No, I am definitely NOT speaking directly to you. I don't know you. I have no idea what you believe and also didn't ask you to change. I didn't ask you to adopt my beliefs. I said, again: We'll be a much better, stronger and smarter country once people have voluntarily, logically, and of their own accord given up reliance on supernatural beliefs I see supernatural beliefs rapidly disappearing in the US as all the polls show, and I see a lot of harm being done in their name. So I think we'll all be better off when that is finally over, although it will likely not be in my lifetime. I think when people really evaluate the supernatural, and the lack of evidence for it, they will voluntarily abandon it, especially if societal pressures don't inhibit that. But I DON'T think people should be made to do it, and I certainly don't think I will change your mind here in this anonymous forum. You are taking this very personally, and I wonder why? I do not want to speculate so maybe you can explain? If you'd like to sincerely and rationally discuss your specific beliefs, I am pleased to do that - in fact I welcome it - but my intention was not to debate individuals about what they believe in this thread, so I will leave that up to you. |
Some people take even anonymous comments about religion very personally. It's built in to some religious thinking to be defensive of people who do not agree with your religious views. It's like "Defending the faith" or something. It could also be a way of fending off doubts. If you protest loudly enough, maybe people who inadvertently challenge your beliefs will just go away. |
This is scary that you think because the Bible isn’t mentioned in the Constitution our country isn’t based on Judeo Christian values. The book you cite is written by someone who created a bunch of straw man arguments (the pledge of allegiance and “One Nation Under God” were not part of our founding principles, but that doesn’t negate the Judeo Christian principles our founders espoused. Name any early settlement and there was a church at the center of it. |
So what? All that means is that someone had the means to build it. It could mean a lot of other things too, but does not prove Christianity is central to the US constitution. The original settlers were Anglo Saxon - that doesn't mean that subsequent immigrants should be shut out. Then of course, there are the native Americans. |
Name one judeo Christian value that didn’t exist long before Judaism or Christianity. |
You say "I believe it takes courage and conviction to have faith in the unseen." I don't think so. I think people are taught that as children, and while they easily give up on other beliefs in the unseen (e.g., Santa, the tooth fairy), some people persist in believing in another form of the unseen -- God. That's fine -- or it can be fine, if it makes you feel good and doesn't interfere negatively in your life. But "courage and conviction" it is not. It's simply a preference. |
I don't see that pp is pushing any beliefs on you. They are expressing their views, which are different from yours. You both have a right to do that, in this secular country |
I’m going to blow your mind when I tell you some of the Founders were Deist. I’m also going to blow your mind when I tell you the concept of an overarching “Judeo Christian” identity would have been totally foreign to them. They lived in a time when there were Catholic colonies, Church of England colonies, Protestant colonies, and “tolerant” colonies. Europe’s various religious wars and massacres - among the people who believed in Christ as savior but quibbled on the details - were living memory for them. The idea of a “Christian” nation would have been nonsense because which do you pick? |
Churches are important within a community from a social perspective. NOT within the government. |
+1 Also, I just found this piece on George Washington's religious beliefs put out by the Mount Vernon organization https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/george-washington-and-religion/. Below are the last two paragraphs. The whole thing is short and very informative. "Washington was also tolerant of different religious beliefs, having attended services of multiple Christian denominations. He once publicly supported an army chaplain who was a Universalist (meaning that he held that Christ died for the sins of all, versus only the elect) despite the objections of other clergy. In fact, while President, Washington wrote a letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island standing in favor of religious freedom, explaining: "For happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens…May the children of the stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the goodwill of the other inhabitants."3 Overall, Washington's religious life is an area of great debate and much in line with his contemporaries. His religious life is complex and should be approached as such, without trite labels and descriptions." ------- Personally, I recall from a tour of Christ Church in Alexandria VA, where Washington attended, that he was known for leaving before communion. This practice is also mentioned in the piece above. |
Religion is not a problem. |
+1. Simplistic and ignorant statements like this never win arguments. They just make the speaker look … simple and ignorant. Maybe bigoted too. |
Oh yes it is a problem. Would you like a list? As for simple and ignorant, I can present evidence for what I think, can you? And you always resort to ad hominem. So ironic. |
Your list is pointless. Stalin, Lenin, Mai and Pol Pot also killed millions, and with recent memory. Plus they oppressed their citizens for decades. If you want to chest-bump about lists, it’s just going to look silly. |
You can have an opinion, but your opinion isn’t everyone’s opinion nor does it make it fact. |