Interesting quiz

Heheheh... I got a 19, though one question I got right was because I knew what they wanted and it was wholly biased. Randman's assertion of rewriting history with a secular bent does get some backing with that test. However... It was not trying to be hateful, rather showing that in contrast to claims made by some fundamentalists, the US was not founded on Xian principles or doctrines.Some fundamentalist leaders do claim that the DoI contains references to the Xian god and Jesus, rather than the more neutral references which actually exist. The test works to see if you understand what is actually written, or if you have read into what is there, or whether you listen to others who want you to read into what was there.If Jewish fundies were the ones actively trying to change how it is perceived, my guess is the test would have said Judaism and Moses (or something like that).The key is to get some of the facts straight before rational discussion can be had.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Randman is correct that it was the anabaptists and well outside england. This is where one of his earlier statements have proven correct, in that some groups appear to be trying to tie some concepts to nonreligious sources.That said you definitely picked out where the test was getting biased. If I remember right some of the puritans were absolute horrorshows.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I wish you would stop using secular in place of atheist. It simply does not make sense, particularly in this subject. The anabaptists... as religious as they were... were secularists.Yes, if we are discussing something outside of gov't practices then secular would indicate a nonreligious item, but when discussing gov't practices it means only that gov't is nonreligious in the sense that gov't is about earthly matters alone, and church is for spiritual matters.It is not a "religious tenet", which is to say one must be religious, to believe in such a separation and there have been those outside religious communities which have promoted that idea. Neither must a person be atheist to believe in secularism IN GOVT.This test definitely scores you some points that history is getting poorly edited. What's ironic is that you don't seem to mind where the test is right and fundies are doing the editing. The founders were generally religious and secularism was a movement within religious communities, and the nation was founded on secularist principles which means it is not founded on a religion.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I am with you that more than just anabaptists supported that idea, however it is clear that as a large movement (perhaps I should say large and successful) it began with the anabaptists in a somewhat unbroken line to the founding of our nation.Specifically the test asks about the "wall of separation between church and state" and attributes it to Jefferson. Well that is only partly true. While he was not an anabaptist he used that phrase while writing to the anabaptists (that is specifically where we got the phrase) and used their common terminology for the concept.The concept was also proven as worthy within anabaptist communities within the colonies. They were certainly the first.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)