Religion and Martial Arts

[Cruentus]

The US was NOT founded by puritans. The puritans were a small sect. Many of our founding fathers were, in fact, Deist or Agnostic. See below quotes.


Thomas Jefferson:

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

John Adams:

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:

"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

Here's Thomas Paine:

"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."

And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."

James Madison:

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

HA HA…..I’m back. Now I can explain why I disagree with your statement on many levels, with proof as to why I think your statement is incorrect.

First off, I can’t see how you would actually buy your first statement. I will agree that the “puritans” were a small sect during a time when we were European colonies, and the sect by itself didn’t last very long. However, there weren't that many people in the colonies in the 1st place. Also, as is the case with many “fundamentalist” Christian sects, addititional sects broke off and evolved from the Puritan sect. Christianity in the broad sense is our most widely practiced religion in America today. And, “American Christianity” is very different then Christianity in other countries because of the way it evolved from our original colonists, who were all “fundamentalist” protestant Christians, for the most part.

Now in my opinion America came to where it is today because of 4 things. #1 Sheer Determination: People desired to live in a “free” democratic state, where our leaders represented the people. #2 “Luck” or “Devine intervention” or whatever. Our 1st colonists were “lucky” that they didn’t die off completely, which they almost did, and that they were able to even establish settlements. We were “lucky” that England had other problems overseas, and that we were across the atlantic, so they didn’t kick our @$$ in the revolution as they would have and almost did. We were “lucky” that France didn’t take the opportunity to take us over once we became independent, which they could have but they had other issues to attend to overseas. We got lucky with certain “land deals,” like the Louisiana purchase, and the later purchase of Alaska. The list of our “luck” goes on. #3 Genocide, slavery and other serious abominations. In order to live in “our” land, and run things “our” way, we had to practically exterminate an entire nation of Native American people to current estimations of over 50 million. We used archaic methods of Germ Warfare, terrorism, and other methods of war that would be considered unlawful by today’s U.N. standards to exterminate them. Until the beginning of the 1800’s, our economy was based off of slavery. Without Slavery our economy, at least as it was DESIGNED pre-1800’s, would have failed. It wasn’t until the Northern states became more industrial, less relying on the southern agricultural economy, that the North actually drove us to War to abolish slavery. “The Republican Ideal” at the time was “to be able to pull yourself up by your bootstraps to achieve the American dream” or to start from being a worker, save $$, to eventually become an “owner.” Your Democrates at the time were your slave states (Keep in mind that Pre Anti-Bellum and Post Anti-Bellum Democrates and Republicans are 2 different animals, the parties “switched” after the Cival War, which is the topic of another discussion). Slavery violated the “Republican Ideal” because how can a worker pull themselves up from their bootstraps if they can’t get hired because an “Owner” won’t pay a worker if they can get it for free through slavery. The collision of these 2 ideals lead to the Civil War. Slavery and Genocide are 2 major things, but some would say that our “elitist attitudes” and government policy is what drives consumerism, and trade policies based off of our unilateral power that drive our economy today. Some very educated people have made the argument that we have “modern slavery” today, where the gap between the rich and the poor continually grows, and that the former “republican ideal” no longer exists because corporate America prevents “the worker” from ever achieving “the American dream” of becoming an “owner.” I don’t agree with all those points, but the argument have been made, and if correct, these could be considered “other abominations.” #4 Religious zeal and fundamentalism. Our country was started mainly by people fleeing religious persecution from the established organizations (Mostly the church of England, but some from other established orgs. Like the Church of Rome, Etc.). These people were “your religious cults” by the time-period standards. They had developed a very ethnocentric, egocentric, and stringent interpretation of the Bible, which lead to religious zeal. This zeal helped the people in the Reveloution, and helped the people survive the pre-revelolutionary days. This zeal was also used as justification for #3 (the genocide and slavery specifically).

Now, here is my main point of this post….
The thing is, from yours (and others) “non-christian” perspective, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t say that Religion, specifically Christian “fundamentalism” had little to do with the founding of our country, but that religion, specifically Christian “Fundamentalism” was to blame for #3 (Genocide, Slavery, ethnocentricism, etc.), a clear thing that is an intricate part of our American history. Either A. Christian Fundamentalism played a major role, for better or for worse, in our history. We can take the good (our moral, lets say) and the bad (Slavery, Genocide) with that. Or B. Christian Fundamentalism didn’t play a significant role in our countries development, and therefore is not to blame for the good, or the bad (Genocide, slavery, etc.) It has to be one or the other.

I believe it’s A. I believe Christianity played a major role, but the Ethnocentric version that was being practiced was wrong, which caused many evils in our countries history which we have to live with today.

You can believe what you choose.

Unfortunatily, our opinions matter very little in terms of history. So here our some historical facts:

#1 Religious persecution ran rampet from all sides in Europe, particularly from 1400s-1650s. Catholics against Hugonuts, Hugonuts against Catholics, Protestitants against Catholics, Protestants against other protestants, etc. Our “Forefathers” basically argued that this was not due to the religions themselves, but due to the dangerous mix of church and state.

#2 Pilgrims settled in Massachusets in the 1620’s, creating some of the 1st New England Settlements. They believed in completely separating themselves from the church of England to follow their own sect of Christianity. They settled in the America’s to escape religious persecution.

#3 1630’s, “Puritans” in Europe saught to “purify” the Protestant churches from any remnants of Catholic influence. They were known for such issuing savage punishments to clerigy and layman that failed to conform to the “rules.” They were persecuted in England for their behavior and beliefs, so about 20,000 saught refuge here in America. They still considered themselves to be a part of the Congretional Church, or Church of England, but they considered their “form” to be much more “pure.”

#4 Some primary sources to support both 2 And 3 would be “Bradfords Histories,” by William Bradford, which was Bradfords Journals of one of the 1st American settlements. I believe his journals is our 1st written historical record of our 1st colonies. Also Richard Mather authored “The Cambridge Platform,” and Cotton Mather wrote over 450 books and pamphlets on Puritan Christianity. Cotton Mather you may recognized, for he is blamed for instigating the Salem Witch Trials in Mass.

#5 Some other primary sources to mention would be both the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible. The Geneva Bible was compiled in 1560 by English Reformers who also left for the Americas to escape Religious Persecution. This Bible was used widely by Pilgrims and Puritans until it was replaced by the King James Bible. You also might want to look at “Capital Laws” or the 17th Century Laws that governed Massechussets. These laws were all based of scriptures, particularly the 10 commandments and Old Testement.

#6 Persecution continued to Run Rampet, except now the colonists were doing it to themselves. You may recognize Anne Hutchenson and Roger Williams. Both were expelled from Puritan Colonies. Willams started a Colony in Rhode Island, and he spoke of Religious Tolerance and Against Persecution. He Wrote “The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution,” although he was a of Christian Faith himself, as was most of his colony. Anne Hutchenson became one of the 1st American Christian leaders. Quakers and Mennonites, who were also started colonies on their own due to “banning” by Puritans. In Massechusets, those who returned from banning were often executed. In Virginia, which was now mostly Puritan, had passed “Anti-Quaker” laws. Back to Quakers, don’t forget that William Penn established the province of “Pennsylvania” which was ruled by Quaker Laws. The Quakers faught against spoke of religious tolerance, but only for those who believed in “the one true God.” So you weren’t to expect to be tolerated if you weren’t Christian at all.

#7 A large # of German Lutherans and Reformed Arrived to the Colonies in 1720’s to seek refuge. Catholics arrived as well, but were basically required to establish Maryland due to the Anti-Catholic Laws of the other states. The names of some of our states, in hindsight, even show our religious history. It is no wonder that “Mary” land would be a Catholic state.

#8 Virginia has an interesting background. It was founded by businessmen through “The Virginia Company” They also ruled there state through “the spirit of the Crusaders,” which ment basically that people were required to go to church and religious education by swordpoint. This was led by Thomas Dale, one of the states founding fathers. They believed in the church of England as it was in England, not the Puritan version, which was seen with suspicion by the other colonies. They also aspired to converting natives (by swordpoint of course). This is where the famous story of Pocahontas occurred, where she was baptized and married to John Rolfe; 1614.

#9 We did go through an “enlightenment period” during the early 1700’s, where people were getting to be more “logical” and less dogmatic towards their faiths. However, according the The Library of Congress estimation, around 80% of the people attended a Christian church, and more churches were being built during this time then during the entire 1600’s as the population grew. The people who didn’t attend often couldn’t because there wasn’t a church near enough to them.

#10 “The Great Awakening began in Europe in 1730’s, and swept through America by the 1740’s. This was a “revival” period of religious zeal and evengelicism. Presbeterians, Baptists, and Methodists were now stemming from the Angelican, Congretional, and Quaker churches, leaving them in the dust by the 1800’s.

#11 There were “Diests” such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson that were landmark in helping to create the seperation of Church and State when we finally became the “United States.” Deism emphasized morality and rejected the orthodox Christian view and the divinity of Christ. Diests made up a very small minority of the populus during the inception of our Constitution. As a Diest, Jefferson considered himself “a minority within a minority.” John Toland, and John Locke wrote some famous “diest” tracts and books, while George Whitfield, Samuel Davies, and Johnathan Edwards wrote against diesm and for Christianity. George Washington is sometimes associated with Diesm, when the evidence to prove this is very slim.

#12 Religion played a major role in the Revolution. Some considered it a “religious qurrel” according to Torrie Joseph Calloway, friend of Benjamin Franklin. Countless writings, sermons, battle flags and reminents all point to the fact that religious zeal and belief was used to justify the war. John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Decloration of Independence, is an example of a major influence in preaching the gospel to justify the revolution.

#13 Franklin and Jefferson were one of the most religiously liberal of our founding fathers. Yet, in creating a proposal for “The Seal of the United States” they both decided to use religious imagery for the task, because the people would identify with it. They went with Franklins proposal of using the image of the parting of the Red Sea.

#14 Some of the biggest debates in our history are the “church and state” debates. It was mostly over whether or not the States should financially support the churches. In Virginia particularly the debate ensued which eventually led to the official “seperation of Church and State.” This was sparked by a bill written by Patrick Henry which required a Tax on Virginians that would be given to the churches. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, 2 people you quoted, were the ones to officially put the debate to rest. Jeffersons “Act to Establish Religios Freedom” is what specifically did the trick. Other “founding fathers” saw nothing wrong with not separating church and state at first. George Washington can be quoted in saying that he is not in objection to “making people pay to support which they profess.”

#15 By the time the constitution and federal government was to be put in place, they saw it as wise to leave no mention of religion in our constitution. This was because the “Federalists” felt that it should be left up to the States, not because they felt it should be absent. There was considerable controversy over not mentioning “God” in these papers. However, our 1st 2 presidents, were considered religious men. Washington called religion: “A nessicary spring of popular government” John Adams considered himself a “church going animal” and believed that liberty and religious morality were inseperable in good government. It was Jefferson and Madison, our 3rd and 4th Presidents, who didn’t agree. They were friendly to the MAJORITY however, who followed Christian faiths.


Now, I’ve mentioned some names and sources that you can look up for yourself. The best comprehensive source online is probably the Library of Congress website “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, where most of what I have said is broken down there, and sited.

OTHER THINGS TO ADDRESS:

You quotes….Jefferson and Madison is explained above. It is true that they were not specifically “Christian” religious. The Adams quote is taken out of context. Adams believed that the US was founded on “Liberty,” however he believes cannot be separated from religious Christian morality; also explained above. Paine wrote “The Age of Reason” which has been considered “The atheist Bible.” He was hated and feared by most of the religious community in America for his book, however, I do not see how he could be considered as having great relevance to the founding of the US. HE's not a "forefather" and in fact rotted away in a French prison. The closest he comes to even playing a significant role is he "knew" a few of the key players.

Your 7% statistic….I don’t know where your getting that from. Hey…I heard that 80% of all statistics were made up on the spot (lol). Seriously, Nothing I have read or seen supports this statistic. It sort of violates good sense when I read the other proofs, also.

Treaty of Tripoli: Yes…I am fully aware of the many atheists and Groups of “Freethinkers” who use the Treaty of Tripoli as their basis for saying that “the U.S. was not founded on Christianity” They use this to argue against the historical role that the Christian Religion played in the development of our country. This is probably where you came up with the "7% statistic." Let's look at the document for what it really was, though. If you read all the articles of the document, it was designed to prevent Piracy which was running rampant in the 1790’s in “Tripoli,” which was off the coast of Modern Day Libya. Barlow wrote the document which intended to exchange $$ for peace. There is confusion as to what Barlow was…many say diest, however, he had served as a military chaplin at one time. Regardless, the treaty was printed and reprinted a few times, with no evidence that the words that the United States “was not founded on the Christian Religion" existed in the original document, which was destroyed. Furthermore, the oldest Arabic versions of the document do not contain this saying. So there is controversy there. What if it did, however? It would make some sense because the US government was trying to prevent piracy from a Muslim Nation, and they didn’t want to turn anything into a religious war, which at the time they would lose. So even if it was there in the document, it would have been for diplomacy purposes and nothing more that I can see. Also, there is no evidence that Adams actually read this portion of the document when he addressed the people, and in fact his “speech notes” which can be found in Washington D.C. today support the premise that he DID NOT read that portion of the treaty, if even there, to the public. I feel that the Treaty of Tripoli, because of this evidence, is a mute point. You’d do a better job argueing the lack of a mention of “God” in the Federal Constitution, because at least that can be verified.

Check out www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html to see the treaty in full. There is a link there that has different arguments behind it.

Conclusion: Perhaps I was being to broad or general to say that our country was founded on “Puritan” values. I wasn’t false, though, when you look at the evidence. I’d say that our country was more or less founded by the 4 things I mention in the beginning. Regardless…my proof and argument is stated. The evidence is presented. You can believe what you want, but remember that there are a lot of people out there who try to rewrite history to fit their own agendas. Many “freethinkers” have websites that do just that. My intel doesn't come from a website that I can specifically rely on to formulate my arguement for me. I have to do it on my own. Regardless, check the library of congress for a list of sources; most all sources you pick up anywhere, however, that aren't "freethinker" propaganda junk will support my points. To say that religion didn’t have a major role in our countries development is absurd. I say not only that it did, but I would argue that the “fundamentalism” part of it caused many great evils in our history.

Any of you can say what you want…but I am done with the subject. If I spend any more time on it, my f**king head will explode.

Thank You,

PAUL
Non-athiest
Non-fundamentalist

:apv:

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

I love to watch debates on the importance of Christianity between devout Christians, modern secularist Christians, agnostic Christians, and even "atheists" who are really just unfaithful Christians.

It's almost as much fun as watching Kenpoists debating the importance of Kenpo.

One small point not to overlook in the debate: If the forefathers had not come from diverse (albeit Protestant) relgious sects, they would have probably agreed upon a state religion and the freedom we now have would never have existed.

Anyway guys, this is an interesting debate.

opcorn:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I found this tidbit, which I have not heard of previously. Anyone know how accurate it is?

(Full rant: http://secular.embassyofheaven.com/usa/shamreligiousfreedom.htm)

Legal Religions
During the early days of Christianity, Rome discovered she could make her conquered subjects submit to her authority in almost every sphere. The conquered peoples would fight in the Roman armies and pay Roman taxes. But Rome found they could not force the people to abandon their religion and worship Roman gods.

Rome developed an ingenious device to circumvent this problem: the license. Rome generously declared that the people could worship any god they chose, and in any manner they chose. They could even proselytize for their religion. This marvelous "freedom of religion" was granted, with just one minor condition. They must first obtain a license from the Roman government. This established their religion as a legal religion of the Roman State.

Every religion in the Empire, except one, readily complied with this request. Even Judaism registered with Rome and became an officially recognized religion. But the obscure sect known as Christianity remained a "religio illicita," an illegal religion.

Christians were soon viewed, not so much as a religion, but as politicians of the worst kind. If they were not stopped, they would overturn the Roman Empire with their allegiance to another Kingdom.

Why would the Christians not accept a license? To accept a license, means to become "legal." It means to accept the sovereignty of the one who issues the license. One key principle is the lesser authority never licenses the greater authority. Rome wanted the Christians to acknowledge that they must obtain Caesar's permission to worship Jesus Christ. If the Christians accepted Caesar's license, they would be acknowledging the authority of Caesar over that of Jesus Christ. The Roman Emperor would stand above God Himself.

This was exactly what the Romans intended to accomplish by issuing religious licenses. They would graciously allow "freedom of religion" throughout the Empire. The only catch was that every religion must acknowledge Caesar's authority over the gods of all religions, including the God of Christianity.

Hitler praised the Romans for their "tolerance" of all religions. But he shared the Romans' hostility toward Christians who would not submit to licensing. Later, he said that he viewed Christian resistance as an implicit challenge to his own totalitarian claims.

Christians who confessed that "Jesus is Lord," could not accept the Roman license without making Caesar lord over Christ. They told Rome, not just with words, but with their very lives, that Christ, not Caesar, was Lord.

I now run to put on my asbestos underwear.

 

[Andi]

Wow great stuff Paul. Very interesting...I was not even aware of Deism. I have heard similar things re: rome and the early church before somewhere but can't think for the life of me where it was. :shrug:

Also, can't get the Stephen Jay Gould link to work. I'd dig up the actual page now but I think sleep is my top priority.

 

[arnisador]

Should we move this to the Philosophy and Spirituality forum?

 

[Cruentus]

Kenpoka: :rofl: Hey..where'd you find the popcorn smiley? Good points too. For the record, I am not actually a supporter of "Fundamentalism" of anykind, christian or otherrwise. I just feel that a lot of the sources of Nightingales previous arguements that I have read have a specific aganda, so they like to "change history" to make it fit. My only "agenda" here was to get to the truth of matters, which is more important to me then preaching "beliefs." I figure, how can we even talk about "beliefs" without getting the facts straight first? That would be like 2 teams trying to play baseball from 2 seperate fields.

Kaith: Dude, cool link. That's pretty interesting.

Andi: Thanks, Man. Sorry that the link didn't work. I amsure you can find it if you run a search. Someone better versed in computers then I might post it if they find it.

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Arnisador: You might want to split the thread: One on Religion and the Martial Arts and one on Religion and the founding of America.

 

[Cruentus]

In #11 in my previous post I mention "John Adams" as being a Diest. This was a mistake. John Adams was Christian, James Madison was Diest. I ment Madison...my bad!

 

[Cruentus]

Maybe split it...

I would just move the whole thing as is to "Philosephy and Religion" is I were in your position.
:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

I wonder how accurate that info is myself...It seems to me that the authors are demonstrating the same kind of religious intolerance that has caused us problems throughout our history.

I like the way they say...."There is no "freedom of religion" for a Christian. Jesus Christ gave us His government and His word. We are not free to seek out other gods and other forms of worship. Therefore, "freedom of religion" has no value in our lives. It means nothing. "

What a crock of s**T!! Let's put them in a Fundamentalist Muslim Nation and see how they feel about that statement! If they were being executed for their beliefs, I'd bet they'd change their tune... How dumb! :rofl:

 

[Nightingale]

Your 7% statistic….I don’t know where your getting that from.

I got it from the book that was cited at the end.

a mute point. You’d do a better job argueing the lack of a mention of “God” in the Federal Constitution, because at least that can be verified.

Hoping you mean MOOT point, but that's beside the point, isn't it?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The thing is.... most of your statements have absolutely nothing to do with mine.

All I said is that:

1. the puritans had but a small role in founding our nation.

2. most of our founding fathers did not consider themselves Christian.

You said virtually nothing to contradict either.

Now, here is my main point of this post….
The thing is, from yours (and others) “non-christian” perspective, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t say that Religion, specifically Christian “fundamentalism” had little to do with the founding of our country, but that religion, specifically Christian “Fundamentalism” was to blame for #3 (Genocide, Slavery, ethnocentricism, etc.), a clear thing that is an intricate part of our American history. Either A. Christian Fundamentalism played a major role, for better or for worse, in our history. We can take the good (our moral, lets say) and the bad (Slavery, Genocide) with that. Or B. Christian Fundamentalism didn’t play a significant role in our countries development, and therefore is not to blame for the good, or the bad (Genocide, slavery, etc.) It has to be one or the other.

You see, I never made any comment about #3. As a matter of fact, I do NOT blame Christianity for those things, which, therefore (according to your statement of "it has to be one or the other") invalidates your assumption regarding having one's cake and eating it too. We're talking about two different cakes, because I've never blamed Christianity for doing much of anything other than annoying me with their preaching when I'm trying to walk around in Santa Monica with my friends, or wasting trees by printing up so many tracts that just end up as litter on the ground. If people wanted them, they'd ask.

I never said that slavery was the fault of Christians. Slavery is more about economics than it is about religion... the only real role religion played in it was that it enabled people to justify to themselves what they felt they needed to do to survive economically.

I also never stated that it had much to do with the genocide of the Indian Nations. That was the basic human intolerance of that which they don't understand. Again, religion was used to justify actions that people felt were necessary for other reasons (westward expansion, etc...), which were again, basically economic in nature.

so, basically, I'm not blaming Christians for the problems of the past, I'm blaming greed, which is rather universal in nature, wouldn't you agree?

Like I've said many times before, I have no problem with Christianity. Its simply other people making other choices that have absolutely nothing to do with me. Its when their choices impact MY ability to make my own choices (within reason) that I have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with Christians. I have a problem with CERTAIN individuals, some of whom happen to be Christian, who CHOOSE to infringe upon my personal freedom. Clear?

 

[Cruentus]

Your stance on Christianity is clear. I have no problem with that.

You say that #1 Puritans had but a small role in founding our nation. I disagreed; I believe that their role was more significant, and I made my point with that.

You also said #2 that most of the founding fathers weren't Christian. Then you named 2. 2 is hardly enough to be considered 'most.' I would say that this is wrong, and that most of the people who signed the Decleration of Independance and the Constitution were Christian. Also "most" who backed them and enabled our independance, I'd argue were Christian.

Anyways, your post made it sound as if Diests and Agnostics played a larger role in the founding of our nation then Christians. I think that nothing could be further from the truth, which is what my post related too.

I should have been more clear in the "having your cake and eating it two." part of my post. My bad. I know you weren't specifically trying to do that yourself, but this is a rather common falacy among "anti" Christians who make the arguement that Diests played more of a major role in our countries history. I was debunking something before it even started. But that is a Mootalated point.

Oh...and one more thing. I have nothing against Christians either; especially considereing I am a Catholic Christian. And I understand that you don't either. I am not saying Slavery and Genocide is the fault of a religion. I agree with you on the "greed" part. I am saying, as you stated, that the beliefs of the time period were used to "justify" the behaviors. I believe the enabler was "fundamentalism" not specifically "Christianity." However, it seems like we are close to agreement on this point.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Heres the situation in a nutshell.

Judge in Alabama?? wants to put up a monument to the 10 comandments in his courthouse. No biggie right? Wrong. Bunch of the non-xians are bitching it dont belong there while the x-ians are bitching it does.

Ok...

So Pagan wants to open up a shop to sell herbs n insense. They get death threats and firebombed by the nice x-ians.

Ya know folks, you can't have it both ways.

The is NO right way. Just the way that is right for you!

You go pour the water on your heads and talk in the boxes.

I'm gonna go dance nekid in the moonlight with a tree.

:rofl:

(Please note, there is humor of a sarcastic nature in the above. Those of you not currently retching at the thoughts of me nekid, please enjoy the chuckle. Have a nice day.)

:rofl:

In the mean time, if you want a good read on how stupid, rude, insensitive and closeminded people can be to each other in the name of 'God', please see here:
http://www.witchvox.com/xwrensnest.html

Heres a short list:
Aug 27 EPA Eases Clean Air Rules for Industrial Plants John Heilprin, Associated Press Environmental 179
Aug 27 Occult Trial Opens In Brazil Jan Rocha Crime 745
Aug 27 Christopher Hitchens: The Immorality Of The Ten Commandments Christopher Hitchens Religious 966
Aug 27 Cross-Burning Investigated as Hate Crime AP Crime 2,020
Aug 27 Update: Ten Commandments Monument Moved David Mattingly Legal 3,476
Aug 26 Justice Dept. Opposes Lawsuit Brought by Americans Held Hostage Before First Gulf War Jonathan D. Salant, Associated Press Legal 3,860
Aug 26 Commandments Backers Urge Ala. Attorney General to Resign Fox News Action/Protest 4,418
Aug 26 'Pagan' Panther's Removal From County Land Sought Jack Douglas Jr. Action/Protest 6,082
Aug 26 More Horse Attacks in UK Sarah Cripps Animals 4,086
Aug 26 Author Explores Mysticism Of Ancient Cultures Chris Elliott Art/Music/lit 4,161
Aug 26 Romans' Crimes Of Fashion Revealed BBC Archaeology 6,249
Aug 26 Feds To Profile All U.S. Air Passengers Bob Dart Civil 6,321
Aug 26 Alan Keyes: What The Constitution Really Says Alan Keyes Legal 6,988
Aug 26 Levi's Ad Banned After Complaints just-style.com Action/Protest 6,727
Aug 26 Update: Appeal Planned For Ruling On Prayer Jason Cato Civil 5,884
Aug 25 Death of 8-Year-Old During Church Service Ruled a Homicide Todd Richmond Associated Press Crime 6,485
Aug 25 Update: Suit Filed in Alabama Commandments Fight Mark Niesse, Associated Press Legal 4,560
Aug 25 Paine’s Christianity HOT Steve Farrell History 7,027
Aug 25 Update: Great Falls Leaders To Appeal Prayer Ruling AP Civil 6,525
Aug 25 Skull Theft May Be Linked To Religion, Police Say Terri Sanginiti and Maureen Milford Crime 6,602
Aug 24 Scotland's First Fairytale Susan Mansfield Mythology 4,414
Aug 24 The Amphibian Assault Walt Brasch Humor 4,702
Aug 24 Feats Of Klee Judy Fayard, Basel Art/Music/lit 4,623
Aug 24 And Now, Here Is Your Moment of (Not on the California Ballot Yet), Dave… Dave Barry Humor 5,714
Aug 24 Castaneda's Lover Reflects On Shamanism And Celebrity Don Lattin Art/Music/lit 5,905
Aug 24 Update: Judge Orders Council To Cease Christ Prayers Jason Cato Pagan 6,133
Aug 24 7,000-Year-Old Statue Discovery 'Is First Male Fertility Symbol' Hannah Cleaver Archaeology 6,260
Aug 23 Why Don't The Young Visit Their Mother (Nature, That Is)? Melora B. North Society 3,786
Aug 23 Dashing Toward The Godless Public Square Rev. Jerry Falwell Religious 5,731
Aug 23 Write a Story, Go to Jail Kim Zetter Civil 5,570
Aug 22 The Woman Who Took Moore To Court Eleanor Clift, Newsweek Civil 3,800
Aug 22 Soldiers Need DVDs For Morale Boost Erika Schmidt Russell Action/Protest 2,942
Aug 22 Swiss Bewitched By Magic Of The Middle Ages Armando Mombelli (translation: John Purnell) Culture 2,903
Aug 22 Religious Talk from an Afrocentric Perspective The Herald Religious 2,651
Aug 22 Update: Judge Suspended Over Ten Commandments CNN Legal 3,395
Aug 22 Vote For Me Says Vampire Banbury Today (UK) Politics 5,568
Aug 22 German Site Predates Stonehenge Heidi Sylvester Archaeology 4,301
Aug 22 Lost Roman Earring Found In Leicestershire David Prudames Archaeology 4,395
Aug 21 Patriot Act II Resurrected? Ryan Singel Politics 3,556
Aug 21 How Would The Founding Fathers Have Reacted To The Ten Commandments Flap? Dahlia Lithwick, Slate.com Legal 4,342
Aug 21 Irish Minister Links Incense To Cancer James Helm Health 3,685
Aug 21 Liberties Groups Slam Ashcroft's PATRIOT Act 'Roadshow' Jeff Johnson Civil 6,231
Aug 20 Meet The Ancestors Mike Hornby Archaeology 3,789
Aug 20 Update: Casey Pagan Radio Debate Enters Third Chapter Matt Cunningham Pagan 4,628
Aug 20 Casey Councillor: Local Witch Is "A Matter of Concern For All Casey Residents". Matt Cunningham Pagan 5,021
Aug 20 Update: Ten Commandments Plea Rejected Bill Mears Legal 4,571
Aug 20 Spookily True – Or Hocus Pocus? Neil Brown Paranormal 6,188
Aug 20 Vacation Starvation Joe Robinson Society 6,632
Aug 20 Strider And Pippin Are Reunited At Last... In Fife Lynn Davidson Art/Music/lit 6,026
Aug 20 Trendy, Anxious Moderns Now Seek Solace In Primitive Hooey HOT Kathleen Parker, Orlando Sentinel Society 7,025


Now if you'll excuse me, I've gotta go pay homage to the God of War as he leans in real close n says hi!.

 

[Nightingale]

Ive got no problem with someone putting up a monument to the 10 commandments ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. I do have a problem with it when its my tax dollars paying for it to put it on public property. I have no problem with a pagan opening up an herb shop. ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. However, if someone wanted to build a monument to the Wiccan Rede in a courthouse, I'd be making a stink about THAT too, and I follow it!

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by nightingale8472
Ive got no problem with someone putting up a monument to the 10 commandments ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. I do have a problem with it when its my tax dollars paying for it to put it on public property. I have no problem with a pagan opening up an herb shop. ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. However, if someone wanted to build a monument to the Wiccan Rede in a courthouse, I'd be making a stink about THAT too, and I follow it!

Here! Here!

I agree with you NG

If you let in one, then you let in all, including Satanism, and all the sects of all the Fundalmentalist, trying to burn each others' books and killing each other. Wow, and we thought the court rooms were overwhelmed with trivial cases. Keep it all out.


Kaith,

Go dance in the woods, I prefer the light Kilt when I do this, it does not scare everyone or better yet, it stops all the laughter


An example I give all the time. You can come into my house and talk to me for 30 minutes if we can go to your house and I can talk to you for 30 minutes. Are you willing? Many are not. Therefore keep it private. Not in my face.

As to religion in general, I have a problem with how it propageted. Now Paul has gone out investigated other sources and religions. Yet he went back to his first one. Is that because he believes in the back of his mind it will be the easiest to accept for him and his family? How many people are the religion they are only becuase of their parents? Just sit abck and think about it. Go read a few books and see if something else makes more or less sense. If it does not then you can stand and say you tried. It is an issue of faith. Faith cannot be proven, it has to be accepted. If it is what you believe then cool! I accept that you believe it, why can you not accept that I might believe differently and also have faith?

Just my ramblings, sorry for the confusion

 

[rmcrobertson]

Paul et al:

OK, now I'm sayin' something.

First off. Thomas Paine, author of "Rights of Man," and, "Common Sense," was in no sense a Founding Father? Weird.

Second off, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams and Madison, all were Deists--and yet orthodox Christianity dominated in the ideas on which the revolution was carried out and the country organized. Huh?

Third off--I'm FROM Rhode Island. A state which exists because those Puritan boyos had no interest in religious toleration/freedom whatsoever. Fer cryin' out loud, read their tracts. Or at least Nathaniel Hawthorne.

Fourth off--sorry, but Christian doctrine--from Catholicism to Fundamentalist--has been essential to colonialism, slavery, persecutions of all sorts. That doesn't mean Jesus was evil, or anything similar. It means that something in Christian thought legitimizes evil...at least, on the evidence. (And so does something in scientific thought, on the evidence.)

As for martial arts--I very much dislike the public exhibition of one's religious views. I dislike it even more when the exhibition takes the form of enforced prayer of any sort. Among other things, I find it immodest and embarassing.

What ever happened to keeping your private affairs, private?

Let's hear it for the Plain People, and the Quakers.

 

[Jay Bell]

I sure wish I'd looked at this thread earlier.

SenseiBear

I have no problem bowing to instructors, statues, pictures of the founder, etc. Bowing is not worshipping, it is a sign of respect.

Please do not explain to us how Judaism views the function of bowing. Please also do not attempt to define what is and what isn't in the eyes of someone with a different belief structure. Meaning...TO YOU, bowing is a sign of respect and not worship.

rmcrobertson

I never seem to've heard any stories about agnostics and materialists going on and on about their beliefs before starting class...

Or during....or most of the time after

PAUL

Now, here is my main point of this post….
The thing is, from yours (and others) “non-christian” perspective, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t say that Religion, specifically Christian “fundamentalism” had little to do with the founding of our country, but that religion, specifically Christian “Fundamentalism” was to blame for #3 (Genocide, Slavery, ethnocentricism, etc.), a clear thing that is an intricate part of our American history. Either A. Christian Fundamentalism played a major role, for better or for worse, in our history. We can take the good (our moral, lets say) and the bad (Slavery, Genocide) with that. Or B. Christian Fundamentalism didn’t play a significant role in our countries development, and therefore is not to blame for the good, or the bad (Genocide, slavery, etc.) It has to be one or the other.

Thank you for explaining your very limted and close minded ideas on the subject. Not everything is black and white. It's not an A or B situation. In the name of Christ, atrocities have been handed out since the dawn of the belief structure. That's fact...one that continues today. Yet, it did play a role in our nation's creation. See how that works? It's both...it does not have to be one or another...and it sincerely bothers me that you actually tried to play that card.

Your 7% statistic….I don’t know where your getting that from. Hey…I heard that 80% of all statistics were made up on the spot

To parahrase Mark Twain...."There are three mis-truths in life. Lies, Lies and statistics".

There is no such thing as Freedom of Religion. This is something the government cannot control. Sorry...fact of life. If I went on national TV as a business man, explaining that I was Agnostic...how much business would I loose? How many people from that day forward would give me a displeased eye?

Anyway...on the topic. Should religion and martial arts be mixed. Hell no. Most, if not all, martial arts at some point in their history where blended with a belief system. If you took buddhism out of Japanese budo, it would have never existed.

However...this is a different age of time. In martial arts, people (especially here in the west) are constantly trying to change eastern arts in to their points of views. They mangle, mix and add a little salt and what's left, more times then not, is...well...crap. There are arts from Japan that without an understanding of buddhism, you will not understand....ever. Now, let's throw a dash of Xtianity in the mix and what do you have? Something even further detached from what it was originally. Do I have to be a buddhist for this to happen? Nope. Do I have to practice those types of ideas? Nope.

Keep religion seperate, in my opinion. Mixing the two creates what? That's right...there is no freedom of religion. In these environments (as well as fundamentalist Xtianity) there is only freedom of THEIR religion.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

OK, now I'm sayin' something.

First off. Thomas Paine, author of "Rights of Man," and, "Common Sense," was in no sense a Founding Father? Weird.

Weird, but I believe true. He wrote books and was a political activist in England. He had his influence, but I don't consider him a "founding father."

Second off, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams and Madison, all were Deists--and yet orthodox Christianity dominated in the ideas on which the revolution was carried out and the country organized. Huh?

Actually, I don't think that Christianity "dominated" the revelotution. I believe that "liberty," or the need to have a free and democratic state dominated. This was due to many things, particularly taxation w/o representation. My "point #1" in my original post listed the "need for a democratic state where it's leaders were represented by its people". Christianity was a major factor, however, and it was used to gain the support of "fundamentalists" who might have otherwised oppossed war.

Also...Jefferson and Madison claimed Diesm. Adams did not claim Diesm; he claimed Christianity...read my post. Franklin did not actually claim Diesm either although he didn't specifically claim Christianity; he claimed logic more then anything else. Regardless, they all used "Christian" doctrines and scripture often to gain the support of the public.

Now, I am just relaying the facts as I have seen them, but remember...I am not saying that "America was founded on Christian values" specifically; but I am saying that Christianity undeniably played a major role in our developement, both for the good and for the bad.

Third off--I'm FROM Rhode Island. A state which exists because those Puritan boyos had no interest in religious toleration/freedom whatsoever. Fer cryin' out loud, read their tracts. Or at least Nathaniel Hawthorne.

I'm with yea, man. That was part of my point also. I believe that the ethnocentric, zealous version (or as I say; fundamentalist versions) that was being practiced in those days caused a great amount of intolerance. I believe that some of this is still practiced, in the modern sense, today. This is not a good thing for america, or Christianity, in my opinion.

Fourth off--sorry, but Christian doctrine--from Catholicism to Fundamentalist--has been essential to colonialism, slavery, persecutions of all sorts. That doesn't mean Jesus was evil, or anything similar. It means that something in Christian thought legitimizes evil...at least, on the evidence. (And so does something in scientific thought, on the evidence.)

I'm with yea here, too. As a "logical Catholic" (I know... that sounds like a double negative to some of you, ) I somewhat agree with you. From the Catholic perspective, I've read Cannon Law and Doctrine, and I don't see anything in there that would legitimize evil. But if you take any doctrine or text, such as the Bible or Koran, and read it from a zealous ethnocentric, egocentric, and intolerant viewpoint, then you will interprete "texts" in a manner that will justify your actions. Again, I believe that this zealous, ethnocentric, egocentric, intolerant behavior is more-so the problem then the Christian texts themselves.

As for martial arts--I very much dislike the public exhibition of one's religious views. I dislike it even more when the exhibition takes the form of enforced prayer of any sort. Among other things, I find it immodest and embarassing.

What ever happened to keeping your private affairs, private?

Let's hear it for the Plain People, and the Quakers.

Here-here! :cheers:

 

[Cruentus]

Thank you for explaining your very limted and close minded ideas on the subject. Not everything is black and white. It's not an A or B situation. In the name of Christ, atrocities have been handed out since the dawn of the belief structure. That's fact...one that continues today. Yet, it did play a role in our nation's creation. See how that works? It's both...it does not have to be one or another...and it sincerely bothers me that you actually tried to play that card.

Um....I think that you jumped to a conclusion before fully reading what I wrote. Read it again. I wasn't saying "one or the other," but I was saying "none or both." If you read it, I am in total agreement with you...that Atrocities have been commited in the name of Christ, AND Christianity played a major role in our country. See...?

The reason why that might have been confusing is because I jumped ahead of myself. I debunked an arguement that I find common with "freethinkers" that I feel is a falacy. They often try to say that 1. Christianity played no major role in our developement as a country, our "founding fathers" were agnostic, etc. Then they say 2. That Christianity was to blame for all of the atrocities in our Country. You can't say both, it doesn't make sense. Either Christianity had little to do with our development as a country, which would mean that it had little to do with the attrocities, OR it had a lot to do with our developement, including attrocities.

I go with the latter, as do you.

:asian:

PAUL

P.S. You get a middle finger for calling my viewpoint limited and close-minded when we share the same view! :bird: :rofl:

 

[Jay Bell]

HAHAHAHA...I guess that's what I get for skimming posts, eh? My apologies

I should stay away from religious threads until I get enough sleep