Want to PM me which place that is, Draug? I know a person that could fix that.

Not worth it. It was an explicitly Jewish nursing home with mostly Jewish residents who took great offense at them "damn Christians" taking care of them, so the policy was across the board - no wearing religious symbols not compatible with the residents' faiths in the presence of residents.

And it was more than 20 years ago.

It was likely Orthodox then, that isn't uncommon in that setting. I guarantee you it wasn't a Reform home.

And you know how old people are with their religious symbols...

Heh. None of that sounds divisive at all...

OK, that was a longer absence than anticipated, lol...

So, to get right into it (even if the conversation's done I should answer what you too the time to ask or respond to)--

"So you are OK with partial birth abortions where the baby is half born and it's skull crushed. The head is out but the body still in and you are OK killing it"

No.

When I say out of the womb, I mean the head, body, whatever is coming out...

I'm not AT ALL saying you can give birth to a head, crush it and say "Oh, well, the body's still not out, counts as abortion, not murder." No. I said that I take issue with an anti-abortion stance because it's a woman's body...

The SECOND that fetus/baby leaves the mother in ANY capacity, it's born, it's a citizen, and it has all the legal protection one would have as a citizen.

So that's what I meant, Draug--as long as it's in the mother (I guess I should say "all" in the mother, to be clear?) it's her body, her choice--the second a foot or a head starts to appear, it's born, and the game is completely changed from a legal standpoint in my opinion, as THEN it's no longer an "It's my body" issue, now it's "This is a child being born, killing it is infanticide, you can push for a few hours and then give it up for adoption if you don't want it or can't afford to keep it, but you carried it nine months and it's made it into this world now, so to 'abort' it once actually born...we call that 'infanticide.'"

That's what I meant, to clarify.

"Obi, has france only existed since the creation of the fifth republic? Has russia only existed since the fall of the ussr?

Just because our legal regime of government was formed in 1787, doesn't mean our nation began then"

Obviously not, obviously not, and obviously. :p

My point is that our nation as a legal political entity NOW stems from the Constitution...that's what this nation NOW was founded on...

Though even if I wanted to concede the point and say the Declaration of Independence founded our nation (which I find absurd--declaring yourself independent and actually achieving it is something different altogether, just look at the Middle East today...a Kurdish Jefferson could draw up a Declaration that would put the original to shame...but that wouldn't give the Kurds a state and found a nation...even if they successfully won a war with the Turks and/or Syrians--good luck--they still would need a state Constitution to have a government and exist as a state, otherwise they're just an occupying force)...

Again, Jefferson was a deist, anti-Bible, anti-Christian, not exactly anti-Jesus but he didn't believe he was the Messiah...

And THAT is the man who writes "Creator" in the Declaration--so even THERE we don't have a Judeo-Christian root to give any credence to the claim that as a legal and political entity we were founded as a Christian nation.

The MOST anyone could possibly argue is that CULTURALLY we were a de facto "Christian nation" at the time of our conception, but even then:

1. That's referring far more to the everyday people than to the actual Founders who, again, were overwhelmingly deist,

2. That's a bit of a non-starter in a way, I mean, just about every Western nation can claim that at some point they were a "Christian nation" by population...I mean, we come from Greece and Rome and the former had the Orthodox Church implanted into it and the latter gave rise eventually to the Vatican, so of course that's in there culturally...but by that same token,

3. All those Western societies (or I'll say most, for all I know some small Western enclave such as Denmark may never have given into this, and so I'll say MOST, to protect from that needless nitpick) were perfectly OK practicing slavery and subjugating women and burning people at the stake for their beliefs and so on...that's part of their "cultural" history too--but does that mean that that's who those nations are TODAY?

If you wanted to say "We're a Christian nation because we have a historical tradition of having mostly-Christian inhabitants," well...we also have a historical tradition of treating others as 3/5th of a person and denying the women the right to vote--

Is America today, then, still a slave-holding, anti-suffrage culture because of its past...or have we outgrown that past cultural identity and fashioned a new one?

Same goes with America being a Christian state--one reason Mitt Romney (right or wrong) lost was some in his camp really thought the White Christian base was still enough to carry the day and win a national election, even vs. the coalition the Democrats have fashioned from various different groups. They were wrong.

The White Christian Male-Dominated America is Dead. Dead as Romney's shot at Pennsylvania Avenue.

(And that's NOT an endorsement of Obama vs. Romney--granted everyone here already knows I prefer the former vs. the latter anyway--but rather just an assertion...the Republicans won't win another national election unless they figure that out, as they seem to be doing now, they KNOW they have to diversify their base and build their own coalition and fast. Even if you hate the Democrats, you DO have to give them credit for this much--they were smart insofar as they knew that the cultural landscape of America has changed and that they needed to build a base that reflected that change...they did so and won despite a weak economy and stagnating opinion polls, not to mention the Libya fiasco.)

"perhaps a more useful comparison is Germany circa 1871 than france and Russia, as both were independent nations previously. Prior to 1787 there wasn't a single nation in any way analogous to the USA."

Hmmm...yes, mendax, do think that's a good comparison, actually...

"just because the nation is so called Christian does not mean that there are not powerful entities such as the media and Hollywood that are aggressively fighting against Christian principles and trying to make Christians feel intimidated about publicly professing their faith. wars have a beginning and we are at the beginning"

I already addressed that point, krellin--and I reject it.

Hollywood personnel and stars surely have an anti-Christian bent (I think that's a fair statement overall) but again, A LOT of films are very, very heavy on (not to mention heavy-handed with) the Christian allegories and imagery.

And as I've stated, it's not as if these are isolated, fluke cases--

Man of Steel.
Just made hundreds of millions of dollars.
One of the most popular Hollwood movies of the year.
VERY HEAVY on the Jesus/Superman allegory.

In fact, I think you could argue that one of the themes/motifs that a lot of these big-budget Hollywood superhero movies love to push more than any other is that One Man Sacrifice, if you will--

Whether it's Batman and Superman or Iron Man or Whateverman (and maybe one day Wonder Woman?) they like to play up the "one person sacrificing themselves/their happiness for mankind" angle a LOT.

There's the criticism that films that are "too" religious don't do well...in fact, BAD religious films don't do well, case in point:

Take The Passion of the Christ vs. The Ten Commandments.

One is a beloved Hollywood MASTERPIECE, frequently ranks as one of the great epic movies of all-time, Charlton Heston's performance as Moses is downright iconic and has actually largely come to define that character/figure in the last century as much as any previous paintings came to define him in past centuries...headed by famed Hollywood mastermind director Cecil B. Demille...

Aaaaaand the other is an Anti-Semitic, slow, Anti-Semitic, critically-panned, slow, spiritually-deficient (showing us every graphic detail of HOW someone dies isn't how you convey WHY that person dies, at least not if you want to be effective), and, did I mention, slow...all helmed by a man who's career is in shambles and who actively beat his wife and, you know, I think he might not like Jews...just a thought...

So yeah. Hollywood gives PLENTY of service to Christianity--

After all, Hollywood's run by the Jews, right?
And what do we Jews know how to do more than anything else?
Turn a profit!
So why would we alienate our biggest and best customers, the Christian movie-goer who loves-loves-LOVES 'splosions, sex, and of course, some wholesome JC allegories. ;)

Hollywood isn't declaring war on Christianity--that'd be bad for business!

And nothing--not art, not sensibility, not common decency, not common sense--gets in the way of business in Los Angeles or Hollywood. ;)

"Actually, my wife worked in a Jewish nursing home for a time and was *told* not to wear her cross. She just tucked it inside her blouse as she never takes it off."

...Hm. Well, while I do side with you, Draug, and I think your wife SHOULD have been allowed to wear her cross to work...

It IS also a Jewish nursing home--and I have to assume that if I went to work at a Christian nursing home, they'd be none to happy if I wore a "Religion is a Lie" necklace or some famous atheist symbol, maybe the Darwin Fish you see people slapping on bumpers now to parody the Jesus Fish/Early Christianity Fish bumper ornament....

They'd probably be unhappy too.

I don't know how a Star of David necklace would go over in a Christian nursing home either...I can see it going both ways...some Christians might take a "That's really cool, tell me about it" approach, others might be offended, and probably the majority would just raise a curious eyebrow or just not care. :)

"So that's what I meant, Draug--as long as it's in the mother (I guess I should say "all" in the mother, to be clear?) it's her body, her choice--the second a foot or a head starts to appear, it's born, and the game is completely changed from a legal standpoint in my opinion, as THEN it's no longer an "It's my body" issue, now it's "This is a child being born, killing it is infanticide, you can push for a few hours and then give it up for adoption if you don't want it or can't afford to keep it, but you carried it nine months and it's made it into this world now, so to 'abort' it once actually born...we call that 'infanticide.'""

Well, thank God you don't sit on the Supreme Court. Even they have the common sense to consider viability outside of the womb as being protected.

"The White Christian Male-Dominated America is Dead"

Over 60% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track (per Rasmussen).

80% say you can never trust the government, or only trust it some of the time (per Gallup).

Correlation doesn't mean causation, but.....

You know what they say... the government is bisexual. They fuck everyone!

^Well, of course they do, bo_sox--

A politician is the greatest of all whores. ;)

"Well, thank God you don't sit on the Supreme Court. Even they have the common sense to consider viability outside of the womb as being protected."

And morally I'd agree with them--I just don't know how you can legally force someone to surrender control of their own body.

There ARE cases where what's legal and what's moral doesn't overlap...

My moral sensibilities are, of course, against the KKK and Neo-Nazis...but legally I have to respect their right to be the hate-mongering group that would love to kill me that they are (though let's be fair--hating and wanting to kill me, they'd probably be found not guilty by a jury of my peers on that charge.) ;)

You wish you could shut the KKK up--but you can't legally stop them speaking.

I wish I could have all babies protected the second they reach the threshold of life--but legally you can't violate the sovereignty one has over their own body, that in and of itself is a moral and legal wrong.

"Over 60% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track (per Rasmussen).

80% say you can never trust the government, or only trust it some of the time (per Gallup)."

Yeah, they may say that, but I know they trust the government to supply welfare aid to contribute federal funding (ironically enough the states that distrust the Democratic control of the White House presently receive more federal money than they give back--ie, states like Alabama and Mississippi)...

They'll always distrust the government, that's almost as constant as it gets in America.

But we still have to elect someone every 4 years, and at that point in time, right track or wrong track, if the Republicans continue to push for Voter ID laws, stall immigration reform, push for abortion laws and at every turn alienate the very voters they should be trying to win over...they'll lose, they'll lose again, because nationally--

The Democrats will win the Pacific and Northeast...
The Republicans will win the Heartland and South...

And it'll again come down to swing states and minority votes--and both are areas Romney lost in, big time.

I'll put it simply--the Republicans can't win without making a good-sized dent in the Latino vote. They can't. Simple as that. And they know it, hence their trotting out Marco Rubio every chance they get.

Obi,

Suppose you were holding an infant in your arms, by a cliff, and you dropped him and he died falling off the cliff. Would that be murder?

We force people to surrender control of their own body all the time in the name of the public good. We imprison them and we commit them to psych wards. So why not compel them to carry to term once a fetus had reached viability as that fetus becomes a life and enjoys all the protections granted to it the same as if it were outside the womb. Does the old fuck on life support not have the right to continue living, whether he can indicate that decision or not? Then why should a child be any different. If the child can survive outside the mother's womb, it should be granted the right to live. If the mother doesn't want to be the mother, she has two options, carry it to term and put it up for adoption, or C-section and put it up for adoption. But let's face it, she has had at least 6 months to decide she didn't want to be a mom. She had her chance to choose and the contract expired, obligating her to fulfill her duties accordingly.

Obi, you miss my point. I am trying to say that there is a deep feeling that something has gone wrong in this country. And the end of "white-christian male dominance" seems to align with when things started to go wrong....

Yes, the country would be a whole lot better off if it were still unilaterally dominated by white, Christian, males. Thanks for that dipplayer.

"Suppose you were holding an infant in your arms, by a cliff, and you dropped him and he died falling off the cliff. Would that be murder?"

Did I drop him intentionally, or was it an accident?
If it's intentionally, murder, of course.
If it's an accident...child endangerment and possible manslaughter, but not murder...
Murder requires malicious intent for me (I don't know if that's codified in the law, just speaking for myself there...what separates manslaughter from murder, if you know?)

Yeah, it'd be better than all those kids in their hoodies going around being black.

"And the end of "white-christian male dominance" seems to align with when things started to go wrong...."

And the beginning of that end also aligns with the 1960s and the Civil Rights Movement.

A funny thing--when White Privilege and Male Privilege dissipates, suddenly a lot of privileged whites seem to feel that things are unfair...I mean, what's all this nonsense about a black president and a woman's right to choose? They're not part of The Good Ol' Boy Club! Outrageous! Next thing you know the Latinos will start protesting in LA!

Oh, wait.

"We force people to surrender control of their own body all the time in the name of the public good. We imprison them and we commit them to psych wards."

I don't think that's surrendering control of their bodies so much as surrendering the freedom to go wherever they want with those bodies.

We're not actively saying "You cannot/you must do X with your body, and if you don't you'll be found guilty by the law."

Obi - Murder is defined (in the UK) as the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought. Malice in this context means intention or recklessness.

So you'd have to intend to kill the baby or be reckless as to the consequences of dropping the baby.

"under the Queen's peace"

Is there an actual, significant meaning to that, or is it just a reminder of the royal trappings?

I think it just refers to the crime taking place in the UK in the normal course of things. The original quote had under the King's peace because there was a king at the time. The language itself is, as you point out, vestigial really.

On the manslaughter point (again in the UK, I think it works differently in the USA) a person will be charged with murder, then they can argue a partial defence that will cause the conviction to be voluntary manslaughter. Things like loss of control and diminished responsibility.

There is another entirely separate category to do with involuntary manslaughter where you kill someone but did not intend to kill or grievously harm someone even though they died. It has to do with negligence largely.

Obi - Been to a psych ward with involuntary residents? They get unwillingly pumped full of drugs and treated to EST and such. Go see One Flew Over a Cuckoo Cuckoo's Nest" for what they used to be like. They have cleaned up some, but there is plenty of "no control over their body" still going on there.

1. That's referring far more to the everyday people than to the actual Founders who, again, were overwhelmingly deist,


Which founders where you referring to? Overwhelmingly deist seems a bit of a stretch. Which founding fathers were deists? So, to start Thomas Paine (Yes). Samuel Adams (No).

What does it matter by the way if they all were deists? Weren't they supposedly representing the everyday people?

Thomas Jefferson (definitely an anti-clerical Christian, but deist?)

take a look at what he could have cut from the Jefferson Bible (He never called it a Bible), but didn't.

(Page 40) “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?”

Did deists believe in the Holy Spirit being given to sustain humanity? This doesn’t exactly support the idea of a watchmaker God.

(page 59) 29: Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30: For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.


(page 46) “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”
(page 68) “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”
(page 68) “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:”


There were definitely Arians (that's about where the Unitarian Church was at the time). It was no more deist that Islam, though. John Adams was part of that church. If your going to pigeonhole him as either deist or Christian, then he's gotta go in with the Christians (Denying the divinity of Christ is heretical, but there is a far cry between that and deism as I understand it).

"Which founders where you referring to?"

I've already mentioned Paine and Jefferson...I'd add Ben Franklin to that list...

I've heard an argument for Madison, but I'll hold off "officially" including him here until I can source my argument better--

But if I had just those four...well--

That's the man who sparked America to Revolution,
That's the man who wrote the Declaration and so, if we start in '76, "founded" America in a rhetorical sense...
That's one of our more celebrated diplomats, one who successfully convinced France some backwoods colonists could kick the British in the pants and make it sting...
AND the man who is largely responsible for the Constitution which I've repeatedly cited as the point I'd argue the US as a political entity "truly" begins.

That alone would be a pretty solid foundation, I think, to say our Founders and our founding was deist.

I'd also argue that Paine and certainly Jefferson and Franklin are a rung up on Samuel Adams in terms of overall importance as a Founder...that's subjective to a degree, but especially with Jefferson I think that sticks (he wrote our what's probably our most internationally-quoted document, was President, bought a good chunk of the country from Napoleon and has his face carved into a mountain, so I think it's fair to say he wins...though Sam Adams DID provide a namesake for cheap sports bar beer, the importance of that in American society CANNOT be overstated!)

I'd likewise argue Paine and Franklin were more important than Adams, as arguably we're not moved to fight for independence without Paine and arguably we don't win the war without Franklin convincing France to lend us military--especially naval--aid...a move that I might add led to ANOTHER Revolution...the outcome of which Louis and Marie were decidedly less happy about, but hey, nothing to lose your head over, right?

"Thomas Jefferson (definitely an anti-clerical Christian, but deist?)"

Didn't he say he didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah/the Son of God?

...Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that sort of Christianity 101, one of the few-few tenants probably 99.9% of Christians would agree with (at least in terms of the time-frame we're talking about...Early Christianity came in all shapes and colors and there's definitely some material there from long-dead sects that would have held vastly different views, but they're not really relevant to the point in time we're talking about--the 18th or 21st century--so we'll leave them alone.)

I don't think you can classify Jefferson as Christian with him taking issue with Jesus as the Messiah or not believing he's the Son of God...

To hold that line but still call yourself a Christian would seem to be like saying you're a Muslim but don't actually believe Muhammad ascended to Heaven or that he was the final prophet of Allah...seems like you're squaring the circle there...

To address your point on the Jefferson Bible:

"Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels which contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages indicating Jesus was divine"

From Wikipedia, but as it's attested to by four citations, and it fits what's been stated above as well as what we've already said about Jefferson, I think it's fair game...

So let me turn the question back on you--

"Did deists believe in the Holy Spirit being given to sustain humanity? This doesn’t exactly support the idea of a watchmaker God."

Do Christians generally deny the Miracles, Supernatural Elements, Resurrection and any indication that Jesus was divine? That doesn't sound like a Christian to me...

If I were to guess (key word GUESS) I would hypothesize that the sections you cite, as well as what's already been said about Jefferson are manifestations of his ideal of Jesus primarily as a teacher of morals...that's how I could account for the Hell/Angels/Heaven references...you could conceivably use Heaven/Hell as stand-ins for moral absolutes, right and wrong, and so perhaps Jefferson's reconstituted idea of Jesus is someone who uses these concepts of moral absolutes--Heaven and Hell, Angels and Serpents/Wrongdoers--to impart moral teachings.

That'd seem to fit as he cut out the Miracles, Resurrection, and elements of the Divine but NOT the moral teachings which supposedly is supposed to come from that divinity...

And after all, Socrates didn't believe in the Grecian Gods, but he frequently references them in an allegorical sense in Plato's dialogues to make a rhetorical point--

So maybe Jefferson's Jesus was meant to be a Socrates-type figure?

Strip away the divinity and powers and you have a pretty striking parallel, one that's been brought up again and again--two teachers, both relatively humble and not exactly loaded with cash, both more interested in morality and the philosophical/spiritual side of life than the worldly side of it, both run afoul of people who aren't too happy about what they're teaching, both have a famous trial, and both famously die.

So that's my explanation for Jefferson there, or at least an attempt.

"Denying the divinity of Christ is heretical, but there is a far cry between that and deism as I understand it"

1. The leap from Heretic to Christian seems bigger than from Heretic to Deist to me,

2. Deism was a big thing in the Enlightenment for intellectuals,

3. I think it's telling he removes those supernatural elements and focuses on Jesus more as a person and teacher and less as a spiritual or religious icon,

4. Even if we didn't want to call him deist I'd submit we CAN'T call him Christian...I can't see that working when you deny the fundamental tenant of Christianity, that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God--after all, if we can waive that, then why don't you count the Jews as Christian? That WAS the big factor in their separating, after all...Jews didn't think he was the Messiah, the proto-Christians thought he was...and that division lasts to this day? If we remove that requirement, belief in Jesus as the divine Messiah, well, what truly separates Judaism and Christianity in that respect...even if there are other divisions (and there are) without Jesus-as-divine being the fundamental schism, why not call them two sides of the same religion the same way Protestantism and Catholicism still fall under the umbrella of Christianity? Seems as if you'd be forced to at least merge the two together again to that degree...arguably if that requirement was removed, some Orthodox Jews and some Catholics could have more in common than Catholics with Protestants...so I DON'T think you can just brush off that requirement...

I think rejecting Christ as divine/the Messiah/the Son of God is a deal-breaker in calling oneself a Christian...

Ergo, Jefferson was not a Christian as he rejected that tenant, and he most likely slot left to place him, then, given his invoking the idea of a "Creator" in the Declaration, is as a Deist.

"one of the few-few tenants probably 99.9% of Christians would agree with"

Completely off topic but the word is 'tenet' not 'tenant'. I see this several times a day on Reddit and it's driving me crazy.

Do carry on...

You need to read more history. Paine wrote one pamphlet. Jefferson wrote the Declaration, but then spent all his time in Virginia until he served in Washington's cabinet. John Adams--he was the workhorse of the Founding.

Adams was involved in the Continental Congress, administering the government of the new nation during the Revolution, then spent several years as a diplomat, and then returned and served in the first 12 years of the Executive Branch. Along with Washington, he is arguably the Founder who was the most involved and the hardest working. That you dismiss him so easily is ridiculous.

Obi -
Hope you don't mind me bringing this up again but I never got an answer so I'm still curious.
Assuming we accept that the founders were primarily non-Christian secularists, doesn't that put the responsibility for slavery, the oppression of women, gays, and Native Americans squarely on the secularists?

As to the OP, if there *is* a war on Christianity/religion in America (and I'm not one to say there is and if there was I wouldn't be one to complain about it) it's manifested in the biased teaching of history (and logic?). How can someone as educated and erudite as Obi get as far in school as he has and simultaneously believe that secularists founded our nation and wrote the constitution but that the Christians - whose worldview was supposedly very marginal in the nation's founding - are responsible for slavery?

But hey, that's not nearly so much an attack on Christianity as it is on intellectualism. Christianity has and will continue to absorb those kinds of attacks because it's founded on the work of Jesus, not 18th century philosophers or 20th century televangelists, and it has inherent mechanisms for confession, repentence, and redemption. But woe to our educational system when anti-religious bias is allowed to skew history and blur logic.

Obi,

So out of roughly 200 or so people who could claim to be founding fathers (laying their lives and fortunes upon the line by signing the Declaration, leading an insurrection against their king, attending as delegates of Continental Congresses, serving as diplomats, etc.) Four guys make them all "overwhelmingly deist"? I could come up with four of them that were ministers. So, you've got to laud and magnify your heroes and belittle Samuel Adams. That's a risky proposition anyway, leading opposition to the Stamp Act and paying a key role in organizing the Boston Tea Party alone would give him a rightful place on the list. Signing the Declaration of Independence cements it though.

I fully acknowledge the accomplishments of the men you've cited. However, you're missing an awful lot if you're supporting the idea that they (the Founding Fathers) were "overwhelmingly deist". Four isn't even a majority in the smallest list of Founding fathers, it certainly isn't an overwhelming majority.

Let's change tack, if they were overwhelmingly deist then where is the denunciation of revealed religion? That's a pretty widespread theme among deists. In fact what's in them at all that a Christian couldn't be completely comfortable agreeing to?

So, basically It doesn't matter whether a few influential deists were involved in the founding of the U.S. It was a popular movement at the time, there obviously were. However, saying the founding fathers were overwhelmingly deist is false. There was no deist ruling class, bent upon whatever you might suppose. Like in any revolution people with widely differing viewpoints banded together for a common cause. You point out Jefferson and completely ignore the rest of the people present who had a hand in developing those documents, and without whose affirmation they would not have been made. Three or four guys don't count as an overwhelming majority. I don't see where we're even at the point that I need to argue against these few guys being deist. For the sake of argument, I'll say sure, those three guys were deists. And then ask, so? What all the other guys accomplishments were chopped liver?

Calvin Coolidge was a Christian