School Books Rewritten in Texas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I think the argument is that we have a secular government but that our culture and laws are heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Some, as with Ms. Dunbar see this as defining us, in practice, as a Christian nation. Most would suggest she's over-stating things a notch. You are correct in that any "objective" assessment would note that we are not a theocracy on any level and that our Constitution actually makes the assumption of governmental power by some theocratic cabal almost impossible, barring some form of theocratic revolution.

---

I'd agree (though I suspect Ms Dunbar would not). However, my understanding is that the biggest influence the Judeo-Christian tradition had on the foundation of the United States was the horror of European religious divisions. Therefore, the Founding Fathers -whilst men of Christian faith and morals - took steps to ensure freedom of religion.

It is true that they saw this as freedom of Christian conscience but when the more extremist religious proponents rise up to proclaim the US a "Christian" country, they tend to assume a monolithic Christianity (specifically theirs). Thus Roman Catholics or other denominations which have no truck with creationism, for example, do not seem to be included.

The founders of the United States knew all about Christian schism and how it nearly destroyed the Europe their forefathers had fled from. Sadly, the religious fundamentalist persuasion is exactly contrary to the very freedom of conscience that allowed America to bloom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Source?

The right wing gains much from this claim, you want to back it up? From what I have read you seem to be wrong, but I will accept the facts you speak of if you can produce them.

---

Historically, everyone in the cultural West was Christian, at least nominally. The same was true in America, Britain, even Sweden I'm afraid. This is still much more true in America than in Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

The founders of the United States knew all about Christian schism and how it nearly destroyed the Europe their forefathers had fled from. Sadly, the religious fundamentalist persuasion is exactly contrary to the very freedom of conscience that allowed America to bloom.

---

The whole dream of the USA was a sectarian* society, where you could go to your own littly colony and built your own society, the "shining city on a hill" as the dream was.

* The term 'sectarian' here being used in the sense it was historically, which meant effectively the different sects separating themselves from each other in society (as opposed to hatred between them as it tends to mean today). This was one of the big dynamics in the whole British Wars of Religion, with the Scottish Presbyterians calling the Puritans an "army of sectaries" (I think that was the term, IIRC), because its large numbers of Quakers and Anabaptists wanted to live in their own little communities, without any overarching established church.

Of course, the Puritans and thier associated political ideologies are what made the USA, and so the fundamentalist persuasion is very much compatible with the values of the original settlers and to a large extent the founding fathers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Source?

The right wing gains much from this claim, you want to back it up? From what I have read you seem to be wrong, but I will accept the facts you speak of if you can produce them.

---

Which of the three did you take issue with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Source?

The right wing gains much from this claim, you want to back it up? From what I have read you seem to be wrong, but I will accept the facts you speak of if you can produce them.

---

This source provideds information on the religious affiliations of US Presidents as well as links to such assessments for other government figures. It cannot, of course, offer evidence as to the depth of their faith or its relevance to their policies save anecdotally.

Consider this assessment of current religious affiliation, and this gives some timeline perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

This source provideds information on the religious affiliations of US Presidents as well as links to such assessments for other government figures. It cannot, of course, offer evidence as to the depth of their faith or its relevance to their policies save anecdotally.

Consider this assessment of current religious affiliation, and this gives some timeline perspective.

---

those stats don't add up, about 5% of the total Christians population claimed (76%) in 2008 is unaccounted.

Dutch Reformed -> 2 presidents but 0,1% of the population.
Catholic -> 1 president but 24,5% of the population

How funny, never knew this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Dutch Reformed -> 2 presidents but 0,1% of the population.
Catholic -> 1 president but 24,5% of the population

How funny, never knew this.

---

Presidential candidates of the Roman Catholic persuasion are not trusted by the electorate. The theory is that we don't want our executive to be a Papist lackey taking orders from Rome.

It took a bootlegger's son to break the seal for Catholics, and it didn't turn out so well.

Until I run............ Thenwe got two catholic presidents

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

This source provideds information on the religious affiliations of US Presidents as well as links to such assessments for other government figures. It cannot, of course, offer evidence as to the depth of their faith or its relevance to their policies save anecdotally.

Consider this assessment of current religious affiliation, and this gives some timeline perspective.

---

I would argue that the early presidents, founding fathers additionaly so, were secularists first and foremost. It has even been argued by far greated minds than mine, that several of them were atheists, paying lip service.

Remember that the US of A was not founded as a christian nation, no matter how much todays right-wing winds blow.

Take the treaty with Tripoli as an example, drafted in 1796 under George Washington and signed by John Adams in 1797:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Kind of fun reading this with modern eyes, no?

Ironic how a nation founded in secularism today is one of the, if not the, most religious countrys. A scientific study has shown that the spining corpses of the founding fathers could be used as a alternative energy source, George Washington alone has been calculated to be able to fully suply the energy needs of an average town.


I could of course also point at Jefferson, or how about this quote:

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise... ... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence.

Not the words of a Christian, now is it?

Or Benjamin Franklin: Lighthouses are more useful than churches, sure, he was a deist, but it is not a great leap of faith to imagine he today would have been atheist. Christian however, he defianetly was not.


However, main point would be, no matter if they all were atheists, deists or christian they had one thing in common - secularism!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Ironic how a nation founded in secularism today is one of the, if not the, most religious countrys

---

There's absolutely nothing ironic or unexpected in that result. If anything, the codification of a religion with the state is bad for the state, but more importantly bad for the religion. Just imagine if, say, Lutheranism were legally aligned with George W. Bush, and had its prestige and status tied to him politically. Or imagine if Episcopalianism were paired up with Barack Obama.

The separation of church and state is what has allowed and encouraged the U.S.A. to be one of the most religious nations on the face of the Earth. How this connection escapes both Europeans and American fundamentalists is beyond me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

There's absolutely nothing ironic or unexpected in that result. If anything, the codification of a religion with the state is bad for the state, but more importantly bad for the religion. Just imagine if, say, Lutheranism were legally aligned with George W. Bush, and had its prestige and status tied to him politically. Or imagine if Episcopalianism were paired up with Barack Obama.

The separation of church and state is what has allowed and encouraged the U.S.A. to be one of the most religious nations on the face of the Earth. How this connection escapes both Europeans and American fundamentalists is beyond me.

---

I said ironic, not unexpected ;)

And I do believe your analyzis is correct.

A common hypothesis is that the US became what it is just because of the secularism, as you said. It created an open playing field, or a "free market of religion" if you so will.

Different religions in a way became enterprises , churches rivalled for the congregation, if for not other reason than the money it brought. Thus came to be the same hard-sell, aggressive techniques seen in todays commercial world. This created something of a mania among the less educated.

Sweden is the opposite example, with a set national religion. Complacency of the church in Sweden has over the years lead to religious people being met with scorn if they dare confess their belief in the first place.

OK so do we all agree Sweden sucks? ..........OK good now onto more pressing issues

:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

OK so do we all agree Sweden sucks? ..........OK good now onto more pressing issues

:clown:

---

That is rude, even with the clown.

It is just two very different cultural attitudes, trying to co-exist on this earth.

The scorn a religious person would be met with in sweden just about equals the scorn an atheist is often met with in some parts of the US. So please do not claim some national moral victory here.

In sweden, an openly believing christian could never be elected. *
In USA, an openly atheistic person could never be elected. *

Two sides of the same coin.



* "never" meaning not in the near future.

Why do people still make this dichotomy between secularism and Christianity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Anyway thought of this and found it very fitting.

Lord's Believers
(+2 support, +1 probe, -2 research, -1 planet)
+25% bonus when attacking other factions
No research the first 10 turns.

Very obvious that this faction is based on these people. (And for those not having played SMAC, the bonus to support and attack bonus is due to religious fanatism, probe bonus as they are single minded, -2 research self-explained. -1 planet is more game theme oriented (chosen planet), but still a bit fitting).

---

I revisited SMAC recently, and found it just as addictive as it was back when.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Why do people still make this dichotomy between secularism and Christianity?

---

Because one of them wants to teach that some being that requires a whole lot of faith to believe in created this world, whereas the other go by, you know, stuff we know without voices in your head?

Don't get me wrong, maybe Christians doesn't hear voices in their heads urging them on, but instead take silence as approval of their ideas. What do I know? You might explain :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Because one of them wants to teach that some being that requires a whole lot of faith to believe in created this world, whereas the other go by, you know, stuff we know without voices in your head?

---

You can be a secular Christian, or a secular atheist. Secularism is nothing to do with what you believe, it's just about separating church/state.

In Christianity, unti until the past century or so, there was pretty much a direct correlation between how secular you were, and how hardline you were in your religion views. Moderate Protestants didn't mind having an established church, yet the crazy Anabaptists etc were as secular as you get.

Kadagar it was a complete and pure joke and I believed that the smiie would help you realize this. Its obvious your trying to carry your anger to me in your thread but ill rise above it as I did when I tried to hold nothing against you after your crude comments to mrd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Kadagar it was a complete and pure joke and I believed that the smiie would help you realize this. Its obvious your trying to carry your anger to me in your thread but ill rise above it as I did when I tried to hold nothing against you after iyour crud comments to mrd

---

*must try harder*

History is always subject to present norms.

This doesn't mean that anything goes. One does not decide that Jesus installed the free market in Texas in 1845. Complete historical relativism is a dead end.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

SMAC is awesome!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony (in Swdn vs Tx closed thread

I don't know how it's in Sweden but schoolbooks are hidiously biased here as well. All hail Gorbatjov for ending the cold war, and Kukri it was really cold of you to butcher each and every Vietnamese village you could find. USA EVIL IS YOU

---

S.E.A.U.R.

SouthEastAsianUrbanRenewal.

but I joke. Some of my best friends are Vietnamese villages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

S.E.A.U.R.

SouthEastAsianUrbanRenewal.

but I joke. Some of my best friends are Vietnamese villages.

---

Naughty, naughty.....

Go deliver some mail or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar

* several posts *

---

Kadagar, did it not occur to you that this thread is the same subject as your Swedish article in your thread? :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

S.E.A.U.R.

SouthEastAsianUrbanRenewal.

but I joke. Some of my best friends are Vietnamese villages.

---

I would've given my left arm for this post to have been mine.

Still in a class of cool all of your own.

Louis, yeah, I don't know what I was thinking..

It is however scary of what media wrote is true, so, is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Louis, yeah, I don't know what I was thinking..

It is however scary of what media wrote is true, so, is it?

---

I think it is true, and yes, it is a worrying development. All history is subjective, but there are clear gradations.

One can have the content of schoolbooks be decided by faceless professional bureaucrats, or by lay parents. Both have obvious downsides, dangers. In this Texas case, the danger of the latter is shown.



I somewhat appreciate America's direct democracy. Again, in this thread, an example is shown that I did not even knew existed. Like directly elected law enforment, it can result in peculiar results. But, this is the choice America has made - a staunch attachment to the idea that people should govern themselves directly. As so often, what's good about a country is directly related to what's bad about a country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

S.E.A.U.R.

SouthEastAsianUrbanRenewal.

but I joke. Some of my best friends are Vietnamese villages.

---

Well done, sir! :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I somewhat appreciate America's direct democracy. Again, in this thread, an example is shown that I did not even knew existed. Like directly elected law enforment, it can result in peculiar results. But, this is the choice America has made - a staunch attachment to the idea that people should govern themselves directly. As so often, what's good about a country is directly related to what's bad about a country.

---

A fair critique.