Christian Coalition Applauds McCain’s Religious Bigotry, Claims It ‘Might Make Him President’
Christian Coalition Applauds McCain’s Religious Bigotry, Claims It ‘Might Make Him President’
In a recent interview with Beliefnet, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) claimed “the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation,” and suggested religious candidates that don’t share his faith should be viewed skeptically. “McCain was raised Episcopalian and currently attends a Baptist church in Arizona.”
Beliefnet columnist David Kuo said McCain was “pandering to what he thinks the Christian conservative community wants to hear” and predicted he would “have a lot of explaining to do about this interview.”
Several religious groups have condemned McCain’s remarks. The Anti-Defamation League is calling on him to “reconsider and withdraw” the comments. The American Jewish Committee said McCain’s attempts to impose religious tests for public office “puts the very character of our country at stake.” James Zogby, head of the Arab American Institute, called called McCain “Cheney without the nuance.”
But there’s at least one religious group that is proudly backing McCain’s religious bigotry. In a press release, the Christian Coalition — an organization founded by Pat Robertson — said McCain may win the presidency with his “America is a Christian Nation” comment:
In a Christian Coalition of America blog entry entitled: “McCain’s ‘America is a Christian Nation’ Comments Might Make Him President,” Jim Backlin said: “Comments like ‘America was founded on Christian principles’ by Senator John McCain just might make him president.
In an interview last Saturday with a Christian-oriented website called Beliefnet, Senator McCain stated that “I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I would prefer someone who has a grounding in my faith.” The fact that the left-wing Muslim groups vociferously reacted against McCain’s remarks, just added validity to his comments, and indeed value for his presidential nomination hopes.
For the Christian Coalition, rewarding political pandering is a greater priority than defending religious freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.
UPDATE: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has also lept to his friend’s defense: “I have known John McCain very well for many years and I know that he does not have a bigoted bone in his body. I know that he is fair and just to all Americans regardless of their faith.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Keith Ellison for President!!!
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:41 amMOS DEF for Prez!!!!!!!
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:42 amHOLY SHIT!!
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:43 amWhen Joe Lieberman (I-Israel) leaps to your defense, you know you’ve stepped in some serious sheiss.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:45 amLooks like McCain is trying to prop the listing reverend up, but the weight of his double chin is just too much.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:46 amMy dream: Rudy Guiliani gets the Republican nomination. The religious right encourages John McCain to run as their independent candidate, siphoning off Republican votes from Guiliani. The Democratic nominee, whoever it is, trounces both of them. The neocon Republicans and the fundies are both marginalized for the next generation.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:47 amYeah, the Christian Coalition’s a really relevent organization, now that Falwell’s dancing with Satan; hitch your fundamentalist wagons to the Straight Talk Express, as it heads into the political obscurity of a failed presidential candidacy.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:48 amWe could only hope that McCain gets the nomination…but not even the Repubs are that stupid…
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:49 amOops. Was thinking of Falwell, and the Moron Majority.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:50 amPatrioticLiberalChristian sez:
The problem being, of course, that the Democratic nominee is most probably going to be Hillary, who isn’t going to be much better than Chimpy.
My dream: The American public wakes up en masse and elects Kucinich on a write-in campaign.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:51 amThese christianists have become every bit as extreme as the jihadists they piss their pants over.
The true horror is the spiritual people who suffer under the yoke of religions who carry weapons.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:52 amThe United States of America is not a Christian nation. If it was, every American would have affordable health care.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:52 amyeeeeah….
good luck on that TMM..
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:52 amJohn McCain (R-AZ) claimed “the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation”
I guess McCain didn’t even get through the 1st Amendment of our Constitution which, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, creates “a wall of seperation” between church and state.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:52 amThe first amendment states that government will not create a national religion however government officials have the right to practice any religious ideas that they want.
Doesn’t sound like our Founding Fathers meant to establish a “christian nation” to me
Obey: No Iraq supplemental until course change
By Mike Soraghan
October 02, 2007
President Bush will not get an Iraq war supplemental spending bill until he changes course on the war, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said Tuesday. The powerful lawmaker also voiced his support for a “war tax.â€
“As chairman of the Appropriations Committee I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of committee anytime in this session of Congress any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo,†Obey told reporters.
He wants a war spending bill to end U.S. involvement in combat operations by January 2009, allow more rest time for troops between deployments and start a “diplomatic surge.â€
Obey also came out in favor of Rep. James McGovern’s (D-Mass.) war tax proposal.
“If you don’t like the cost, then shut down the war,†Obey said in a news conference.
The tax would be intended to raise roughly $150 billion for the war. It would be a surtax of 2 to 15 percent of income tax. A 2 percent surtax means that a person who would otherwise pay $100 in taxes would pay $102.
lets see how they likepaying for the war? thatll bring it home to some americans at least.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:53 amDoesn’t sound like our Founding Fathers meant to establish a “christian nation†to me
a lot of american christians dont know how to read
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:54 amNow this is serious delusion! Bigot McCain becoming president?? Not in this lifetime! He’s one of the absolute “worst” candidates in the field.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:56 amQ: What’s the difference between Islamofascism & Christofacism?
A:
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:57 amBigot McCain = Cheney without the Dudley Do-Right Smirk. Or…Cheney with a Tooth ache.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:57 amzimzone: Absolutely nothing! They are both radical extremes.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:58 amBelieve you are correct, and I agree with you..
They - the Founding Fathers - meant to establish a nation of a Christian people.
Believe they succeeded.
If you have an idea that something other than Christianity can “hold the USA togetherâ€, I’ll certainly read your idea.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:58 ambob h: The wingnut reichwing is attempting to rewrite history. Of course, our founding fathers felt it critical to the democracy to separate church and state….lines which have become blurred by Bush and which have religion meddling into politics. This fact alone questions the very basis of “democracy”.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:59 amVeritas,
You are correct sir!
(Note that was the answer, as well)
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 pmbitblt: How do you imagine that they defined “christian”. It’s open to about a hundred interpretations and everything inbetween if you ask me. Besides, where did you find that they used the word “christian” in anything? Provide facts, please.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 pmIf you mean “under god”, that, too, is subject to about a gazillion interpretations. To some people, nature is god; to others, God is a female deity. So…..?
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:01 pmZimzone: For the record, I am of the female persuasion. :)
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:02 pmby christian i am sure washington meant: deist…guys that didnt give a crap about church. stick it.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:04 pmIf you have an idea that something other than Christianity can “hold the USA togetherâ€, I’ll certainly read your idea.
Comment by bitblt
So far all Christianity has done is to divide this nation not to unite it. The only thing that will unite this nation is to do away with religion entirely. How about we all become Americans?
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:04 pmto think I actually voted for lieberman when he was on the ticket w/ Al Gore.
McCain is old and kooky. He just says stupid shit. I don’t believe he really knows what he is saying half the time. But Lieberman, he is just a wanker.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:05 pmMuslims believe in Jesus, or Isa, just like McCain does….
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:06 pmZimzone: For the record, I am of the female persuasion. :)
Thank you, ma’am.
Captioin: ‘They still don’t know you’re dead, so just stand still!’
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:07 pmCan i point out that if the Founding Fathers wanted to found a Christian nation, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble? EVERY western nation was a Christian nation at the time, with an official church. They wrote all those tracts and fought a long bloody revolution to found a new nation just like Spain England, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, and so on?
Does that make any sense at all?
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:08 pmlets see how they like paying for the war? thatll bring it home to some americans at least.
Comment by bob h
Good for Obey and McGovern. Finally some Democrats with balls. It’s about time someone suggested paying for this occupation rather than recklessly putting it on the nation’s charge card.
The one thing that has been missing from the Iraq discussion is a real discussion about how much it is costing this nation and the repercussions of borrowing money to pay for it.
On the other hand, I would like to see the tax be on the war profiteers along with the people of this country. I would like to see a substantial tax on every corporation that is making money off the occupation of Iraq, starting with Halliburton. But….I guess we can’t tax Halliburton because they moved to Dubai to avoid paying US taxes, which is, in itself, a travesty.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:10 pmSo.. we’re a theocracy?
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:11 pmIf you have an idea that something other than Christianity can “hold the USA togetherâ€, I’ll certainly read your idea.
Comment by bitblt
Try the U.S. Constitution.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:11 pmSo Pat Robertson fancies himself a kingmaker, does he? I doubt the Christian Coalition had the impact it once had, but we’ll see how much actual political power Pat still has.
If McCain’s poll numbers go up noticeably after Robertson’s remarks, then Pat’s still got it. If not, then Robertson and the Christian Coalition have become irrelevant.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:12 pmTrip: “The problem being, of course, that the Democratic nominee is most probably going to be Hillary, who isn’t going to be much better than Chimpy.”
Oh, give me a frickin break! There is no way Hillary gives a huge tax break to the nation’s wealthiest, no way she doesn’t push healthcare for children, no way she would have invaded Iraq without going through the U.N., no way she would eviscerate the EPA and no way she would nominate Supreme Court judges who are right wing ideologues. Hillary Clinton is a centrist. Bush is a hard right-wing ideologue.
I’ve posted this before - she’s not my favorite candidate, but comparing her to Bush is just absurd. She, of course, would be much more like Bill Clinton, and that’s a mixed bag, but it’s nothing like the a-hole we’ve got today.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:13 pmRory sez:
If we’re all “God’s children”, Jake, what makes Jesus so special? ^_^
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:14 pmbitblt-
Although our Founding Fathers came here from a christian nation in order to form “a more perfect union”, they had the foresight to stress diversity when drafting our Constitution. The religious make-up of early America was most definitely christian however the desire of our Forefathers to keep religion seperate from politics proves their intention. A nation “of the people, by the people and for the people”. NOT a nation for christian people, by christian people…”. This may be YOUR idea of a utopia but maybe you should pull your head out of your ass long enough to see that it is PRECISELY this diversity and tolerance that puts us above the zealotry of countries that are dictated by their religious ferver.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:14 pmThe Christian Coalition is shrinking in importance on the political landscape.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:15 pmThey are still reeling from Ralph Reed’s tie with Jack Abramoff and the Indian tribe money.
Their fundraising is at an all time low.
They have no one to claim as their own that’s a top tier candidate.
Most pundits think that the Christian Coalition will, in fact, run a third party candidate.
McCain, seeing his campaign flounder, is becoming desperate and will say just about anything to get some backing. I call him “Weathervane McCainâ€.
I wonder what they think about him dropping the “F†bomb on Senator Cornyn, (R-TX). I believe the quote is “F8ck you!â€
Some Christian he is.
Xisithrus, they just don’t believe that Jesus was the Son of God.
Comment by Rory — October 2, 2007
Neither do the Jewish.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:16 pmRet. Col. Jack Ripper sez:
That’s a bit like saying that being mauled by a cougar is preferable to being mauled by a bear. Sure, it’s better, but I’d prefer not getting mauled at all.
As long as we limit our choices to the lesser of two evils, we’re certain to wind up with someone evil.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:17 pmSelling his soul to the Devil.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:18 pmMaybe Heyzeus will come back in time to be their savior in 2008.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:18 pmMcCain: Dead man campaigning.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:20 pmComment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — October 2, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
Agree with you there. I’ll take Hillary over any of the Republican candidates any day.
And I hope Bill bangs one of her interns too.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:23 pmbitbit: “They - the Founding Fathers - meant to establish a nation of a Christian people.
Believe they succeeded.
If you have an idea that something other than Christianity can “hold the USA togetherâ€, I’ll certainly read your idea.”
This idea that the Founders were setting up a country for christians is a myth. Most of the founders were actually hostile to organized religion, especially christianity. Here’s what the Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, said to his congregation in 1831:
“The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity….
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:23 pm    “Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.”
That’s a bit like saying that being mauled by a cougar is preferable to being mauled by a bear. Sure, it’s better, but I’d prefer not getting mauled at all.
As long as we limit our choices to the lesser of two evils, we’re certain to wind up with someone evil.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 2, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
Yea, verily, but it’s not happening anytime soon. I’ve been hearing and saying the same thing for 40 years and have supported third parties whenever possible. It first has to happen on a local and regional level, so I definitely encourage people supporting third parties at home. However, in the near and not-so-near future, I believe the correct response is to push the Democratics to the left, where they belong.
There’s a good honest response from Earl Blumenauer (D,OR) here.
I think this is the essence and, bow tie or not, I agree:
We need to support progressives, wherever they appear, and push back against the Bluedogs and the Liebermans.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:24 pm“Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.â€
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — October 2, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
Among the strongest supporters of the 1st Amendment and separation of church/state were the evangelicals of the time, who recognized that it would protect them from oppression by the Anglican Church.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:25 pmBoy the Christianists really love being used. Man they are dumb.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:28 pmAnd secondly, Rory, Jesus never said I am God, worship me, nor did he say he was Son of God, he said, “I am son of Man”. Further he said, “I am the bright and morning star, I am root and descendant of David”
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:28 pmTrip: “As long as we limit our choices to the lesser of two evils, we’re certain to wind up with someone evil.”
Gosh, Tripmaster, that really rings a bell. Where have I heard that before? Oh, I remember. The Greens were saying that about Al Gore in 2000. Aren’t we all glad that so many people bought into it? The idea that Al Gore was “evil” seems more idiotic to me today than it did then and, at the time, I thought it was the height of idiocy.
Man, wise up! We’re not voting to make ourselves feel better, we’re not voting to make an ideological statement or a statement about ethics. We’re hiring representatives to get the job of civil government done correctly. We’re not electing a Pope.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:28 pmAs long as we limit our choices to the lesser of two evils, we’re certain to wind up with someone evil.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 2, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
Cuthulu/Yog Sohoth 2008
“Why vote for the lesser evil”
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:36 pmI agree with you TMM. How is standing up for what matters a fringe concept to all these people. Have you people looked at Hillary’s health care package? Come on now….I guess apathy really is the rule of the times. Instead of looking to what could be, people are settling for what they are getting used to. We can be a better nation than that. Would you expect less from yourself or your children? Don’t expect less from your government. It is> representative you know.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:37 pmThe U.S. Constitution has three references or allusions to Christianity.
The last reference/allusion is the dating of the document as in the “Year of our Lord.†I assume A.D., or perhaps even C.E., was available to the writers. So, I further assume that they wanted to say, “Year of our Lord.â€
The second allusion is noting that Sunday is not to be considered a day for doing business. Sunday is the Christian day of worship.
The first reference/allusion is the First Amendment itself. Writings of numerous people, including Jefferson, make it clear that the federal government was not going to establish a state religion the way many of the colonies had. The federal government was not going to pick a one Christian denomination above the others lest membership in this one be considered a qualification for public office.
That the first amendment means today exactly what it meant when it was written…? I see no reason to think that the first amendment was written to mean that God was to be removed from the public square.
If you’re going to recommend the U.S. Constitution, suggest you need to make it perfectly clear exactly why you think anyone would adhere to this document.
Why would anyone adhere to the U.S. Constitution?
Is it because they’re nice people? Is it because they’re “nice†people and because they want everyone else to be nice people?
Is it because the U.S. has been so successful as a nation?
Remember when this nation was put together, there was no hint they it would be as successful as it has been.
So what’s made the US so successful? The words and meanings recorded in the Constitution, or the Christian people who have lived under this document?
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:38 pmKranzy says ~“Why vote for the lesser evilâ€
Seriously…..
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 pmbitbit:
when our nation was actually being torn asunder (during the War of the Rebellion), a guiy who was working very hard to preserve America said this:
“Fourscore and seven years ago, our forefathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in LIBERTY and dedicated to the proposition that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.”
The Christian churches of new England were fomenting anger, and Willian Lloyd Garrison was denouncing the Constitution as a pact with the Devil. The Christian Churches of the South defended slavery and supported secession.
The southern churches were still shouting the same stuff a hundred years later, when other christians marched for racial justice and an end to oppression. for FREEDOM and LIBERTY.
When the WTC destroyed, two of the most prominent christian leaders got up and said that the bombing was because of feminists and gays and secularists–in short, that Osama Bin Laden was doing God’s work.
We came together nonetheless DESPITE Christianity because we believe that ALL men are createdequal, and that they have rights NO MATTER WHAT, no matter if they think that Jesus Christ was a heretic to their religion, or that he was an earlier prophet of theirs, or the Incarnation of God Himself, or a wise and enlightened teacher–or that he never even existed. NO MATTER WHAT.
This is NOT the Christian message, and christianity’s heritage has been as divisive as it has been unifying.
What keeps us together is the belief in LIBERTY, and the RIGHTS OF MAN. THAT is what has kept America together–the most diverse nation on Earth. In this nation Serb and Croat live. Catholic and Protestant, Jew and German and Russian. Japanese and Chinese live together, Armenian and Turk, Ulsterman and Irishman. Not perfectly, and we have our own atrocities, but what alows these enemies to come, live and work together, attend ballgames and watch the fireworks on the Fourth are the principles, not of Christianity, but of LIBERTY and the RIGHTS OF MAN.
As my father said it, “One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:42 pmThere have been many non-christians who have successfully lived within the US as well. Claiming that we succeed, because Christians live in the US is a stretch.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:43 pmComment by bitblt
There are nations all over the world that somehow “hold together” without being christian. A couple hundred of them to be exact.
Your assertion is almost childish in it’s quaintness.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:43 pmWhile it is true most of the framers of the constitution were deists it is also true that the pilgrims carried the geneva, or breeches, bible by exiles from england [John Calvin]
Calvin however did see a need for a civil government that divided church and state. The division was originally a Christian idea and not one of atheists and pagans as many, today, would wrongly imply.
As for the lesser of two evils go…thats why we seperate the evil politicians from religion! And why we must keep it that way, cause we all know that politicians love to cloak themselves in religion and patriotism while troughing for material and financial greed.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:43 pmIf you are a democrat, and you vote independent, then you get a republican. Didn’t 2000 teach us anything ?
∞
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:48 pmJesus did say if you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:52 pmWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Not “Christian People”, not “perfect Christian Union”, not “ordained by God”, not “under God”. The debate over the U.S. Constitution included consideration of adding references to God or Jesus but these proposals were rejected. That document, both what is included and excluded, indicates the intent of the Founding Fathers. You can find quotes of the Founding Fathers apparently on both sides of the issue. However, just because they had personal convictions about their own faith (which often changed over their life times), does not mean that they intended to or did put these beliefs into governmental policy. If the Founding Fathers wanted to live in a Christian Nation, they could have stayed in England or left America as an English colony.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:52 pmWhy would anyone adhere to the U.S. Constitution?
Is it because they’re nice people? Is it because they’re “nice†people and because they want everyone else to be nice people?
Is it because the U.S. has been so successful as a nation?
Remember when this nation was put together, there was no hint they it would be as successful as it has been.
So what’s made the US so successful? The words and meanings recorded in the Constitution, or the Christian people who have lived under this document?
Comment by bitblt — October 2, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
The words and meanings recorded in the Constitution. Period. Language carefully crafted to be very precise about a distinctly non-religious government. People do not have to be Christian in order to be moral, or to understand that a good government protects everyone.
If you spent some time reading the documentation surrounding the writing of the Constitution, and the myriad letters and essays preceding and following the founding of the republic, you’d understand that Christianity had NOTHING to do with it.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:55 pmWhat’s the count after you subtract the nations where you wouldn’t live?
What’s the count after you subtract the ones held together with guns?
What’s the count after you subtract the ones influenced by the West - for example: Israel, India, Turkey, South Korea,…?
West here would include Christian Europe back when there was a Christian Europe.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 pmI think the country has succeeded because we lived according to those words in the Constitution and defended the right of others to believe and live differently from what each of us may do.
Remember . . . Northern Ireland is a Christian nation - and they have been killing and blowing each other up for a couple of centuries now. The “Christian” tag doesn’t matter if you don’t “walk the walk”.
Too many of us don’t.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:57 pmAnd James Dobson,or Pat Robertson will be his Secretary of State
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:58 pmWhat’s the count after you subtract the ones held together with guns?
Comment by bitblt — October 2, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
Child, do you not believe the USA is held together by guns?
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:59 pmI think if you want to get an accurate view of the real Jesus, you should read the Book of Thomas, one of the biblical texts that was thrown out as part of the Nicene Creed because it didn’t fit in with the new Christian Church’s desire for a mass religion founded on superstition, rather than the difficult-to-follow teachings and sayings of Jesus. Jesus never claimed to be anything but a man and would have denounced what Christians have made him over 2000 years. The Pharisees of Jesus’s time are the Christian Right of today, and if he were here, they’d have him crucified (by their media apparatus) in a second.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:01 pmWhy would anyone adhere to the U.S. Constitution?
Because that’s how rule of law works. And people don’t adhere to the Constitution - the government does.
Is it because they’re nice people? Is it because they’re “nice†people and because they want everyone else to be nice people?
No. You don’t have to be a nice person to obey the law. In fact, the whole purpose of having law (and religion) is because people are fundamentally not nice. If people were all nice and didn’t violate other people’s civil rights we wouldn’t need law OR religion.
Is it because the U.S. has been so successful as a nation?
Remember when this nation was put together, there was no hint they it would be as successful as it has been.
This is true. Also remember that when this nation was put together, black people were 60% human, and only rich white landowners could vote. There was no hint that this situation would change, but the framers of the Constitution planned for this by allowing the document to be amended.
So what’s made the US so successful? The words and meanings recorded in the Constitution, or the Christian people who have lived under this document?
Comment by bitblt — October 2, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Actually, it’s a lack of polar bear attacks.
Since the founding of this country, only a very very very tiny fraction of the population has been eaten by a polar bear.
The framers of the Constitution - none of whom were eaten by polar bears, created the Constitution for the non-eaten people who have lived under the document for more than two centuries, and the fact that they have stayed uneaten is testament to the founders’ success.
Can you just imagine what the effect on our agricultural and industrial and military base would be if we were not a nation of people who weren’t eaten by polar bears? The Canadians would have conquered us DECADES ago!
Same logic as your argument.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:02 pmAnd Jesus would have said that to look at anyone is to see the Father, and that the kingdom of heaven is available inside each one of us. Jesus never said he was the actual and sole son of God as presented by other texts in the Bible.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:03 pmJesus did say if you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father.
Comment by bitblt — October 2, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Are those his exact words, translated from the original Aramaic?
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:04 pmThe people who supports this non sense are blind or misguided.
Suppose for the sake of argument that USA became a Christian nation tomorrow,you think problems will end…no , they will begin.
It will be a war..who are these Christians to rule , the fundamentalist, the Catholics, the African American, the Baptist,..the Mourmens, Jehovah Witnesses…etc..etc….
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:05 pmEurope was mainly Christian when they had centuries of bloody wars…
Wake up..!!
Does that make any sense at all?
Comment by pbg
None whatsoever.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:07 pmComment by Bluedahlia — October 2, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
You speak of idealism, but ignore reality. If you want truly representative government we need a parliamentary style of government. We don’t have that. Our government has eveolved into a two party system. We can sit here all day and argue about how this is bad and how it should change, but I really don’t care about the “should’s” because I am forced to live in the real world and in the real world we have a two party system.
As such I vote for the lesser evil. At least with Hillary (or Obama or Edwards) I can have the hope of something I agree with happening. Certainly Hillary is going to be more environmentally friendly and more open to gay rights than Mitt Romney or Thompson.
Feel free to vote for your “idealistic” candidate and watch him/her lose. No one will hear your message. Don’t forget that for every one of us (a Progressive “liberal”) there are 1 or more christian conservative types who would have no problem voting for their “ideal” rightwing nutjob.
And while I am being realistic, both Hillary (as the first female) and Obama (as the first black) get the added bonus of possibly running the country while constantly worried about some one in the right wing trying to assassinate them.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:07 pmWhat’s the count after you subtract the nations where you wouldn’t live?
What’s the count after you subtract the ones held together with guns?
What’s the count after you subtract the ones influenced by the West - for example: Israel, India, Turkey, South Korea,…?
West here would include Christian Europe back when there was a Christian Europe.
Comment by bitblt — October 2, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
What’s the count after you subtract all the ones that don’t speak English as a first language?
What’s the count after you subtract all the ones with vowels in their names?
What’s the count after you subtract all the ones under 65 years old?
What’s the count after you subtract all the ones with islands and all the landlocked ones?
Wheee - I can add ridiculous and irrelevant qualifiers all day. This is fun!
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:07 pmWest here would include Christian Europe back when there was a Christian Europe.
Comment by bitblt — October 2, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
Bitbit showing true colors. Europe is overrun by Muslims after all. At least that is the belief among the wingnuts.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:08 pmThe people who supports this non sense are blind or misguided.
Suppose for the sake of argument that USA became a Christian nation tomorrow,you think problems will end…no , they will begin.
Comment by tarazan — October 2, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
It depends. If the USA became a Christian nation that actually followed Jesus’ teachings we’d pull out of Iraq, establish universal health care, and work to close the gap between rich and poor in this country. But that’s not the Christianity most evangelicals follow.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:09 pm4) And for good measure, alienate the Jews, as well as Buddhists and Hindus.
And please don’t forget the Athiests and Agnostics, both of which are growing daily.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:11 pmWhat’s the count after you subtract the nations where you wouldn’t live?
What’s the count after you subtract the ones held together with guns?
What’s the count after you subtract the ones influenced by the West - for example: Israel, India, Turkey, South Korea,…?
West here would include Christian Europe back when there was a Christian Europe.
Comment by bitblt — October 2, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
And what is the common denominator? Some document like our Constitution, and an attempt at representative democracy. So it is democracy, not religion, that holds those nations together.
Your thesis is shot so full of holes that you can’t even wipe your nose with it.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:13 pmThe Christian Coalition would back Lucifer, if they could just figure out how to get him on the ballot.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:23 pmIf you are a democrat, and you vote independent, then you get a republican. Didn’t 2000 teach us anything ?
∞
Comment by alphainfinityomega
This sounds a little like apathy to me.
It’s like saying we’ll never have anything better than the two evils we keep having to choose between so why even try…
I personally would like to try. Is it idealistic? Maybe, but isn’t idealism what this country was founded on.
I think if people could be educated on how horribly the two parties have run this country for so long, there might be enough defections from the two parties to make a 3rd party viable.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:25 pmYou speak of idealism, but ignore reality. Comment by dim wit — October 2, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
I do not ignore reality. I call bullshit! Why is something that stands for what the people of this nation want and need suddenly idealistic? Why is it now in the realm of idealism if it is the harder thing to accomplish? Why should I have to sink to your level of apathy just because you are not comfortable standing up for what is possible? What the hell happened to Americans who believed in something and were willing to stand up for their priorities? We get what we get because the majority of you allow it to happen! So please, enjoy what you reap, I for one will not.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:30 pmWhat’s the count after you subtract the ones held together with guns?
Comment by bitblt — October 2, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
LOL!
This argument is a joke. Every country(including our own) is held together to some degree by guns.
OK, I’m done argueing with you. Your arguements are silly and not worth responding too.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:30 pmRepost from
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 10/ 01/ mccain-faces-heat-over-religious-remarks/ #comments
Well. You’ve certainly aligned yourself with the philosophy of the winners of the twentieth century – in the area of body count, that is.
Believe the “officially†godless communist regimes of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, and subsequent communist leaders have amassed such significant body counts that it’s going to take some time for any belief to set some new records.
Was the behavior of these communist leaders the direct results of their philosophy of godlessness? I don’t know either, but I’d wager it made the killing a whole lot easier.
I don’t understand why people see Christianity as such a negative influence. I don’t see secular humanist or atheism as improvements, but I appreciate your offering an alternate. Usually on TP everyone knows that some – those who hold to a belief system, for instances, express it less than perfectly, but no one offers any counter suggestions as to a better belief system or how to live a better life. Sort of a criticism without responsibility thing.
Perhaps it’s time to consider how bad it could really be without the influence of Christianity. In other words, Christianity may make it as good as it can possibly get.
Is there any reason to think it would be better if the predominant philosophy were atheism?
Recall the last scene in Apocalypto where the suggestions is that Christianity came and vanquished human sacrifice.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:31 pmOK, I’m done argueing with you. Your arguements are silly and not worth responding too.
Comment by DigDug — October 2, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
Though I must admit - it is fun shooting him down every single time he makes the same moronic argument.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:32 pm# 87 Comment by Bluedahlia
YES!
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:32 pmRecall the last scene in Apocalypto where the suggestions is that Christianity came and vanquished human sacrifice.
Comment by bitblt — October 2, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Yes, destroying an entire indigenous civilization through smallpox and genocide can do that.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:37 pm#82 toasterhead said:
‘ It depends. If the US became a Christian nation that ACTUALLY FOLLOWED JESUS’ TEACHINGS,we’d pull out of Iraq, establish universal health care, and work to close the gap between rich and poor in this country. But that’s not the Christianity most evangelicals follow’.
=========================
Why then the Christian church is silent about all of what you have mentioned? They still can speak now.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:38 pmInstead, they chose to see themselves as a powerful political tool. The word ‘actually’ you used is not measureable. EVANGELICALS OR NOT, the country should not be at the mercy of any religious groups when it comes to running it business.
Perhaps it’s time to consider how bad it could really be without the influence of Christianity. In other words, Christianity may make it as good as it can possibly get.
Without Christianity, no crusades in the middle east, would have helped with some of the problems we are facing in the region. Please you yell about Stalin and Mao, but the Crusades, the Inquisition, and Hitler’s nazi’s were all based on religion. Lenin’s hatred for religion, came as an outgrowth of hatred for the Russian Orthodox Church, helping to perpetuate the serfdom of Russia, pre-Bolshevik revolution.
Consider also, that unlike communist China, or the USSR, there is no one telling you that you cannot worship. We are not allowing any one religion, Christian, Judiasm, or Islam to control the government.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:41 pmMcCain is right about establishing Christian principles. he OBVIOUSLY supports slavery and the idea that african-americans are only 3/5 of a person. but seriously, where in the text of the constitution or the bill of rights does it espouse “Christian” principles?
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:41 pmRecall the last scene in Apocalypto where the suggestions is that Christianity came and vanquished human sacrifice.
Comment by bitblt — October 2, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
You’re referencing a film by Mel Gibson as a source for historical accuracy and objectivity? Or perhaps as a source for fundamentalist propaganda?
It was certainly much better for the Maya, Inca and Aztec cultures to be forced into slavery and to be decimated by plague and famine than to occasionally offer up fellow Indians for sacrifice. Right. Much better to have the entire civilization destroyed by smelly Spaniards with no concept of personal hygiene. Right. Check. Got it.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:46 pmI don’t understand why people see Christianity as such a negative influence. I don’t see secular humanist or atheism as improvements, but I appreciate your offering an alternate. Usually on TP everyone knows that some – those who hold to a belief system, for instances, express it less than perfectly, but no one offers any counter suggestions as to a better belief system or how to live a better life. Sort of a criticism without responsibility thing.
There are lots of people here who have given you an alternative. And the reason why people see Christianity in a negative light is because of all the death and destruction that has been brought forth on this world because of fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Fundamentalist Christians hold the view that “it’s my way or the highway” (rather like Bush) and are more than happy to wish harm on people who don’t hold their beliefs.
I agree with a previous poster that if this truly was a Christian nation that followed the path of Jesus, we would NOT be in Iraq, we WOULD have healthcare for all our citizens and we WOULD make it a point to take care of our poor and defenseless citizens.
When Bush says that God talks to him I know he is delusional because if God truly talked to Bush he would tell him to straighten up and start behaving like a decent human being.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:48 pmIt was certainly much better for the Maya, Inca and Aztec cultures to be forced into slavery and to be decimated by plague and famine than to occasionally offer up fellow Indians for sacrifice. Right. Much better to have the entire civilization destroyed by smelly Spaniards with no concept of personal hygiene. Right. Check. Got it.
Comment by gummitch — October 2, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
And furthermore - what’s wrong with a little human sacrifice now and then? We’ve had 23 human sacrifices in Texas this year alone!
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:53 pmSatan is the one who invented religion.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:53 pmEvery single prominent christian in this country is a complete douchebag.
Comment by jake3988 — October 2, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
That’s only because the loudmouths get all the coverage. You don’t get your own show on CBN by being a moderate, tolerant, ecumenical Christian who respects diversity of belief.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:55 pmOne can most definitely say that these politician are very skilled and weigh every word they say. Senator McCain is in a desperate position. Winning the Christian Conservative Community can make all the difference at this point, has nothing to lose. The Jewish community in any case is not supporting him in this race. Securing the alienated Christian Community may turn things around and put him neck in neck with Giuliani. May after all be a smart move.
Do you believe Sen. McCain was pandering to the Christian Conservative Community, when he proclaimed the U.S a Christian Nation? ——–> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=623
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:58 pmHalf right. They indoctrinate their young with lies and false givivngs.
Example- They go to preschools and ask the students to pray to God, and ask God for ice cream. So the children all close their eyes and pray. After a few minutes they open their eyes and no ice cream. They then ask the students to close their eyes and ask their Country for ice cream. After a few minutes they open their eyes and, ice cream for all. Lies and false givings.
Comment by Johnny Swank — October 2, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
Ah, the good old days of the 1950s propaganda.
The truth is that in modern Russia, the dogma of the Orthodox Church is being mandated in the classroom.
People need to get caught up with the situation in Russia, which is no longer the Soviet Union, and no longer the chaotic mess left after the collapse of the Soviets.
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:01 pmEvery single prominent christian in this country is a complete douchebag.
Comment by jake3988 — October 2, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
It just seems that way because the douchebags have pretty much hijacked the faith from what Jesus intended. It has gotten bad enough that I am actually embarrassed to tell people I’m a Christian, for fear others will somehow tie me to the Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons of the world.
Most of us real Christians keep their piety to themselves as Jesus directed them to do in His Sermon on the Mount — praying in the privacy of their closets and living their lives by being the example Jesus wants them to be instead of judging others. Christians of this type are seldom “prominent” for that reason, but Jimmy Carter is a good example. And even he isn’t prominent for being a Christian (his fame comes from being president).
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:10 pmComment by Bluedahlia — October 2, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
&
Comment by DigDug — October 2, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
Your anger at me is misdirected.
Considering we (and I am not speaking for you) could not elect mainstreamer candidates like Gore and Kerry, then why should I waste my time with your idealistic candidate?
Also please remember, there is something called compromise. Do I agree with everything the front runner candidates have to say? No, but I accept the reality that they are the best chance I have.
Say whay you want. Vote for who you want. But as far as I’m concerned, the majority of Americans do NOT agree with you and if what YOU want is representative government then you will not get the government you truly want.
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:15 pm#107 Comment by dim wit
I’m not angry with you. I’m angry with the way that the two parties have run our country.
What you say makes sense, but to me it sounds like accepting the status quo. To me it’s a hard pill to swallow.
You may be right too. But, I hope that there is still a chance for us to turn things around in this country though. To change the staus quo.
“But as far as I’m concerned, the majority of Americans do NOT agree with you and if what YOU want is representative government then you will not get the government you truly want.”
This part though, doesn’t make sense to me.
The majority of americans don’t want a representative government?
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:23 pmThe majority of americans don’t want a representative government?
Comment by DigDug — October 2, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
I was not being clear.
The majority of Americans do want representative government.
But I do not feel the majority of Americans agree with what we have to say. For example, gay marriage. The majority of Americans don’t support it, but I do. If we are to have a truly representative government, gay marriage won’t have a chance of being legal, because the majority of Americans don’t support it.
However, I don’t care what the majority of Americans think.
Another example would be the whole Christian thing. I would agree that the majority of Americans are some form of Christian. But I don’t feel this is a Christian nation, nor do I think it should be.
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:35 pmCuthulu/Yog Sohoth 2008
“Why vote for the lesser evilâ€
Comment by Krazny — October 2, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
Well, the least you can do Krazny is to spell their names correctly. It should be
Cthulhu/Yog-Sothoth 2008.
(Proud supporter of the “Cthulhu for President” campaign since 1988!)
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:42 pm#109 Comment by dim wit
You’re right. That’s why we live in a constitutional republic, and not a true democracy. Because the founding fathers didn’t want minority groups to get trampled by the majority. After all the majority is not always right, and can be quite callus.
What I meant is that we need a government that is honestly looking out for the welfare of the people in this country. A goverment that is truelly transparent and free of corporate influence. A governemt that wants peace, not profits. A government that respects international law, and educates people on it’s importance, rather than undermining it, etc., etc., I could go on all day…. but I think you get the idea.
I’m not talking about left versus right, I’m not talking about liberal versus conservative. I’m talking about a goverment that works better than the one we have.
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:21 pmComment by bitblt — October 2, 2007 @ 12:38 pm:
The U.S. Constitution has three references or allusions to Christianity.
The last reference/allusion is the dating of the document as in the “Year of our Lord.†I assume A.D., or perhaps even C.E., was available to the writers. So, I further assume that they wanted to say, “Year of our Lord.â€
Well, first off, A.D. is the abbreviation for the Latin phrase, anno Domini meaning “in the year of the/our lord”. (Technically, the translation is “the” but it’s been wrongly accepted as meaning “our”.) Secondly, the use of CE is a fairly recent derivation (coming into any serious usage in just the past 50 or so years). Third, A.D. was traditionally used in most legal documents, even when drawn up by Jewish moneylenders and lawyers, regardless of religious intent.
The second allusion is noting that Sunday is not to be considered a day for doing business. Sunday is the Christian day of worship.
Well, no. The only point is that the President need not worry about a Sunday in consideration of any bill that had been presented to him. NOTHING states that business may not be conducted on Sundays.
The first reference/allusion is the First Amendment itself. Writings of numerous people, including Jefferson, make it clear that the federal government was not going to establish a state religion the way many of the colonies had. The federal government was not going to pick a one Christian denomination above the others lest membership in this one be considered a qualification for public office.
Well, the WRITINGS of these numerous people are NOT the same as the Constitution itself. The CONSTITUTION makes NO reference to Christianity. The reasoning behind the First Amendment (which, it should be noted, was introduced as part of a Bill of Rights only to ease the delegates of the “Several States” that the Federal Government would not have the same authority that the British Monarch had at that time) was to affirm that the Federal Government would show no favoritism to one specific religion or denomination nor would the Federal Government speak against any specific religion or denomination. As to your final statement, the Constitution did NOT specify “Christian denomination”; it says quite distinctly (in Article 6) “NO religious test shall ever be required” (emphasis mine). There’s nothing to specify WHAT kind of religion is discussed. No one’s religion is to be a hindrance to his/her holding a public office or civil service position.
That the first amendment means today exactly what it meant when it was written…? I see no reason to think that the first amendment was written to mean that God was to be removed from the public square.
It also does not state that Christians had any “right” to impose their religious beliefs on the nation. If anything, it affirmed the right of ALL peoples (regardless of degree of faith or particular brand of faith) to pursue their convictions in such a manner as not to offend those who believe differently.
(Try the U.S. Constitution.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian — October 2, 2007 @ 12:11 pm)
If you’re going to recommend the U.S. Constitution, suggest you need to make it perfectly clear exactly why you think anyone would adhere to this document.
Why would anyone adhere to the U.S. Constitution?
Well, for one thing, that document is the basis for this country’s system of laws and government. It may have its flaws but it’s also a document which has inspired other documents dedicated to affirming human rights.
Is it because they’re nice people? Is it because they’re “nice†people and because they want everyone else to be nice people?
Well, not necessarily “nice”, but, on the other hand, why should anyone adhere to the Bible or the Tanakh or the Qu’ran? Because *they* are “nice people”?
Is it because the U.S. has been so successful as a nation?
Remember when this nation was put together, there was no hint they it would be as successful as it has been.
And what does the second point have to do with the first? Are you seriously suggesting that when Yeshua was crucified that HE knew that his teachings would be “so successful”? Do you honestly think that he would feel any sort of connection with the vast majority of those who *claim* to follow his teachings?
So what’s made the US so successful? The words and meanings recorded in the Constitution, or the Christian people who have lived under this document?
Comment by bitblt — October 2, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Well, given the fact that many so-called Christian people also engaged in slavery and were greedy pigs who exploited others, your “Christian people” reference falls by the wayside. The simple fact is that MANY people of MANY faiths (even of NO faith) have helped make this country successful. Religion hasn’t been the overriding factor; in fact, it’s been a negative factor. Prohibition was an overall negative proving the old adage “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions”. People wanted liquor so badly they were willing to deal with gangsters and break the law to get it.
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:31 pmSo were thos who came up with the concepts behind our nation. Was it founded by people who were mostly Muslim, founded by people who were mostly Hindu, Budist, Krishna, Greek Mythology followers, UFO conspiracy theororists? What was the most prolific religion of our founding fathers? The religion of liberalism? The religion of anti-gun zealots? Please someone enlighten me. I was falsley led to believe a great number of them were Christians but maybe they were in fact Wickens living in fear. “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” and all that Salem stuff.
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:42 pmOGS - first of all, you’re completely ignorant (as your spelling proves).
You seem to be saying that just because the Founders were themselves Christian (which is not true), that the country they founded had to be also be Christian…?
That’s a completely specious and nonsensical argument. In simpler terms, to make sure you understand, it’s just plain bullsh*t.
The Founders meant for America to be a country in which ALL religions could flourish - including those Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Wiccans (who are NOT witches, BTW, but pagans who worship the Goddess).
Stop being such an idiot.
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:56 pmDo you have some historical references to confirm your assertion concerning this list of faiths?
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:01 pmGiven that European nations of the time were ruled by autocratic monarchies and the source of inspiration for a democratic Republican came from the Iroquois Confederacy, this is a bizarre statement.
Were the Iroquois really Christian in the 1770s? Ya think?
What an ignorant statement.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:08 pm#114 excellent point(s)!
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:29 pmBut beware, you’re being challenged to a battle of wits with an unarmed poster. And don’t you realize how hard it is to spell correctly with you head up your butt?
Do you have some historical references to confirm your assertion concerning this list of faiths?
Comment by bitblt
http://www.oup.com/ us/ catalog/ general/ subject/ HistoryOther/ HistoryofReligion/ ?ci=0195158245&view=usa
” religious groups in the colonies: Protestants, Jews, Catholics, as well as the unique religious experiences of Native Americans and African Americans.”
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:40 pmOne thing that is commonly lost in the white-washing of american history is the huge influence that native american culture had on the formation, and in many cases the success of our fledgeling country at that time.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:43 pm>(Proud supporter of the “Cthulhu for President†campaign since 1988!)
Ah so you support a constitutional amendment to allow citizens of other dimensions to run for president then? Good man…
>What’s the difference between Islamofascism & Christofacism?
Heres a scarier one for the the biblehumpers to answer. What is the english translation for “allah”?
>Xisithrus, they just don’t believe that Jesus was the Son of God.
Ok jake, so the point of contention between christianity and islam essentially being that christians believe that god somehow got his holy semen into a human and muslims don’t. so basically all the conflict between islam and xtianity over the years boils down to a disagreement about one holy money shot. muslims beleive christ had 23 chromosomes and chrisitans believe he had 23+ infinity chromosomes or something.
(I still wonder what christians think we woud see if we put some of christs blood cells from the shroud of turin under a microscope. or do they think he wasnt made of cells or chromosomes at all? )
gosh, you guys arent really so different after all, are ya? could it be that all this fighting, for all these years, isnt really over what was floating in the blood of jesus, but instead was all about power and control and a convenient excuse to find a way to convince your brothers to fight and die for land, resources, and power?
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:41 am“Really JosephW. Pre 1960’s, the number of citizens who were married was much higher. The divorce rate was much lower. The number of children born out of wedlock was much lower. The drop out rate for school was much lower. The crime rate was much lower. Drug use was much lower. All of what I mention above is an affect that religon(whichever religon) had on our society. You cannot deny it. ”
I do deny it. Show statistics, and correlate those statistics with some rise and fall of religiousness in this country. THen show that this decline in religiousness is the cause, and not merely an effect, of some other phenomena you mentioned. Perpahps the rise of mass communication, mass media, or industralized consumerism brought about this degradation of the american psyche, if in fact one occured. Your circular, unsupported, and self-conclusory “logic” isnt worth the bytes its represented by…
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:45 amThe part not in TP’s quotes but at TP’s link….
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/220/story_22001_1.html
Fifty-five (55%) percent…?
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:14 pm