' or 'gods'. There is much that isn't seen, proven, known, or discovered yet that has NOTHING to do with 'god'- If you claim that only what we see, know and can prove right here and now is all that exists, or ever will exist is the basis of Atheisim, then I would say your definition is incorrect- and i would also say that in order to learn, we have to be open to discovering things which have yet to be discovered- that isn't something that is reserved for 'dieties'- Radioactivity isn't something most folks can see, taste, hear, feel, fully explain- yet it has been here since time began-

I don't believe anyone has to accept a belief in a 'god' on any level- I'm simply not willing to be judged as inferior because i do-

My tent is big- and the walls are very open- all i ask is that we not shove each other out because we don't agree with them.- that's all.

with the notion of true freedom. Freedom from predjuce, persecution. Freedom to be who we are, and not be condemned be that, an Athiest, a person who is 'spiritual', a woman, a man, child, rich, poor, old, young, and on and on and on without being judged by a 'LABEL'- but as the individual each one of us are.

The inherent value and equality of EVERY human being. The right to live our lives as we see fit, and to allow others to live theirs without denying anyone as much 'freedom' as possible. The conservitive- fundementalist, rigid, republican 'frame of thinking' that would have everyone conform, and stick to the 'familar' or 'accepted' 'norms' of the day, is something i reject- and feel is against the true concept of what America is really all about- The America I want to participate in, and help build up, and support. The Democratic party is the 'big tent' progressive, open, liberal,(free) party- When we play yang to the yin of rigid, dogmatic rule- we are imitating it- not changing it-

I believe there is a 'better way'... even if we haven't seen it yet- even if it seems impossible- especially if it seems impossible- and that means addressing the issues that make us more like what we fight against (different variety, same fruit)- why not try a fruit salad???

This is also in response to your above reply, to me -- but most productively emotive, here:

You have to understand that designating what is "inherent value," is a construct. If you're going to demand that that be legislated, you are the scariest kind of authoritarian. Matthew Shepard was MURDERED. No one had the right to do that to him. MLK, et. al., were fighting for equal rights in front of the law, which is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THING from demanding that all people put a stamp of approval on all beliefs and lifestyles. No, I'm sorry -- I don't think that people should be free of ridicule, shunning, etc., -- only that their property, person or ability to survive isn't threatened by a governmental action that takes away those REAL RIGHTS.

Like I said, it isn't very nice for me to ridicule religious people -- and believe me, as to the "Native Americans who live in concert with nature," I can designate between PHILOSOPHY and those belief systems which insist on a material or anthropomorphized elements (i.e. an actual "god," miracles, supernatural occurances, etc.). The former is no different than believing in any other ideology. The latter, however, is like believing in the Easter Bunny.

my 11 yr old son is called nigger, that should not offend him? Since his property, person ability to survive isn't threatened-? well, i wouldn't encourage you to come here and say that- i'm not violent person, but i'd sure as hell like to have you look him in the eye, and look ME in the eye as you say it.- And then explain it shouldn't have any effect on his inherent value.-



And WHERE I ask you in any place, at any time have I advocated any governmental action that would take away anyones rights????


I simply ask that people be judged by the CONTENT OF THIER INDIVIDUAL character- period-
Not anything else- and I will continue to ask, no fight, and scream if necessiary that every single person be afforded that freedom.

We just don't want you linking religion and government. The only reason people blast specific religions in this forum is because of all those people who DO insist on linking religion and government. If you have a problem with some people trashing your religious beliefs because others who share your religious beliefs want to marry those beliefs with the government we ALL own, then you should take your complaints to those people.

Go after the people who started this fight. Not those trying to defend themselves.

as long as the person on the recieving end has some form of the word "god" attached to them-
or christ-

I don't want to link religion and government either- I don't want to link religion and FAITH - but athiests seem to insist upon it- if you cannot see your own bigotry- then you are no better than those you claim to be shoving their beliefs down your throats-

Which is a shining example of human 'kind' at its worst-

(BTW- many of us who embrace christs life as a model, also embrace the Native American, Zen, and a variety of other spiritual teachings as positive examples of how to better the world)

Like it or not, this post proves that the notion of a 'God' and the government of this nation has been linked since America began. If you are talking about "rightwing, fundementalist, religious extreemism" as put forward from the loud voices on the 'republican side' today- you are speaking of something very different than what i call Faith.

"Like it or not, this post proves that the notion of a 'God' and the government of this nation has been linked since America began."

I can NOT be an Atheist and still be a good American?

You know, I started this whole sub-thread to point out that we. Do. Not. Care. About your religion one way or the other. What we do care about is your insistence that we must also have faith to be a part of this country.

And, given enough time, you come right out and post it.

Well, at least you aren't pretending otherwise.

do make huge leaps-
enormous leaps-

If you don't care- about religion- actually i don't care about religion- i care about my spiritual faith- why all the posts on this board condemning, belittling- ridiculing- picking the most bizarre examples of the worst of the 'christian religious right' and bashing them to hell- (positions which i cannot defend, and do not agree with- positions that are hate disguised as religion- Phelps, Pat Robertson, and his nasty remarks about Sharon etc?)

Guess i can't be a person of faith and be in YOUR democratic party eh?

And, no, i don't agree with anything Poppy said or did- with the possible exception of choosing NOT to oust Saddam Hussien.- Though I marched in downtown Concord N.H. with a motley crew of other folks AGAINST the first Gulf War- in the cold, from the Zayres parking lot up to the State Capitol- with my kids- And while i abhor that he encouraged the Iraqi people to oust Hussien themselves, and then left them to be slaughtered I still believe getting out was the best response to a bad situation-

Where, and i'll challenge you to produce a concrete example from MY POSTINGS- all 4 years of them here, do i claim that one must embrace faith to be a part of this country- or to be a 'good American'=

I have no desire for ANY 'religious' test- or requirement for any part of America- I do have a desire for all humans to be afforded their inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness- including people of color- of any ethnic background, any sex, any sexual orentation, any age, any 'religion' any 'creed' any ability any socio-economic level- any 'group' whatever-

Asking not to be condemned for my faith, is no different than you asking not to be condemned for your Athiesim- and i'm very willing to leave you in peace with your standing. You are no less a person- nor better a person than I-

That there has never been a president who has professed to embrace Athiesism- doesn't mean that YOU are not my equal- we've never had a woman president either- or a Black president, and on and on-
That does NOT discount the value of millions of people who have been 'good' Americans, who haven't had a president that mirrors their exact qualities-

Remember, when we went to war in world war II?- Many people were put into internment camps simply because they were asian, or german? And those who weren't interred were judged as 'complicit'by many 'good citizens'- well, consider me a person who is tired of being accused of being 'religious extreemist' and also tired of feeling that my voice should be silent when a part of who I am is being thrown into a dung hill, and used as garbage with which to allieviate the rage that lives within many of us who are being dragged along by a corrupt administration, into places we do NOT wish to go, and cannot seem to stop.

"picking the most bizarre examples of the worst of the 'christian religious right' and bashing them to hell- (positions which i cannot defend, and do not agree with- positions that are hate disguised as religion- Phelps, Pat Robertson, and his nasty remarks about Sharon etc?)"

I haven't talked about any of that.


I just started in this thread trying to explain to you that one cannot take an Atheist position in a discussion of religion without belittling faith. Every Atheist in the world is an Atheist because s/he believes that faith is not rational. And there is simply no way to say that without being insulting.

commentary on the stand you say athiests must assume to hold onto their beliefs-
I have no problem maintaining my belief without having to tear you down, condemn you to hell (as you say some folks have) or say you are any less a person than I am.

If you don't share my beliefs, you are still every bit my equal, and no threat to me- nor would I want you to feel that I am to you-
I would stand beside you and fight for your rights to believe whatever you do, without condemnation, shame or exclusion.

peace-
Blu.

New here...not sure if I'm replying correctly but I'm trying to reply to "ieoeja".

Like I said I'm new here and I truly don't want to sound disrespectful but I just couldn't let it stand,as a matter of fact I've lurked here for ages but was only moved to actually join the discussion by "ieoeja's" remarks. "ieoeja" you said "one cannot take an Atheist position in a discussion of religion without belittling faith"

I must most respectfuuly disagree! I am a Cradle Catholic and like the OP said life without my spirituality would simply not be worth living to me. However with that said my husband is an ATHEIST! He nor any of his friends would ever belittle me for my beliefs and yes we have discussed our differences quite often and quite thouroughly.
I don't know anybody that belittles others for what they believe. The only place I ever ran into that problem was the 2 years I lived in Portland Oregon...I hightailed back to Texas as soon as I could.
I agree with the OP why don't we all just agree to disagree about God and whether or not He exists at least here on DU.

-Matty

feeling comfortable and grounded in what you believe leaves much room for others to hold opposing views without having to rattle other people into your position.
I wish that happened more in all areas of life-

And welcome-
I appreciate your sharing your experience.

peace,
blu

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.


According to this text irrational faith is a virtue. So a Christian should be complimented when an Atheist calls their belief irrational.

so much 'calling' faith 'irrational'- hell, hope is quite often 'irrational'- yet, who among us can live without it? - it's lumping people of 'faith' into the same pot based on radical extreemist who catch the attention of others with their outrageousness.

There are also 'radical' ..'Athiests'- and from what you have said, you (quite rightly) don't want and are offended by being labled, or equated as connected to them- I'm honestly not your enemy ieoeja-
and I don't consider you mine- you should feel free to be who you are, and judged solely on that- not any 'classification'-

peace.
(I mean that)
blu

just kidding ;)

All presidents are politicians.

Pander is their middle name.

I'm sure (without checking) that there has never been one. And there will never be one.

These guys are politicians, so whether they believe in god or not has nothing to do with it. They will say and do anything to gain power.

Your son is black. You should have at least some inkling what it is like to be a minority in this country. A President of the United States once said that I could not be a "good American" because I am an Atheist. If someone asks me my religion, and I reply, "Atheist", roughly 50% of the time they start screaming at me. I drive down the road listening to the radio when some DJ whose website features bondage fetishes talks about how Atheists are "evil" and shouldn't be allowed near small children.

Then you have the gal to come in here and repeatedly rant about how poorly people of faith are treated in this country. Are you really that deaf and blind to what is going on in this country?

In another post you ask that you be judged on your character. Well, I am judging you on your character. And, sister, I find you wanting!!!

ever, EVER- here or anywhere else screamed at you for being an Athiest?- accused you of not being a good American???- Asked your religion??? Am I that person on the radio???

Can you not see what you are doing when you turn around and vent all the vile hatefull judgemental kind of shit you've been exposed to on me? why? because i personally have said or done ANYTHING to you about your worth? your values? your character????

You hate it when the rightwing extreemist hatemongers hurt you- then, you turn right around and do it to those who you 'see' as part of the group who have wronged YOU!!!!

Can't you see this?? I'm asking NOTHING of you- other than you not do to me, in reverse, what has been so wrongly done to you- and believe me, i DO know 'better'- better is not giving back 'in kind'- because and forgive me here but Gandhi was a smart man, even if he was religious=- an EYE FOR AN EYE makes everyone blind-

It has to stop somewhere- why not here? why not now? why not with two people who want to live in peace, and without being judged lacking because of something that neither of us wants to take away from the other?????

You, 'sister' are venting your rage on me-

and doing exactly what you hate the religious right for- and saying "so shut up and live in your la la land- i could give a shit'- except i'll join in the bashing when the time comes-

?????? I am not attacking you or any other athiest.

I don't start posts saying how f---d up or evil Athiests are- and i wouldn't join in even if there was one- except to say, that everyone has the right to live without criticism simply because they are 'different' then me?? i am not your enemy- why must you see me as yours???? because i WON'T sit silent in the face of cruelty??

After all, he died in 30 days. How much God-time could he have possibly gotten in? :)

SD

the only speech he gave was at his inauguration.

but sounds like he was more of a 'deist'- There is speculation his death was not as a result of pneumonia, after giving the longest Inaugural Address in history in bitter cold weather- but was poisoned by "Jesuits" with arsenic-

from his Inaugural address-

""I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow-citizens a profound reverence for the Christian religion and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness; and to that good Being who has blessed us by the gifts of civil and religious freedom, who watched over and prospered the labors of our fathers and has hitherto preserved to us institutions far exceeding in excellence those of any other people, let us unite in fervently commending every interest of our beloved country in all future time." -- Inaugural Address, 4 March 1841

I respect the way he spoke of politics/government as well as 'religion' but didn't preach theocracy.

His success was largely built on the fact that, where other military leaders contented themselves with a victory in the field, Harrison would pursue his foes to destroy their homes and kill their family.

The Harrison political dynasty, his grandson Benjamin became president as well, came to an end because of their involvement with the Klan. That was, of course, long after William Henry, but you can see a foreshadowing of this in William Henry's intense hatred of the "savages".

Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandfather you're talking about there. And Benjamin was my Great-Great-Great-Grandfather.

I'm just askin.

Ok... ...maybe a little bit funny.

As far as presidents who were HONESTLY RELIGIOUS though.. Jimmy Carter makes George W. Bush look like an athiest. Bush uses religion for political gain. Carter on the other hand.. HE is honestly religious!! :o

On God and religion:

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. - Thomas Jefferson

Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man. - Thomas Paine

Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God. - Benjamin Franklin

I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature. - Thomas Jefferson

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. - George Washington

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

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy. - Thomas Paine

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. - Thomas Jefferson, letter to a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, Connecticut, January 1, 1802

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States. - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808

Among the features peculiar to the political system of the United States, is the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious sect. - James Madison, letter to Jacob de la Motta, August 1820

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect. - James Madison, letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774

The civil rights of none, shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed. - James Madison, proposed amendment to the Constitution, given in a speech in the House of Representatives, 1789

We are teaching the world the great truth that Governments do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion Flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government. - James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

Happy, thrice happy shall they be pronounced hereafter, who have contributed any thing, who have performed the meanest office in erecting this stupendous fabrick of Freedom and Empire on the broad basis of Independency; who have assisted in protecting the rights of humane nature and establishing an Asylum for the poor and oppressed of all nations and religions. - George Washington, General Orders, April 18, 1783

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride legitimately, by the grace of God. - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17, 1782

I have often expressed my sentiments, that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience. - George Washington, letter to the General Committee of the United Baptist Churches in Virginia, May, 1789

The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institution may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances be made subservient to the vilest purposes. Should, hereafter, those incited by the lust of power and prompted by the Supineness or venality of their Constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to shew, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction and sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting an inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchmt can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other. - George Washington, fragments of the Draft First Inaugural Address, April 1789

But where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain...let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

The establishment of Civil and Religious Liberty was the Motive which induced me to the Field — the object is attained — and it now remains to be my earnest wish & prayer, that the Citizens of the United States could make a wise and virtuous use of the blessings placed before them. - George Washington, letter to the Reformed German Congregation of New York City, November 27, 1783

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

God, religion, faith - it was NEVER meant to mingle with our government. Our Forefathers had a vision of pure religion, untainted by government, and likewise, government that allows freedom of religion, no national religion - that is what they escaped from when they came here. The wall between church and state MUST remain solid, for the purity of each to endure. When the two collide, there is no longer any religious purity, and there is no longer any civil liberty.

If the people of the US want a theocracy - let them go to Iraq. Or better yet, let them just go to church.

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." Joseph Lewis quoting Lincoln in a 1924 speech in New York


"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." Lincoln in a letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield, after the death of Willie Lincoln

Those closest to Lincoln, including his both his law partner and HIS WIFE, are on record as saying that Lincoln was SHOCKINGLY irreverent, bordering on atheism, which, by the way was an UNEXCEPTED stance in Lincoln's time, even more so than the discrimination that realists face today.

He often tried to edit "God" and "Almighty" references when he thought they were over the top, calling such phrases that made it into speeches or print "Seward's nonsense", as Seward, a devout Christian was responsible for many speeches and declaration during Lincoln's presidency. He was "preaching" to a nation of believers.

Even I exclaim "Oh My God!" when I see a bad auto wreck on the highway. Doesn't mean I "believe".

In a society where 94% of the population believes in God/80% are certain and only 1% are convinced atheist it is ludicrous to imagine that a progressive majority can be built without the support of lots and lots of religious people. See Gallup poll:http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001659292

Most progressive Christian groups are decidedly on the progressive/left end of the political spectrum. This is the reality.
Religion may not be my thing. But that's besides the point. The abolition movement, the civil rights movement, the peace movement and almost every other movement for social change in American history could never ever have gotten off the ground without their help. Again I hope that progressive religious people as well as atheist always feel welcome here on DU. the progressive movement and the Democratic Party

Other than that to get elected in this hyper-religious country, you have to 'talk
God'? How many of those men do you think acted TRULY Christian? Carter. Maybe some of the early ones.

The reason that all the President's talk god is the same reason many other Americans do...they associate religiosity with morality and fitting in. Now, I am not saying that there are not genuine Christians out there. There are. And they are truly good people of deep faith. But they are few and far between. And I don't think they are crazy. Some of my most intelligent, grounded friends are devoted
Christians. They certainly don't appear crazy.

But the fact that somebody running for office in the US talks god doesn't prove a damn thing accept that there is a huge religious component in this society.

.....what is the point of the question? Bush uses it TOO much. And in very hypocritical ways. Talk about moral values, then on a lie send nearly 2200 American children to an early grave.....not to mentioning his own acknowledgement of over 30,000 Iraqi's killed. (Can't help but wonder if that is more or less than Saddam killed in any 3 year period).

Name one president in U.S. history that is more ignorant, self-absorbed, shallow, stupid, arrogant or pathetic than George W. Bush.

but because he is who he is, doesn't make all of the people who call america home, part and parcel with him.
We have fought, are fighting, to seperate ourselves from him- from this administration- to take back america, but it is no easy fight- The generousity that people from outside america has shown us, by saying "We hate bush, not the american people" has really humbled, and encouraged me- I don't know how much folks can take- but I hope it doesn't keep on getting worse- like ....Iran --

'built' on a belief in 'God' but it is clear that the majority of people in government held, or expressed a belief in some 'higher-power'.

To be very honest, I was totally surprised at how prevelant the refrences to 'god' or 'supreme being' are in the governmental speeches etc.- Even those politicians in my life, mentioned 'god' but I never really noticed or was offended (i was NOT raised in a devout church going home(s) ) When I was reading some of JFK's speeches, the religious refrences totally surprised me- but, didn't appear 'cloying' or ''ingenuine'- rather just an overflow of who the man was-

I'm not in favor of the way the 'religious right fundementalist mentality' is being pushed and forced into what should be our secular governmental affairs- A persons faith is a part of who they are- but what i see is not a 'persons faith' that is at issue- it is a very clear attempt by those who have influenced a large 'voting' segment of radical religious groups, to 'make good' on their promises, a kind of 'religious lobbying' if you will- and I cannot support or defend that.

However, to respond to this religious ...'coup' by denegrating all people who do believe in 'god' or have a spiritual life that they hold very precious, is as wrong as hating all Middle Eastern peoples because of the actions of a few- or to hate and discount all americans because of the bad things WE have done. I would hope, that people of the world continue to make a distinction between the american people- and the bush administration.
Because, there is nothing i'd rather NOT be associated with than this eorrupt, cruel, greedy, consumerist and hypocritical administration.

I haven't made my point well- obviously-

thanks-
blu

and by that I mean CORRECT....

You want to see how most of the world actually sees Americans....watch how they react to Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter!!

George Washington often referred to a "higher power," but that had a much different meaning than the spirituality many politicians (particularly on the righ) wear on their sleeves today. Washington was by no means devout, only occasionally going to church. There is no mention of Jesus in any of his correspondance except one Revolutionary War letter written by an aide. A new book on Washington by one of my former professors - Peter Henriques - should be coming out fairly soon with an excellent chapter on Washington's religious beliefs.

In any case, politicians did not use their spirituality for the purposes of getting elected. In fact no candidate until Andrew Jackson really campaigned for office. Even up to JFK, the fear was that he would inject his religion into his office. Nowadays it is a political tool, designed to quell the fears of certain christians that they are not electing a heathen. Only 44 years after JFK, Kerry had to fight off charges that he would not inject his religion into his office enough.

So while you are right that every President has looked to a higher power, and has not been afraid to express it in public, the uses to which it is put in the political process has changed, for the worse if you ask me.

and bush has hurt those of us who don't embrace fanatical theology too- that, more than anything was my point- While mentioning 'god' has always been tolerated in america- mandating it- or using it as a 'tool' to manipulate people sickens me-

Even given that, i can't not fight against the assault on ALL people who express a spiritual belief, especially by my brothers and sisters who belong to the party of INclusion- and tolerance.-

Thanks for stating the issue so clearly-
blu

...Jesus Christ, because he changed my life" is exactly that kind of poor usage of spirituality and religion. Especially, when the hypocrit that said it, proves to be, in practice, about as un-Christian a president that we have ever had.

This NATIVE Texan is both a Democrat AND a Christian. But I don't work to CONVINCE people that I am. If they can't see what I am by how I act, then there is NOTHING that I can do to "convince" them....and by the way...ever notice that "convince" begins with "CON"??

and 'right on the mark'-

I'm not trying to convince anyone either- just tired of being mis-taken for a bush apologist- (anything but) and being lumped in with those who desire to force others to 'believe' what I do- or to 'live like I live' or they'll burn in hell- Being respectful of others beliefs should include those who do follow a spiritual path- as WELL as those who don't- I can't help but desire that this party, the party as i've said so often of the "big tent" of INclusion- should be able to do this shouldn't we???

gotta get to bed,(bleary bleary eyed, and exhausted) thanks for the discussion, and well stated perspectives-
peace,
blu

The Faith of our Founding Fathers, by Dean Worbois
No one disputes the faith of our Founding Fathers. To speak of unalienable Rights being endowed by a Creator certainly shows a sensitivity to our spiritual selves. What is surprising is when fundamentalist Christians think the Founding Fathers' faith had anything to do with the Bible. Without exception, the faith of our Founding Fathers was deist, not theist. It was best expressed earlier in the Declaration of Independence, when they spoke of "the Laws of Nature" and of "Nature's God."

In a sermon of October 1831, Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson said,

Among all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.

The Bible? Here is what our Founding Fathers wrote about Bible-based Christianity:

Thomas Jefferson:

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short
Jefferson again:
Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.
More Jefferson:
The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Jefferson's word for the Bible?
Dunghill.
John Adams:
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?
Also Adams:
The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:
The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
Here's Thomas Paine:
I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible).

Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible).

It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance.

The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.

Finally let's hear from James Madison:

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.

Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote:

Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.


http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html

=======

The Christian Nation Myth
Farrell Till
Whenever the Supreme Court makes a decision that in any way restricts the intrusion of religion into the affairs of government, a flood of editorials, articles, and letters protesting the ruling is sure to appear in the newspapers. Many protesters decry these decisions on the grounds that they conflict with the wishes and intents of the "founding fathers."

Such a view of American history is completely contrary to known facts. The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible.

These beliefs were forcefully articulated by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason, a book that so outraged his contemporaries that he died rejected and despised by the nation that had once revered him as "the father of the American Revolution." To this day, many mistakenly consider him an atheist, even though he was an out spoken defender of the Deistic view of God. Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html