How New Testament Fundi Christians Bless Atheists, Roman Catholics And Others

The motivations and aspirations of Plymouth settlers and Jamestown settlers were very different from one another. Plymouth was settled by, what was considered to be by the Church of England, heretics. The basic dogma of these "heretics" remain today and make up the bulk of Christian fundamentalism.Jamestown, however, was largely a secular province. Many, if not most, were likely religious people, but they were not nearly as fanatical about it. And even as far south as Boston from Plymouth (which is geographically not very far), secularism and religiosity simply coexisted, as it does today.The private and public writings of the Founding Fathers make it very clear that there were both deists (which is nothing less than the progenitor of skepticism) and Christians. Not all the Founding Fathers were as Christian as John Jay or as secular as Thomas Jefferson.So in the truest sense, neither side can claim total allegiance. Like most societies, their allegiances were divided, just as they are today. And should we expect anything less? America was neither a Christian nation nor a secular nation... It's simply a nation with people of varying beliefs. There is a fantastic article, written by a Christian, in fact, who gives a fair and balanced look at this very debate. He condemns revisionist historians, both religious and atheistic, for attempting to paint pictures of a landscape that never existed, or at the very least, has been distorted for ideological reasons.On your side of the spectrum, he writes: "Those who insist that America was founded as a Christian nation run roughshod over the historical record. They use the words of the Founding Fathers to support Republican jeremiads on the moral decay of American life. If only this country could return to its Christian roots, they say nostalgically, everything would be okay.

​

And how do they demonstrate that America was founded as a Christian nation? By selectively choosing texts from the writings of the Founders without any effort to explore them in the context of the 18th-century world in which they were written. Just because John Adams and George Washington quoted from the Bible or made reference to God does not mean that they were trying to construct a Christian nation. Granted, the Founding Fathers were the products of a Christian culture, but most of them were never comfortable with the beliefs that defined this culture. Very few of them would qualify for membership in today's evangelical churches."He then continues on: "let's remember that the secular left is not immune to errors of historical thinking. While evangelicals misinterpret the references to God in the words of the Founding Fathers, their critics simply have no idea what to make of those same quotations. Since they can't fathom why people today would make religious faith an essential part of their everyday lives, they have little interest in making sense of past worlds where such beliefs were important.

​

Such approaches to history seldom enable us to better understand the past. Thinking historically does not mean that people cannot learn from the past -- they should and must. But they should be careful how they use historical examples. Exploring the past requires a concern for what it was really like.

​

The past is like a foreign country. Those who enter it as guests should try to understand its foreignness in a way that respects our dead ancestors who inhabit it. We must not invade the past with the goal of remaking it into our own image."Is America a Christian Nation? What Both Left and Right Get Wrong | History News NetworkIt's a mistake to try and reinvent the past, and it would be foolish to unequivocally categorize the US' past as either secular or Christian when it reality it was a bit of both.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Canada, Switzerland, and New Zealand come to mind as nations that rank higher than the US on the freedom scale who couldn't be summarized as Protestant Christian Fundamentalist nations.Why are they so "blessed?" Maybe there is no supernatural reason, Buz. Perhaps it's simple common sense. Countries that leave other countries alone are generally left alone to prosper. Buz, people go where the money is. Nicaraguans go to Costa Rica because Costa Rica is prosperous. Taiwanese often go to Hong Kong because it is prosperous. People come to the United States because it is (er, was) prosperous, your supernatural inventions aside.If what you say is true, there should be no earthly reason why Hong Kong should be as economically viable as it is. So is it prosperous because of God's hand over the US or not? You can't have it both ways. Either God is pulling all the strings or he isn't. Then how is it that they've all survived just fine? Why do you narrowly view religion as playing the only significant factor in a countries success? Buz, I know Haitians, I worked with them all the time. I can tell you that most young Haitians don't even know what Voodoo is. It's a dying relic of the past, not a contemporary problem.And that people like that vulture from the 700 Club sensationalize tragedy to try and advance his brand of ultra rightwing fundamentalism is pathetic, un-Christian, and un-American. You only want to recognize the fundamentalists you want to recognize, which is very selective. If someone pointed out to you that White Identity groups are also fundamentalist Christians, you reject the equivocation out of hand.In that instance, you see no correlation. But if Mexico is predominantly Catholic, it somehow explains why they economically struggle?What about Brazil then? They're almost entirely Catholic and they are the most prosperous nation in South America with signs of slowing. What's your reason that they are successful, even though they're evil Catholics?

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

quote:

---

Wow, that's a broad brush. And an enormous straw man.

​

But I thought that you were yourself a member of the secular left, or at least member of the secular more-left-than-Buzsaw.

---

I'm secular, not a leftist. It's obviously a reference to those who cannot differentiate or those who refuse to. Obviously not all Christians could be roundly indicted in the first portion of the quote, just as not all secularists could be compartmentalized in the latter portion of the quote. It's a generalization of the extremes.If that does not encompass you then it should be of no consequence to you.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Well, yeah, in comparison to Buzsaw, then yes. I tend to lean to the left on social issues, and to the right on fiscal issues. I would assume it was hyperbole for effect and/or humor. Sometimes people say "all" or "every" when they could not possible know that. It's just hyperbole and a mode of speech. I wouldn't get too upset about it. I'm just giving you my interpretation of what I read, and the possible psychology behind it. If an article appears too one-sided, then he runs the risk of alienating people. The bulk of the scorn in the article clearly was directed towards fundamentalists. If it was all directed towards them, they may assume that he's just some liberal blowhard and might immediately dismiss it. But if it appears to be an objective piece, they might be more likely to listen to what he has to say with an open-mind versus immediately dismissing him.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

quote:

---

If that does not encompass you then it should be of no consequence to you.

---

..... Okay....... Are you comparing baby-eating Jews to what was written in the article? Look, I gave you my interpretation. You seem to disagree. Fine. What more would you like me to do? It's a disagreement on interpretations, we aren't dealing with hard facts here.We will just have to agree to disagree.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Wiki is our friend

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine