Heart-ache: Some Christians miffed at Obama’s reference to atheists
posted at 8:23 pm on January 24, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Really? Here’s what he said:
“We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers.”
100 percent true. And yet:
With that one line, the president “seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian,” said’ Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. “The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are.”
Earlier this week, Jackson was a guest on the popular conservative Christian radio show ‘Janet Parshall’s America,’ where a succession of callers, many of whom identified themselves as African-American, said they shared the concern, and were perplexed and put off by the president’s shout-out to nonbelievers…
Jackson says: “Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don’t think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation.”
Newsflash, champ: Add up Jews, Mormons, Muslims, and Hindus and you’re still barely a quarter of the way towards the number of Americans who check “unaffiliated” when asked on surveys. In fact, among Christian sects, only Catholics and Baptists outnumber them. As for the moronic atheists who are turning cartwheels because The One boldly acknowledged a simple fact, see this guy: “Why on earth should I be moved, impressed, or happy that someone has deigned to recognize the physical existence of atheists in America? Wow — atheists exist! Stop the presses!” Exit question one: Does anyone seriously have a problem with this? I figure half of the progressive base is atheist; he was basically obliged to say it. Exit question two: Dude, what if the rumors are true? I can have the “My President Is An Atheist” t-shirts available for sale at Cafe Press within an hour!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Heck, some of us in the libertarian wing are atheists, too. Whether or not Christian beliefs are part of the American culture, what seems to be Obama’s point is that American culture is a MELTING POT of distinctive ideas from many directions.
It doesn’t take a genius to recognize this, but I have to wonder why Bishop Jackson felt a need to react so defensively to such an innocuous quote.
shirgall on January 25, 2009 at 3:29 AM
America is a melting pot, but is it really a melting pot of ideas from different cultures? What ideas did America take from Muslim or Hindu culture?
Phoenician on January 25, 2009 at 3:39 AM
I’m pagan (no, not Wiccan, thanks) and I really don’t care how many of whom believe what. I don’t care if anyone believes anything at all, or nothing at all. It affects me and my afterlife not one bit.
Now, when these idiots start shoving their beliefs at me I get pissed because the harder they shove the more it just proves to me that they are more fearful than faithful. I think that’s exactly where the sock puppet in chief is, in the land of never ending fear of this, that, and whatever.
Perhaps he belongs there, considering the phony that he is. Perhaps he really should fear those with beliefs, whether it be in a god or a gun, or just freedom.
Be afraid sock puppet, be very afraid. At least if you are maybe you’ll measure your idiocy somewhat before you foist it upon us.
Spiritk9 on January 25, 2009 at 3:50 AM
You make an interesting point. America as a political machine was designed to be a melting pot, but was it ever truly tested to see if it actually worked? Up until very recently America was %90+ white and christian, so has this “melting pot” system ever truly been tested for sea worthiness, or are we headed out to sea on the ideal of hope and change?
DFCtomm on January 25, 2009 at 4:09 AM
The ten digits (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), which—along with the system by which a sequence (e.g. “406″) was read as a number—were originally defined by Indian mathematicians, later modified and transferred to North African Arab mathematicians and transmitted to Europe in the Middle Ages, whence they spread around the world through European colonialism.
slp on January 25, 2009 at 4:30 AM
He left out Scientologists… Tom Cruise is going to be ticked.
Glenn Jericho on January 25, 2009 at 5:16 AM
No one is denying that when we see a good ideal, we adopt it, but that doesn’t really dispute his point. When you think about it we have had trouble integrating groups that were already white and christian. The Irish weren’t readily accepted, and wasn’t JFK being the first Catholic president something of a milestone? If our melting pot has problems with those two groups can we integrate groups from truly divergent cultures?
DFCtomm on January 25, 2009 at 5:41 AM
Perhaps people don’t see a problem because they don’t have a strong alternative system of concepts with which to compare and contrast the present circumstances.
For most people the world is very artificial. Their world is defined by shops, and offices and public transport and TV and opinion and fashion. They have no idea how those things came to be or what sustains them and have probably never thought about it. They just assume that these things will always be so. These people cannot be clearly and strongly for or against something because they don’t understand the foundations and framework of our present society, nor can they contrast it with any other society.
I wish I could offer you some fantastic suggestions about what to do but I am still scratching my own head. It seems to me that liberalism is what happens when restless, underoccupied and imperfect people inherit a society that for the most part functions very well.
YiZhangZhe on January 25, 2009 at 5:44 AM
The fastest rising religion is no religion at all.
People in this country are finally wising up, it’s a beautiful thing.
Noneya on January 25, 2009 at 5:52 AM
Are they? Some wisdom extends beyond death.
unclesmrgol on January 25, 2009 at 6:05 AM
The melting pot never truly melts all the lumps. Otherwise, we wouldn’t notice that those of Irish heritage, or those who are Catholic, actually exist and still hew to some of their old culture. But it does happen to a certain degree — if you encounter an Irish name, you cannot expect the person holding that name to be Catholic as you would have a few generations back. The more modern lumps have their own neighborhoods, just as the Poles, Jews, and Italians had their neighborhoods even into the 1960’s in my beloved Buffalo NY.
Even so, some of those are lamenting the loss of their neighborhoods to others as the price of successfully melting — here in LA, Chinatown (once the Italian neighborhood of LA) is now Hispanic and Artisan, and Little Tokyo is Korean. As these groups melt into the general culture, their food sections in the local supermarkets expand, and that is that.
unclesmrgol on January 25, 2009 at 6:23 AM
That was a good read.
10 for the dismount. I really liked that line.
RightOFLeft on January 25, 2009 at 6:48 AM
I’m at a loss as to why the complaints are at all meaningful.
Obama had it exactly right — America is shaped like a Caesar Salad, not God.
unclesmrgol on January 25, 2009 at 6:56 AM
Any BLACKS who voted for Obama and are NOW miffed about his positions are RACISTS!
These positions of Obama are not unknown. We have been crying from the roof tops telling people/black church members, that Obama is NOT a Christian. He is pro death to 11 million black babies!
IDIOTS who have no clue of his positions voted because of his skin color, and thats RACIST!
Mercy4Me on January 25, 2009 at 6:57 AM
I can claim credit for the line, but the underlying idea come to me at my local supermarket last night after reading this:
unclesmrgol on January 25, 2009 at 7:05 AM
And those Catholics and Evangelicals who voted for him?
I think a lot of people got caught up in “form over substance” in this election. Kennedy spent 12 years in the House before running for President, while Obama spent just 2 years in the Senate. BTW, it’s Kennedy’s record on civil rights which makes Obama go to the Republican record and try to channel Lincoln — Kennedy twice voted the Democratic Party line on GOP-legislated civil rights law during the Eisenhower Administrtion — which is to say, he voted “no” on voting rights for blacks and “no” for the final demolition of Plessy v. Ferguson which Brown v. Board of Education had begun.
unclesmrgol on January 25, 2009 at 7:14 AM
Were we a Christian Nation when we were founded. Yes! Unless one reads modern text books edited by humanists and athiests where all mention of Christianity is removed. Are we a Christian nation now? There are many of us in the nation but we certainly do not act as one by the way we are governed or by the way we act as a collective!
sabbott on January 25, 2009 at 7:15 AM
Phoenician is on the right track. America always absorbed loads of immigrants into its own, unique culture, wherein the culture at large took on bits of the new, but gave most of its flavor to the old. The strong flavor of America, that of individual liberty and advancement by initiative, was distinctly (but never explicitly) Protestant Christian, and remains so to this day.
In fact, that’s the main reason liberals like Obama say things like the line Bishop Jackson objected to — they’re trying to pry out of the culture the last remnants of Christian influence. When you examine the acts of multiculturalists, they don’t make sense as an attempt to make all cultures level, because they unexpectedly express raw hatred for one, particular culture while they accept all the others. They also never expect the nations from which those cultures arose to act multicultural at all; only ours is required to behave this way. The only way this behavior makes sense is if you understand that it’s not truly multiculturalism, it’s truly anti-Christianity. They don’t give a rip about celebrating differences, and nothing that went before them opposed celebrating differences anyhow. What they care about is stamping out Christianity.
That’s why Bishop Jackson objected. He gets it. A lot of people here don’t get it, and Obama is counting on that.
philwynk on January 25, 2009 at 7:43 AM
Atheism in America is less about religion and more about intellectual elitism. Narcissistic baby boomers completely dropped the ball when it came to raising children and the nation is paying dearly for it.
mike_NC9 on January 25, 2009 at 8:11 AM
Putting aside the 143 American atheists for a moment, the black Christian ministers/aldermen had better get used to the fact that they’ve been sold a bill of goods with Obama.
And they have no one to blame but themselves. The liberal coalition sold him as The Black Messiah, bundled with some other lies, one of those being that he’s a Christian. No rational person could observe him to be a Christian, and indeed, they’ll find out that he’s an atheist who associated with a fringe racist church for a time for political benefit, and hey, it worked great.
But he’s not a Christian. Quit whining, “Reverend”.
Jaibones on January 25, 2009 at 8:14 AM
Yeah, but will they let you write “Mother-F*cker” on the t-shirt?
Jaibones on January 25, 2009 at 8:18 AM
Miffed? C’mon! It’s almost a crime to be a Christian in the public discourse in America today! We who believe that homosexuality is wrong! Our view is “homophobic” don’t ya’ know… It’s only going to get worse and Mr Obama isn’t going to do a damn thing to change things. As a matter of fact, he is going to hasten the persecution of my people. It’s already started with Federal Funding (my tax money) being sent overseas to kill unborn babies! Super! I hope there is rejoicing in the White House over that one!
sabbott on January 25, 2009 at 8:29 AM
I think most, including Allahpundit, are completely missing Bishop Jackson’s point.
Regardless of the variety of religions in this country, the United States is a country founded upon Judeo-Christian ideals.
Anyone care to argue or refute???
I’m a “non-religious” person, but I was thoroughly offended Obama broke rank with every other President before him to use the phrase he did, rather than what I just stated above.
Miss_Anthrope on January 25, 2009 at 8:51 AM
You tell ‘em, Jaibones. Once they find out he’s an Atheist, I think they’ll be whinin’ like nobody’s business. If they’d only paid attention, like we did, they’d know how not just areligious, but antireligious, this “Man of God” and “Messiah” really is.
Miss_Anthrope on January 25, 2009 at 8:56 AM
Allah the typical Athiest:
Denominations are factions within the church which have slightly differing traditions but the same fundamental belief structure. I.E. Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian.
Sects are a smaller group broken off of the larger group which have fundamentally differing belief structure than the larger group. I.E. Episcopalian (ever since it started perverting the church with homosexual ministers), Mormon, Jehovah’s witness etc.
When using words, one should probably understand them first.
leetpriest on January 25, 2009 at 8:59 AM
Tell ya what, getting pretty sick of these athiests forcing their unbeliefs on me.
leetpriest on January 25, 2009 at 9:01 AM
My beef is the fact muslims were at #2 in terms of importance to THE ONE. I ask again to the 80% of Jews who voted for him….what the hell is the matter with you people?
angryed on January 25, 2009 at 9:27 AM
What’s that phrase I’m looking for??? Oh yeah – “Who Cares”. Nutty christian-types jumped the shark with Terry Schiavo.
Vernon Hardapple on January 25, 2009 at 9:28 AM
You have a religion.
…Not necessarily an organized religion.
The last election shows which direction we’re going.
jgapinoy on January 25, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Yeah true. But here is why it’s different today.
In the 1800s and early 1900s the immigrants coming here from Italy, Ireland or Poland were not that far removed from the Protestant Christian way of life. Today’s immigrants from China, Ghana or Sri Lanka have almost nothing in common with the American way of life. All Europeans for example celebrated Christmas and Easter. All Europeans ate the same foods more or less. You could trace most Europeans back to a common starting point. So it was easy to assimilate into the American culture. All one had to do was learn English and they were halfway there.
Second, once the immigrants were here, they pretty much cut off the chord to the motherland. Today, with transportation and communication advances, an immigrant doesn’t have to do that. When you can read the home country’s news every day online, watch the home country’s TV shows on satellite, eat the home country’s foods available in Kroger’s ethnic aisle and fly home every few months to visit, you don’t have to assimilate.
angryed on January 25, 2009 at 9:38 AM
But the AP opined that Mr Obama didn’t do anything divisive or partisan in his first few days so this griping must be a rovian neocon plot.
eaglewingz08 on January 25, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Cheap IT staff?
LevStrauss on January 25, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Algebra and Yoga
shirgall on January 25, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Why were Budhists left out? This nation now has millions of Budhists. Is it an intentional slap to have left out this major religious beleif in our country, whose followers by the way integrate into our society, into our culture, and our sucessful citizens of our great nation.
paulsur on January 25, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Why put “Muslims” directly after Christians? Any guesses how few Muslims there are in the US? This Obama guy has a ton of secret things going on. Unfortunately, it’s going to be YEARS before they come to light. Thanks, Obama voters, you shallow imbeciles.
marklmail on January 25, 2009 at 11:07 AM
I’ve seen that before over 20 years ago. Thanks for the link. The video explains more in eight minutes than a Mormon will tell you in a lifetime. Required viewing for all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0d1HbItOo
Mojave Mark on January 25, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Many of those groups faced suspicion and discrimination and took a few generations to assimilate. Some of the original immigrants never gave up their mother tongue or moved beyond ethnic enclaves within the cities where they landed.
Even among Christian believers there was discord, especially with Catholics. The Bible Riots of 1844 resulted in Catholic and Protestant deaths during a fight over which version of the Bible should be read.
dedalus on January 25, 2009 at 11:26 AM
As a believer, it is unacceptable to me to consider a non-believing existence. I can concede there are disbelievers and I punctuate their disbelief with a dashed reply “– and yet it happened!” In order to deny something you must agree the object has relevance; denying something that does not exists seems Tourette-like. You will have trouble convincing me that atheism comes easily or naturally and I would suggest that if you practiced it with honesty your head would explode from recursive thought.
When you say or think that you wish or you hope or you’re counting on or whatever it is you are invoking so that something goes your way, what is it that receives the invocation?
The President is a politician that currently seems bent on being platitudinous. He abundantly demonstrated throughout his campaign that he has no substance. Lack of character will be his legacy; lack of moral fiber will be his downfall.
ericdijon on January 25, 2009 at 11:47 AM
What ideas did America take from Muslim or Hindu culture?
Phoenician on January 25, 2009 at 3:39 AM
Cow respect and shoe throwing.
Bishop on January 25, 2009 at 11:54 AM
How do you make a rubber bracelet for atheists?
What Would NoOne Do?
Bishop on January 25, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Absolutely nothing, so what is the point of mentioning them?
Ha! Let’s hear it for European colonialism! Meanwhile, the Chinese invented fireworks. Should Obama have mentioned their contributions in his Inaugural address? Since Independence Day would not be the same without fireworks, Barack should have given a shout out to Buddhists and Taoists instead of being so exclusionary. Tsk tsk.
Right you are.
Duh. Why did the Pilgrims come here, do ya think?
Buy Danish on January 25, 2009 at 12:13 PM
In the middle of Evan Thomas’ insidery campaign book, A Long Time Coming, there is a section on early conflict between John McCain and Barack Obama in the Senate, even before Obama was openly running for president. I thought this bit was interesting for more than one reason:
Obama further aliented McCain on the immigration issue. McCain took great political risks on immigration, defying the GOP faithful who wanted to build a wall across the Mexican border and arrest and detain illegal immigrants. Working with Ted Kennedy and a bipartisan group, McCain came up with compromise legislation to create a guest-worker program. Obama asked to join the group. The senators agreed to hang together to vote against amendments from both the right and the left. Some very conservative senators honored the agreement, voting against conservative amendments — but Obama did not, voting in favor of a number of liberal amendments. After one meeting, Kennedy chewed Obama out for his fickleness. (Months later, asked by a colleague why he had endorsed Obama for president, Kennedy gave a one-word answer: “Caroline.”)
Without reading too much into this anecdote, on immigration, at least, Barack Obama took care of his base and John McCain did not, and his base included Caroline Kennedy. She must indeed be a little bitter about now.
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2009/01/john-and-ted-and-caroline.html
Sweet Princess Caroline, under the bus!
Mr. Joe on January 25, 2009 at 12:24 PM
It was much on the minds of the founders who wanted a government that was free from the secterianism that had produced the European religious wars of the past couple of centuries.
dedalus on January 25, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Thanks for the info.
Disturb the Universe on January 25, 2009 at 1:53 PM
No, this isn’t an issue. Even for some with understandable grievances here, making an issue of this is completely stupid and does no one any good.
Esthier on January 25, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Why is it that PO (President Obama) can correctly recognize that atheists exist in America, but is fooled about Global Warming?
Doug on January 25, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Obama forgot to mention Buddhists. In doing so, he discriminated against the Asians. I knew we would find a fault with The One in his early days.
jediwebdude on January 25, 2009 at 2:44 PM
This is what Obama said in context:
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
Start here:
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and nonbelievers.
He is specifically making the claim that Muslims, Hindus and “nonbelievers” are a part of our heritage. Further, he is claiming that we are strong because we are a “patchwork”. Surely you don’t mean to say that it is “stupid” to dispute those claims?
Obama goes on to say:
We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth;
That is ludicrous! The only true part of that statement is that people have come here from all over the world.
He also implies that we are a “tribal” society, which is also silly, and ironically, by promoting multi-culturalism instead of assimilation it is he who is encouraging tribalism.
Why should we blindly surrender to these assertions without challenging them?
Buy Danish on January 25, 2009 at 3:05 PM
As we all know, India was a British colony for a long while. I’ll suggest that Hinduism has influenced liberal Christianity and non-Orthodox Judaism strongly on one issue. Hinduism attempts to claim all monotheism are the same monotheism. The rabbi at the closest synagogue to my house, a Reformed synagogue, yesterday argued that point. (He did make the concession that people who worship a God who tells them to do the sorts of things that Allah tells people perhaps aren’t worshiping the same God, though he is way too politically correct to actually use the word “Islam” in this context in a sermon.)
Personally, I would argue that the Three-In-One Oil of a God of Christianity is not at all the God of the Hebrew Bible, but I suppose I would be pilloried at an ecumenical event.
thuja on January 25, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Buddhists aren’t know for killing people?
Of course, Buddhists have been as good at war as many other groups. And the Dalai Lama has caught on to the evil of Islam. Things will hopefully change in this regard. Buddhism, over all, is a religion that will play fair with others like Judaism and secularized Christianity. The Buddhists will be good allies against Islam.
thuja on January 25, 2009 at 4:08 PM
And they have no one to blame but themselves. The liberal coalition sold him as The Black Messiah, bundled with some other lies, one of those being that he’s a Christian. No rational person could observe him to be a Christian, and indeed, they’ll find out that he’s an atheist who associated with a fringe racist church for a time for political benefit, and hey, it worked great.
But he’s not a Christian. Quit whining, “Reverend”.
Jaibones on January 25, 2009 at 8:14 AM
+ 1 exactly!
And for mojave & ignoramous (whoops ignopoy or whatever) – nice try – you just can’t get through any post without trying to slap us, can you? Doesn’t matter what the post is about.
Bambi on January 25, 2009 at 5:44 PM
What is disturbing is that Jackson seems to be insinuating that if you are anything but a Christian or Jew, you are somehow not an American. A pretty ignorant and completely unwarranted response, to say the least.
The dude should really walk into a WalMart some time. Or the DMV in a major city. I’m sure he’d find it to be a little shocking at first, but it’d be therapeutic for him, I think. It’s just no good for him to wait until he’s got to see some doctor down the road who happens to be the best in his field and Hindu, after all.
ChenZhen on January 25, 2009 at 7:13 PM
Well, colour me shocked that some obscure minister in some small town takes offense at a friendly reference to atheism.
I’m sure that when Obama said atheist, the MSM hunted high and low for some offended Christian, and this guy was the most prominent they could come up with?
We Christians have no problem respecting atheists. It’s the atheists who have a problem with us and seek to limit our influence and PDF’s (public displays of faith).
And as has often been noted, atheists have more rights in Christian countries than Christians have in Atheist countries.
But this is a non-story. I’m sure you can find someone offended by the colour of Obama’s tie if you looked hard enough.
Johnny 100 Pesos on January 25, 2009 at 8:14 PM
It’s dangerous to generalize for all atheists or all Christians, but I think you have things exactly backwards.
Not the first or last time I’ll note this, but you can worship however publicly you want, just don’t drag the government into it. That’s the only thing any atheist has ever asked. You can sing hymns hanging from a cross in Times Square, for all I care, just leave some secular space for the government.
RightOFLeft on January 25, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Athiests have driven us out of all public discourse. We are unwelcome in the passing of laws to govern our nation. We are unwelcome in the discussion of history or science. We are unwelcome in the public displays of national holidays celebrating the birth, death and resurrection of our Lord. And you tell us to just sit by and be quite? NO! I for one, shall not be quite any longer! I shall do everything in my power to drive Athiests back into the shadows. You be quiet! We Christians shall not be quiet any longer! We have a message to tell and we are going to tell it…and we don’t care if you like it or not!
sabbott on January 26, 2009 at 8:04 AM
Oh, I get it now AllahPundit, you voted for Pres. Obama because now your victimized voting block are no longer disenfranchised. Stop the victimization of Atheist people! They’re Americans too! You must be feeling really good about yourself now that the President includes you in his speeches, eh? I take it there will be minimal Eeyore-ism & replaced with positively more optimism!
Sultry Beauty on January 26, 2009 at 8:13 AM
I think most, including Allahpundit, are completely missing Bishop Jackson’s point.
Regardless of the variety of religions in this country, the United States is a country founded upon Judeo-Christian ideals.
Anyone care to argue or refute???
.
Miss_Anthrope on January 25, 2009 at 8:51 AM
That would require a shared knowledge of the founding fathers, wouldn’t it? Because my studies of the main ones point to them being deists and not Christians. They were men of science and reason. Religion was not what drove them. The USA was the only success to come from the Enlightenment. Jesus and God are not mentioned. “The Creator” is. Who might that be? That’s up to you.
Start with Jefferson, then go with Adams and finish off with Madison.
Krydor on January 26, 2009 at 8:21 AM
You and so many others make the mistake (or play a deceptive game) of trying to size up these men in a vacuum as if their upbringing counted for nothing.
They were all Anglo Saxons, beneficiaries of the concepts laid out in the Magna Carta, and they all came from a Christian tradition. Whether or not they subscribed to organized religion only describes a small part of who they were and what formed and informed their character and beliefs as men. Note the influence of the Puritans on Benjamin Franklin and John Adams:
And
Buy Danish on January 26, 2009 at 9:12 AM
You have to divide the Christians into sects, in order to prove that unaffiliated is the third largest?
1) As you note, the two largest sects both exceed “unaffiliated. Even if there were no other “Christian” sects, that would still mean that Christians outnumber “unaffiliated” by more than 2 to 1. Since there are other sects, many of them. That means that Christians outnumber the others by huge numbers.
2) Being unaffiliated does not make one an atheist. It also includes believers who don’t associate with one of the “sects” as you like to call them.
MarkTheGreat on January 26, 2009 at 9:32 AM
“A nation of Christians and Muslims”? So all you have to do to get second billing is blow up our skyscrapers?
LibTired on January 26, 2009 at 9:57 AM
For good reason! History and science have established methodologies based on empiricism, and they work just fine without religion goofing things up. There has never been a discovery about the physical laws or history of our world uncovered by prayer or bible study. Never. Maybe faith has some value in our spiritual lives, but it offers nothing to science or history.
If your air conditioning broke down, would you pray for God to fix it? If you found yourself falsely accused of a crime, would you accept the verdict of a jury based on prayer? Or would you demand that your peers base their verdict on empirical standards? Faith does not produce reliable results in any field of inquiry. Even in matters of spirituality, 10,000 years of reflection has only sown confusion and discord.
Science will never yield to religion. That battle ended centuries ago, so get used to it. I wish I could write more clearly to make you understand: religion is neither welcome in nor relevant to science, and so it is rightly ignored.
RightOFLeft on January 26, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Really? How do you explain this?
The Jesuits’ contributions to the late Renaissance were significant in their roles both as a missionary order and as the first religious order to operate colleges and universities as a principal and distinct ministry.
By the time of Ignatius’ death in 1556, the Jesuits were already operating a network of 74 colleges on three continents. A precursor to liberal education, the Jesuit plan of studies incorporated the Classical teachings of Renaissance humanism into the Scholastic structure of Catholic thought.
In addition to teaching faith, the Ratio Studiorum emphasized the study of Latin, Greek, classical literature, poetry, and philosophy as well as non-European languages, sciences and the arts. Furthermore, Jesuit schools encouraged the study of vernacular literature and rhetoric, and thereby became important centers for the training of lawyers and public officials.
Buy Danish on January 26, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Buy Danish on January 26, 2009 at 12:23 PM
That’s not a contribution of faith, that’s a contribution by the faithful. You could have offered an even stronger example with Newton, who I believe was the greatest scientist to ever live, and also happened to be psychotically religious (not that religion is psychotic, he just was extreme in his beliefs). But his methodology, same as the Jesuits, didn’t rely on faith. This is a pretty simple distinction to make, isn’t it?
RightOFLeft on January 26, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Do you think religion doesn’t require us to study? To put our best effort forward? Do you think we just sit around and ask our Heavenly Father to do everything for us? Well, my religion doesn’t. It sure would make it easier for me, if it worked that way. Just think, I wouldn’t have to open a book, just say a prayer. You know I’ve tried that, it didn’t work.
Of course religion flavors all of one’s life as it did the Founding Fathers. You don’t have to walk lockstep, it’s just what you believe and I’m grateful to my family and to my God for his values and teachings.
Bambi on January 26, 2009 at 2:21 PM
When it comes to science and history, that’s exactly how some religious people come to their conclusions. They read in their bible that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that’s the end of the discussion for them. They read that a flood covered the entire earth, and that’s the end of the discussion for them. Those people are unwelcome in the discussion of history and science, and for good reason.
I’m thrilled to hear that you’re obviously thoughtful and willing to accommodate rationality in how you view the world and live your life, and by no means do I think you’re the only Christian who does so. I think Sabbot had something else in mind when he whined about scientists and historians not listening to him, though. I think he had in mind that scientists and historians should submit to his faith-based, biblically literal views on history and science; and for no other reason than because he prayed, he read the bible, and somehow got the impression that he knows better than the scientists who studied math and performed experiments.
There’s no place in science and history for values and religious teachings. Values and religion have a place in how we use the knowledge gained from science and history, but the knowledge itself must be independent from religious dogma.
RightOFLeft on January 26, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Buy Danish on January 26, 2009 at 9:12 AM
Yep, and Franklin rejected supernatural claptrap. Did you know that the invention of the lightning rod got him in hot water with the religious zealots of his time? You know, subverting God’s wrath and all that.
Dude was a deist. The bulk of the Founding Fathers were. This isn’t some new age atheist fantasy garbage, but fact.
Sorry, not a Christian nation.
Here’s an Adams quote for you. We can do this forever…
The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
Krydor on January 26, 2009 at 2:52 PM
I am Hindu. We migrated to US from India when I was 6 back in 1970. I went thru the US educational system. The country was settled by Christians. The greatest presidents followed and practice Christianity. To deny this is foolish.
I have absolutely no issue with this fact. I have no problem if America were to be a predominantly Christian country for another 1000 years. In fact, much of the greatness of America comes from Christian values. Other parts come from the unique attitude of can-achieve-anything mindset. Still other parts come from the extreme generosity and kind-heartedness of American people.
What makes America unique is its willingness to open its heart to peoples of all background in the world. The requirement should be that people must accept America as their country.
But there’s something that’s been nagging, subliminally perhaps.
Must I be a Christian/Jew in order to be considered conservative? Must I be a Christian/Jew in order to be a Republican? Must we leave America because we are not Christian/Jewish? This is the message that is conveyed by people like Bishop Jackson.
People can be as devout believers of any faith as they wish. But when one says I am a blasphemer or kafir because I do not follow a particular faith, that is where I take issue. Some even try to convert others by forceful means.
I have turned away from many parts of President Obama’s ideology over the last few years (hence my patronage of Hot Air/Captain’s Quarters and Power Line). But I am grateful that he mentioned Hindus as being part of America.
We practice being Hindus without any sense of obligation from the government. Religion is an intensely personal (family/community/temple/church) practice. This is where it belongs.
md on January 26, 2009 at 6:11 PM
“…and are endowed by their ____________ with certain inalienable rights…”
Akzed on March 14, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2