What is a Republican

[Morts]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: I've had a good laugh this morning thanks to you. Now off to work for me!

-S

You're not welcome :rotfl:

[August]

Originally Posted by McBeck

Both of you are making this either personal or about US vs Europe.
Keep it clean and not personal...thank you

Or we're just kidding around with each other. Hence the smileys...

[McBeck]

Very well...hard to tell the difference between VERY sarcastic and plain fun - I asume the first.

[RickC Sniper]

WHAT I AM . . . is a man who grew up during the Depression and witnessed, first hand, the effects of the Stock Market crash and the soup lines that followed. I watched as both my parents and grand parents, who had very little themselves, share what food they had with a half dozen other families, who had even less.

He is 52 years old and grew up during the Depression? My math is bad but not THAT bad.

[sharkbit]

Originally Posted by RickC Sniper

He is 52 years old and grew up during the Depression? My math is bad but not THAT bad.

WHAT I AM . . . first and foremost, is a loving husband of some 52 plus years, the father of four and an American who's proud of his country. . . and his country's heritage.

He's been married 52 years, not 52 years old.

[Tchocky]

The Republican is a relatively large Strepsirhine primate, belonging to the family Conservidae. The only species in the monotypic genus Publis, it is found only on the island of Madagascar.

[Biggles]

My current interest about what the republicans really are is displayed above...

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I mentioned banning books, not rewriting history. As to the Founders, religion and prayer, I've spent the last two years making an intensive study of that very topic, and I think it's definitely the Right who want to change the story here. We can have that discussion if you like.

I certainly agree with you there. As with books, radio is a free market, and right-wing drivel is certainly what most of us saps like to hear (don't get me wrong, I only compare it to left-wing drivel, which is usually a lot more boring).

Fair enough point, and at the national level arguably true. But since most banning attempts come at local levels, and most attempts are for moral reasons, and since the Right always tries to claim the religious high ground, I hope you'll forgive me for assuming, and continuing to assume, that that is the source.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...c=banned_books

Of course, one of the reasons included is "politically incorrect, racist or sexist language" some of it does indeed come from the other side. But you have to admit that the left is less likely to promote banning because of "profanity or violence, sex or sex education, homosexuality, witchcraft and the occult, “secular humanism” or “new age” philosophies".
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~spok/most-banned.html

Where shall we start! With the inscription on the liberty bell or that Ben franklin himself requested that every session of Congreess begin with prayer...I have very old history books that are clearly different from the latest ones used in schools today. The shift is of recent and not the other way around. The national archives have all the evidence to support the history before it was hijacked. I am well prepared on this matter and it will be an interesting discussion.

[Onkel Neal]

I read this and was initially inclined to think it was an urban legend...surprise! It's true. http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/whatiam.asp

More power to you, Mr. Esseff. You proved the American Dream, and you have nothing to be ashamed of except the misfortune to be surrounded by have-nots who blame you for their lack of success in life.

[Sailor Steve]

[quote=Frame57]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Where shall we start! With the inscription on the liberty bell or that Ben franklin himself requested that every session of Congreess begin with prayer...

The same Ben Franklin who requested Congress open with prayer was branded a heretic and even an atheist by religious leaders of his own day. Of course the reason was that he questioned the honesty and sincerity of those leaders.
http://americanrevolutionblog.blogsp...-stand_27.html

However, his actual stated beliefs would earn him similar treatment by any serious Christian leader today.
http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib..._Stiles_1.html

Franklin believed, but he expressed doubts about the divinity of Jesus, which would, I believe, earn him the wrath of modern evangelicals were he to enter the political arena today.

Likewise Jefferson, who told his nephew Peter Carr to "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_carr.html

This was the kind of thing that led Christian leaders of his own time to oppose his presidency and label him and atheist.

I have very old history books that are clearly different from the latest ones used in schools today. The shift is of recent and not the other way around. The national archives have all the evidence to support the history before it was hijacked.

If we're talking about school textbooks, then I agree, to a point. Schoolbooks are always being rewritten to suit the times, and it's good to oppose it, if for no other reason than to keep the conversation alive. I dislike history books in general, unless they are tightly focused on a specific subject. I have come to prefer biographies of late, as they tend to give not only the subject's own writings and thoughts, but also those of his contemporaries. Last year I read Dumas Malone's massive six-volume, 3500-page biography of Jefferson, which led me on an entertaining journey through seven more books, culminating in Annette Gordon-Reed's Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings.

But I'm also fond of 'different' history books. Two favorites: Who Were The Founding Fathers, by Steven H. Jaffe http://www.amazon.com/Who-Were-Found.../dp/0805031022 which doesn't try to explain them, but rather shows what they thought of themselves and each other, then goes on to show from each generation's writings what they thought of the Founders, including their attempts to use those men's words to support a variety of different, and often conflicting, causes; which brings us back to the subject at hand.

The second is Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers, by Brooke Allen http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minority.../dp/1566636752 She is biased toward atheism, or at least unbelief, but she makes some good points about what each of the big six (Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton) actually believed, or at least what can be culled from their own writings and the opinions of those who knew them.

Oh, and as to the Pennsylvania State House Bell (its original name), all the inscription shows is that Isaac Norris, who ordered it, was indeed a Christian, as were (presumably) all of his Quaker fellows. Except for those like Ben Franklin, who was definitely not a Quaker.

I am well prepared on this matter and it will be an interesting discussion.

I hope so (on both counts).

[Frame57]

[quote=Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Frame57

The same Ben Franklin who requested Congress open with prayer was branded a heretic and even an atheist by religious leaders of his own day. Of course the reason was that he questioned the honesty and sincerity of those leaders.
http://americanrevolutionblog.blogsp...-stand_27.html

However, his actual stated beliefs would earn him similar treatment by any serious Christian leader today.
http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib..._Stiles_1.html

Franklin believed, but he expressed doubts about the divinity of Jesus, which would, I believe, earn him the wrath of modern evangelicals were he to enter the political arena today.

Likewise Jefferson, who told his nephew Peter Carr to "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_carr.html

This was the kind of thing that led Christian leaders of his own time to oppose his presidency and label him and atheist.

If we're talking about school textbooks, then I agree, to a point. Schoolbooks are always being rewritten to suit the times, and it's good to oppose it, if for no other reason than to keep the conversation alive. I dislike history books in general, unless they are tightly focused on a specific subject. I have come to prefer biographies of late, as they tend to give not only the subject's own writings and thoughts, but also those of his contemporaries. Last year I read Dumas Malone's massive six-volume, 3500-page biography of Jefferson, which led me on an entertaining journey through seven more books, culminating in Annette Gordon-Reed's Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings.

But I'm also fond of 'different' history books. Two favorites: Who Were The Founding Fathers, by Steven H. Jaffe http://www.amazon.com/Who-Were-Found.../dp/0805031022 which doesn't try to explain them, but rather shows what they thought of themselves and each other, then goes on to show from each generation's writings what they thought of the Founders, including their attempts to use those men's words to support a variety of different, and often conflicting, causes; which brings us back to the subject at hand.

The second is Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers, by Brooke Allen http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minority.../dp/1566636752 She is biased toward atheism, or at least unbelief, but she makes some good points about what each of the big six (Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton) actually believed, or at least what can be culled from their own writings and the opinions of those who knew them.

Oh, and as to the Pennsylvania State House Bell (its original name), all the inscription shows is that Isaac Norris, who ordered it, was indeed a Christian, as were (presumably) all of his Quaker fellows. Except for those like Ben Franklin, who was definitely not a Quaker.

I hope so (on both counts).

Well, let's begin a bit earlier. What in your opinion and education was the reason the pilgrims came to these shores? It will be interesting to prelude this before we get to the Founding Padres

[Onkel Neal]

@ Steve: Well done!

.

[Frame57]

Ben Franklin was still a man of faith. Regardless whether or not he was embraced by the protestants. He was real. He questioned things, which is good. He studied the scriptures and clearly saw that Jesus was not God...I applaud him. However that has no bearing on the fact that he had beliefs that led him to requesting that congessional session be opened with prayer.

Thomas Jefferson was a maverick indeed but what Athesist would write the following in the preamble of the declaration of Independance,

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."

or the conclusion of the document,

"...and for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance of the protection of divine providence..."

Granted this historical document makes no reference to who this creator is, but that is moot because a creator is a creator period. Only a nitwit would imply that our Founding Fathers were really closet Buddist. These men were probably not what Jerry Falwell would have us to think. They may not have even attended church regualrly for that matter, but the point here is that no matter what their personal views were regarding God, they often and publicy cited God and prayer and divine providence. This fact is indisputable and is hopefully forever preserved in our national archives.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Frame57

Well, let's begin a bit earlier. What in your opinion and education was the reason the pilgrims came to these shores? It will be interesting to prelude this before we get to the Founding Padres

I'm laughing at myself here, as just a cursory look at the information available shows me how much I don't know about the details. For instance, I'm guilty of confusing the Pilgrims and the Puritans, but not without good cause.

First came Virginia. Sir Walter Raleigh put together a group of investors to organize a planting colony in 1584, and again in 1587, neither of which survived. With the Jamestown colony in 1607 Virginia was established, but it came into being for no other reasons than to make money and to establish an official English presence in the new world.

The Pilgrims were a group of 'Non-conformists', so-called because they did not conform to the strictures of the Anglican church. Since the Anglicans held the position of 'Official State Church', anyone who wasn't strictly Anglican had problems. Were they actually persecuted, or just denied certain rights and priveledges? I didn't look that far yet, so I don't know. The fact is that they felt abused, and that's what counts, so they packed up and moved to Holland. Finding life there to be a little on the hard side, they made a deal with the Plymouth Company to become part of Virginia. They had originally intended to settle the very northern boundary of the colony, in present-day New York, but wound up a little further east and north, in what is now Massachussets. An interesting side-note: not one of their contemporary documents mentions Plymouth Rock.

Some of the Mayflower colonists were not Pilgrims, and did not come for religious reasons. When they ended up outside of the Virginia boundaries, those others claimed that they were not bound by the Pilgrims' tenets and did not have to attend church. In order to keep order and civility they created a civil government, chartered in the Mayflower Compact, and settled into a mutually beneficial existence.

Yes, it's true: the Pilgrims really did come seeking religious freedom, and they were quite tolerant of others, possibly because of their own beliefs, and possibly because they had no choice. When half the colony had died within the year, they were more than happy to accept the natives who rescued them with food and supplies.

But then in 1624 came the Puritans. They too came seeking religious freedom, but apparently only for themselves. They set up their own government, creating the city of Boston and the Massachussets Bay colony, and they were just as intolerant as the Anglicans they had escaped. Without going into the witch-hunts and persecutions, it's easiest to make an example of Roger Williams, who really did preach religious freedom and tolerance, and was expelled for his efforts.

I have no argument with the fact that the English colonists here all professed Christianity, just as did all the Spanish colonists who populated the areas south of our borders. But how many of them were really religious believers, and how many were 'scratch-the-surface' christians? Just as today, many who attend church do so as a matter of habit or custom, and if you ask them they'll say "Of course I'm a Christian". But are they really?

Since what we're discussing is the influence of Christianity on the development of the American government and attitude, I think those are fair questions. My personal belief is that the Christian influence on our moral behavior and attitudes is undeniable, but those same influences can also be found in other religions who had them prior to any contact with Christians, and I also believe that our ideas on government and freedom came from other influences altogether.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Frame57

Ben Franklin was still a man of faith. Regardless whether or not he was embraced by the protestants. He was real. He questioned things, which is good. He studied the scriptures and clearly saw that Jesus was not God...I applaud him. However that has no bearing on the fact that he had beliefs that led him to requesting that congessional session be opened with prayer.

True. One only has to read his beautiful self-composed epitaph to realise that. But the argument made by the hardcore Right is that he was a Christian through-and-through. My disagreement is on that point alone, since that seems to be the only thing that matters to them.

Thomas Jefferson was a maverick indeed but what Athesist would write the following in the preamble of the declaration of Independance,

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."

or the conclusion of the document,

"...and for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance of the protection of divine providence..."

Granted this historical document makes no reference to who this creator is, but that is moot because a creator is a creator period. Only a nitwit would imply that our Founding Fathers were really closet Buddist. These men were probably not what Jerry Falwell would have us to think. They may not have even attended church regualrly for that matter, but the point here is that no matter what their personal views were regarding God, they often and publicy cited God and prayer and divine providence. This fact is indisputable and is hopefully forever preserved in our national archives.

True again. Jefferson was accused of Atheism by the people who hated him. But he was quite reticent about what he really believed, and gave them good fodder for dismissing him as definitely not being what they called a Christian. I don't think any of the founders was what Jerry Falwell would have us believe, as you put it, and I agree that they were probably not what Ellen Johnson would want us to believe either, but again my argument is with the insistence that America was founded to conform to Christian principles, and it's my belief that those very principles were what those founders were trying to avoid having be the controlling factor of the government.