DATELINE - Rise of Evangelism in America

George Washington was an extremely religious man, both in habit, perspective, words, etc,...I don't think he was oppressive. Do you?Now, I suppose Lincoln was oppressive, but at the same time, the Union army overall was not very religious. I tend to think the humanitarianism reflected in Lincoln's personal religious philosophy would have made things better after the war.Jimmy Carter was one of the most outspokenly religious president we had in modern times, proudly proclaiming he was born-again and still shares his faith. I don't think he was oppressive. Do you?

you know it would be nice if you would.. you know read about the people you choose as your examples..washington was not extremely religious, he viewed religion as a motivater and as something that led to problems, he was very neutral about picking beliefs.link on more information
George Washington and Religion

I agree that this is true--yet I maintain (though cannot prove) very adamantly that a spiritual war of God and the other independant (freethinking is the euphimism) spirits exists in our national conscience. Much oppression is due to human efforts to delegate authority. The supreme irony is that it is often religiouis conservatives, operating under the assumption that they possess a mandate from Heaven..that cause uprisings and civil unrest. By the same token, I believe that the other people, many whom imagine themselves quite progressive and intelligent--are in fact under demonic oppression. For the demons, nobody is easier to oppress than those whom disbelieve in your existance!This message has been edited by Charismaniac, 11-14-2005 06:24 AM

---

Matt 10:39-40 "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me."Jesus Christ
Heb 4:12-13-- For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
Holy Spirit,speaking through the Apostle Paul

quote:

---

There really is little compelling state interest to grant homosexual unions marital status, but I do think there is some unfairness in visitation and health decision rights, and they can be addressed via civil unions.

---

I tend to agree with randman somewhat on this issue. I am really not sure why "marriage" should be the goal since marriage is a religiously recognized union and the churches should be free to define it as they want. It would work like a market economy, those who are religious and gay, shop for the church that recognize gay marriage. Those churches that don't want to recognize gay marriage is a decision of the congregation.What it requires however, is that civil unions are more clearly defined to grant people all the secular rights afforded to heterosexual couples. I am "married" but it was a civil ceremony. As an atheist, why would I give a crap about a church recognition of my marriage? It is a civil union and I and my wife have all the rights that any other hetero couple have. This should be extended to gay couples. Let the churches decide how they want to define things. Like in all things, some will be progressive and appeal to a segment of the population and some will not.If gay civil unions had been a ballot issue, I think there would have been much less opposition. The way it was presented is that the government would be interfering in church decisions.

Again, let's get some misconceptions out of the way... I am for less taxation and regulation. I was pretty much supportive of Dick Army's (a guy I normally hated) flat tax scheme. I am not a sterotypical liberal democrat, indeed I am not a democrat at all. Some taxation will have to occur, and some level of regulation will have to occur. And indeed thanks to assholes like Robertson and Bush we'll now have to tax ourselves for a much longer period of time that necessary. Abortion is not just about morals, that is about metaphysics. Let me start with something simpler. Sexual freedoms and communication are being oppressed based on the morals of the fundies. Where they cannot do so legimitately, they overregulate in order to oppress people into not communicating. So much for your "less regulation" lies.As far as abortion goes, that is instituting a religion upon others. There is no such thing as "babies" in the womb. You have a baby, and perhaps in the very last few weeks you carry one. Until that time you have a gestational entity which is not a baby at all and as RAZD developed quite well, does not even fit the criteria of living.So what you are doing is telling people that they must accept one religious view of the procreation process, where unindividuated biological entities are not just the physical but the spiritual and moral and legal equivalent of a full grown human. That is against the first amendment and it is both a metaphysical and moral oppression.Notice you are free to do what you want and conceive what you want, but not the other way around... oppression. Perhaps you have a different definition of what constitutes oppression. When a person is confined from doing what they want to do, that is an oppression. When certain beliefs are set higher than others, that is oppression.What exactly does a Nanny state force on you that is worse than telling you what you can and cannot view, say, or do?Or let me put this another way, you are simply calling the kettle black. You are just as much for a Nanny state as the liberals. Guess how you pay for an FBI task force on porn? Taxes. Guess how you regulate porn out of business? Regulations, plus entities which we have to pay using taxes to enforce those regulations. What else is a govt nannying a population when it can tell you how you have to behave?Oh yeah and by the way, what the hell do you think we are doing in Iraq? That is the definition of nation-building and nanny statery. We went in to change a nation from the top down. Remember, in the new Bush Republican agenda Nanny states are good. He and the neocons said so.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I disagree for several reasons.
1)Absolutist Monarchies were by nature and tradition always oppressive. Study the History of Europe. It is a supreme irony that those who believe that they hear Gods voice usually become His representative based on their definitions....causing oppression such as our religiously mandated government does now.
2)Jesus declared that His kingdom was not of this world. He also taught us to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar and the things that are Gods unto God. Since the world belongs to Satan, unto whom it was given, why are we Christians lamely attempting to legislate morality through our egotistical kingdom theology? Leave the government alone and concentrate on Doing unto others.....

---

Matt 10:39-40 "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me."Jesus Christ
Heb 4:12-13-- For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
Holy Spirit,speaking through the Apostle Paul

I don't really mean a monarchy or any such thing, just the programs and ideas of the relgious right in the arena of politics are not oppressive as some have stated here.

Can't quite express how refreshing it is to hear that...

Wsshington was indeed very religious. The fact he had varying religious beleifs and perhaps was not an orthodox Christian does not change that. He clearly behaved in a disciplined religious fashion and frequently emphasized his belief not only in God but that beleif and duty to the Creator was the primary underpinning of our form of government and society.Whether he beleived Jesus was the only way to heaven or any other religious tenet is besides the point. He was deeply and profoundly religious in his outlook and beliefs, and more importantly for this discussion, in his politics.This message has been edited by randman, 11-14-2005 12:51 PM

quote:

---

How is that any more oppresive than all sorts of things, such as the cocain or ecstasy user that cannot legally do that while aclohol abusers can get drunk legally, or the guy that wants more than one wife, etc,...?

---

This is pretty garbled, but if you are trying to say what I think you are, then what you are thinking of are indeed more examples of oppression.-

quote:

---

The simple fact is marriage right now is defined as between a man and a woman, and that's how it always been.

---

Irrelevent. In fact, the whole history of humans rights is about changing "what has always been".-

quote:

---

In my opinion, much of the opposition centers around the Left using the homosexuality issue to try to demonize religious conservatives.

---

Actually, much of the opposition centers around allowing people to determine how they wish to live their lives to the fullest.-

quote:

---

In other words, there is compelling state interest, especially historically, to recognize marriage between men and women.

---

The state is a tool to be used by the people to help organize society so as to allow each individual their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The state has neither rights nor interests.

I live in the South, and the Church/religion has always been a part of everyday life for most families. In some ways, I recognize that spirituality can provide an incentive to get up and go to work in the morning, or to follow laws you may not agree with, but I do not think that the rise of evangelism is beneficial to society.In Bertrol Brecht's play "Galileo," Galileo speaks with a monk regarding religion and the people (I think in chapter 7, but I'm going from memory). The monk says, look, when motivated with eternal salvation, the common people make our great society, which he compares to a pearl. Galileo replies that he doesn't want a pearl but would prefer a healthy oyster, which has not gone through the near-fatal process of making a pearl, instead.Basically what he's saying is that religion builds great churches, and maybe great countries(those being "pearls"), but does so at the expense of the people(oysters). If we didn't put so much effort into evangelizing (and running for office... but that's another topic) maybe we could actually make progress towards the goals of religion-such as actually ending famine and war.

That was a sweet first post.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You are overplaying the ramifications here. Washington was a devout man. He had a personal faith which was unorthodox. That does mean something as it suggests that the kind of faith one has is unimportant to sharing in this nation.If type of faith was important, then those not aligned to his personal faith would be opposed to the ideals of this nation.I really don't want to get into a huge thing discussing another person's beliefs, but it is pretty clear that he was not commited to a nation or govt devoted to God, even if he felt that faith was important for the health of the nation.You are trying to make a leap from the devotion of a person and his general feelings about life, to a statement about a govt he helped form. It says much that you do not simply go directly to the words within the govt that he formed, nor his actions defending and promoting a great diversity of faiths.Indeed you are refusing to look at some of the other, more important, shapers of the govt who were quite vocal about the negatives of religion and Xianity in specific, especially in relation to govt. You show me where he pushed religion into his politics. It can be shown that he passed and supported legislation which separated the two. This would make sense since his own faith would not have been popular, and allowing religion into govt could set the stage for his own persecution.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Read his inaugural addresses. He pushed his faith way more than Bush or any other president I know of, and explicitly states that the purpose of the government is to please God and could only be successful in doing so. His political beliefs and practices were a direct resilt of his religious beliefs.Of course, Thomas Paine denounced him for his over faith and lack of alliance with the more secular French revolution, and Paine was thus rejected by the nation he helped form.This message has been edited by randman, 11-14-2005 06:05 PM

1) Inaugural addresses are not institution of policy.2) Although he makes reference to God in various forms, I do not see how any of his statements "push" his faith at all. Indeed his humility and lack of pushing his own faith on others (making statements as if he is speaking for God) mark him in quite a contrast to Bush.3) Although he does suggest that a succesful govt will only be one that pleases God, he does not say that is the sole purpose of govt, and certainly does not suggest he knows exactly what form of govt would please God (unlike Bush).4) Within his first address there is a very telling statement about the nature of the govt he is intending on representing... and Neither of these suggest foreknowledge of what should be based upon unified concepts of an ancient text, but instead free debate securing individuals the ability to instuct themselves as they see fit, and discover what may be best for a nation through practical experience.5) The following is his second inaugural address in full. You let me know where he mentions God, much less pushes it on someone... 6) Although I could pull up more by digging around, here is a tidbit from Wikipedia regarding Washington's concepts about religious freedom in the US... Check that vision rand.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)