evidence for conservative Christian influence on US government

Jefferson is talking about a priest-dominated government. A strong Christian citizenry was considered to be indispensable to the health of the American nation by most of the founders, but it is exactly this that today's revisionists oppose.

Their religious views are what the entire country once lived by, and they have only been overthrown in the last half century by an alien philosophy that has redefined all the American truths. How do you think it happened that the founders opened their nation-making sessions with prayer, that even the least religious of them supported this? Benjamin Franklin was the one who proposed it. Both Washington and Adams said that the strength of the nation depended on a moral citizenry. We have been losing that in the last half century as the most unthinkable immoralities are now defended as if they were the essence of rights and freedoms. Franklin wasn't sure we could hold on to their republican hopes for the nation. I think he may turn out to have been prophetic.

Faith, I gave you a breakdown of our cultural/legal history so as to show what Traditional is and where people like Robertson are pointing to when they say "traditional". They mean "what they grew up with". But that isn't traditional, its just what they grew up with which was a very Progressive agenda politics.Instead of dealing with my post you simply say you have a cite which tells me what's really going on and hand me some odd rant against Marxists and Democrats.I am not a Marxist, nor a Democrat, which means your article has nothing to do with me and I am still telling you that what Robertson is wanting is not some Traditional American... just the America that HE grew up with which was progressive.By the way I love one of the quotes... These are the same people called wimps and peacenik hippies? Hey, pick a criticism and stick with it. As far as I can tell the conservatives are just as rude and likely to put a boot in ones groin.I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but you're more likely to get a boot in the groin from a KKK member, a Nazi party member, or a Redneck, than a hippy and those are some of the most liberal people out there.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well the America Robertson grew up with was a lot closer to the America that was meant to be than the one you are now supporting.And Horowitz knows what he is talking about. He was there, he was in the middle of it. I was only on the fringes of it but its effect was pervasive and I can say from experience that what we have now is what they were selling then, and you've bought it.

I know what you wrote and I know what I meant. The terms are a whitewash. Right, it's not murder, it's "woman's reproductive destiny." Love the revisionist language, SO clever of them. So I may personally choose to keep blood off my own hands as long as I agree that murder is OK for others?No, they don't speak of abortion as a good thing, they speak of it as a very serious decision, as if murder were even thinkable let alone a decision.This is a complex web of deceit that allows women to rationalize a great evil. Over and over when women come to face what abortion actually is, it breaks their hearts, but the lies continue.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-02-2005 11:43 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 06-02-2005 11:43 AM

In a way you are correct. They were deists and found the evangelists to be appalling in their hypocrisy and ignorance. Within the last half century the "alien philosophy" of evengalism has grown to drive out rational thinking, including rational religious thought.Of course if your criticism is that Xianity in general held greater sway back then, and in the last portion of the 20th century has been diminishing, you would also be right. Regardless of which denomination of Xianity you are talking about, it is true that demographics show an increased number of other religious and nonreligious philosophies within the US.Thankfully the founding fathers wanted a nation not dependent on a single religious character and so created a secular gov't. While this is true, you miss the rather obvious statements they also made about the nature of religion and gov't. A bit of pick and choose. As it is you also missed their acidic commentary on evangelist Xianity. They were deists and believed that while Christ taught good moral sense, that it was a rational position and his "miracles" were tales for children.They did not hold that other religions were incapable of morality, or that nontheists were incapable of morality... just that they did like the moral lessons within the teachings of Christ. So true, as a naturist and an amorous individual who certainly had affairs, he'd be quite shocked regarding the immorality of having a gov't tell a person how they should think and behave would be defended as if it were the essence of rights and freedoms.I can't remember which founding father it was, perhaps Franklin, that commented that there could be no greater insult than a gov't telling a man how he should live his life. I think it may have been Jefferson (but we know all about that rascal: miscegenistic pedophile that he was).Freedom is the right to make ones own course free of the intrusion of gov't. The populace will be better off with good morals or ethics, but a good gov't is not the creator or purveyor of such things. That comes, as they discussed, with a healthy populace interested in seeking to better themselves through reason and tolerance.At this point reason and tolerance are spat upon by left and right alike. We are in a "progressive" age where both sides demand to be the arbiters of morality for others and dictate this using the gov't. Both wolves cloak themselves in the flag and guise of the foundig fathers. Shame on both sides.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm sorry what are you talking about? He grew up during a time of rampant progressive movements to moralize people using the gov't, which was opposed to the nation the founding fathers wrote they were tryin to build,He has since advocated all sorts of things generated during his youth but wholly absent from the American nation at its beginning. The idea of faith based gov't programs was explicitly rejected at the beginning of our nation and yet he favors it using words rejected by our founding fathers.So I am curious to understand where you get your opinion from. I bought what? I went to a high school in a conservative town a few blocks from the Billy Graham Center. I went to a religious affiliated Uniersity.I got my understanding from reading original documents and writings, as well as following Robertson during the rise of the 700 Club.Yeah, I did buy the what the founding fathers were selling, and rejected what Robertson was peddling.I will wholly discredit what you are shovelling. If you have some historical support for your position, now would be the time to supply it. And not "marxists run our public schools" garbage. Give me examples of how the Founding Fathers would have supported the machinations of Robertson.Heck, find me one good thing they ever said about evangelical Xianity. If you have read anything by them you know they found it repulsive and ignorant. IF our nation was founded on a Xian moral position, it was clearly NOT Robertson's Xian moral position.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The nation simply will not survive without such a citizenry. And no, government shouldn't be the creator or purveyor of such things but it has become that in the last half century as it has been tyrannically forcing a contrary morality on the American people against our will. Gays can live as they please but increasingly government has been forcing the rest of the nation to accept their lifestyle. And that is not what tolerance means. Tolerance means allowing people to do as they please, it does not mean having to accept it, agree with it or approve of it, but this is exactly the direction politics has been going, FORCING people to accept what they cannot accept. This is not America, this is not tolerance, this is totalitarianism. It is nobody's business to define what the populace should believe or seek. Already this is a totalitarian aim. All that is required for a healthy nation is a basic morality. And as I've said, that is going going gone as we are forced to accept what has always been known to be immoral as if it were a mere alternative lifestyle. This includes abortion, sexual "freedoms" of all kinds, gay "rights" and the like, all of which have been becoming acceptable since the sixties. The nation can only self-destruct with such moral deterioration. Tolerance is no doubt not what you think it is, to judge from what you've said here already. This is an illusion. The Right is trying to prevent the Left from cramming their immorality down our throats, otherwise it's live and let live, something the Left doesn't know how to do. That's a false egalitarian attitude there. While I'm not going to defend everything on the Right this attempt to paint both sides equal is false.

Ding dong Faith, until just a couple years ago gays couldn't do ANYTHING as they pleased. Now they can at least have sex as they please, but they still cannot have relationships as they want nor even serve their nation as nongays can.Yeah, I agree 100% that tolerance is what you just said, gays are not being tolerated. I don't think anyone should have to accept homosexuality and I agree the gov't should not be telling anyone they have to feel one way or the other about it.Unfortunately, while you may be correct that some are wanting to have the gov't push acceptance, there is a much larger contigent trying not only to push nonacceptance but also nontolerance. Has "always been known to be immoral"? Certainly you can't be talking about back in the days of the founding fathers. Mind the music and the step and with the girls be handy!In any case basic morality may be less than what some feel is important to their own moral well being.... even if that has had a long history. This I find interesting. Ignoring the rather wild sexual lives of our founding fathers for a moment, as well as the antics of our recent conservative politicians (like Strom and Gingrich and Bush Jr), perhaps you can point to the conservative evangelical leader who embodies the virtues of abstinence that you are suggesting.As far as I understand all of them have fallen into disrepute through various sex, money, alcohol, or other scandals.Heck, lets take Robertson for a second. I was watching when he shocked his own cohosts by suggesting the US should take innocent people (the relatives of people we don't like), chop them up into little bits and mail them to our enemies. That sure was a humdinger. And more recently he launched a prayer offensive to have God strike Supreme Court members down with major illnesses (looks like God missed and hit Rehnquist instead), as well as suggesting that someone should throw a tactical nuke into the state department. Interestingly enough if those last two were conducted by an Imam there would have been no end to the outrage by evangelicals, but in this case being a traitor is "good" moral action.Yeah, you let me know how the founding fathers would have felt about Robertson's suggestion to blow up the state department. Closer to their concept, I think not. I agreed with your statement on Tolerance in another post, so I hope I know what it is and you agree with it. Tolerance is allowing others to live and let live, though one does not in any way shape or form have to agree with it. Wrong, read up on the subject. The "culture war" was invented by the religious right to introduce the gov't as a tool against its cultural opponents. They don't want to be tolerant and so are looking for ways to end things they have to be tolerant of.A good example is your claiming that if other cultures come to the fore and their moral system the norm, society will somehow fall and so we need the gov't to crush them. That is not tolerance. You can claim it is mistaken, but not that it is false. I am meaning what I say, though I should point out I am claiming the Right is a little more blacker than the Left.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Huh? You don't think he met with veterans who had legitimate concerns about the future of our country? What on earth would make you think that the veterans he met with weren't concerned about something? A few of them served on swiftboats, yes. Most of them had not. Most of those who served on swiftboats with Kerry had no concerns about his service - quite the contrary, many of them were his strongest supporters. Excuse me but it's obvious that it was the voters who cost him the election. A slight majority chose someone else. I'm not familiar with any poll or survery that concluded that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization had any effect on the decision of voters on election day.

Look, what are you talking about here? How would you pass a law that says that people have to "accept" homosexuality?As far as I know, all gay people want is the same treatment by the government as anyone else gets. Nobody gives a good goddamn what you think about it, Faith. Jeez, hate gays all you like. More power to you. Why do you think any one would care what you think, as long as you're not tying the gays to fences and beating them to death?Tolerance means the government stays out of the god buisiness and treats people equally. You, as a private citizen, have all the rights to hate gays that you ever had.

I happen to have gay FRIENDS. Who said I hate anybody? The attempt to extend marriage to gays is an attempt to force the rest of us to acknowledge something as right that we know to be wrong and change the understanding of the whole nation about this fundamental morality. We don't have hate crimes legislation here yet but they have it in parts of Canada and there are those who are working hard on it here, which means that ministers can't preach the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality. This is totalitarian tyranny.

I think with this she's referring to laws which make sexual orientation a protected issue, as well as efforts in schools to teach kids to accept different sexualities as somewhat "equal" or "good" in some moral fashion.Those things can be seen as pushing people to accept, rather than just tolerate, homosexuality.I'm not defending Faith, just pointing out the sliver of truth contained within the post.This message has been edited by holmes, 06-02-2005 01:31 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You are sadly blind to what the Left is, as so many in the country are these days. You've just bought the propaganda that has been fed to university students for the last half century and you've bought the whole revisionist rewrite of history. Since you seem to be sincerely interested in studying these things, read some of the conservatives for a while to get some balance.Here's another excerpt from Horowitz's mag that is apropos:

Thank you.Far be it from anybody here to defend the evil Faith. Gad, would that give you a black mark in liberal heaven.