rincewind

No one said that Bush did say it.

Tracym

ok, it's early here yet.... I thought that was a supposed quote? Sounds like Bush supposedly said it...

back to my coffee...

rincewind

Nice blog but like most things, earlier American history is up for interpretation.

To State that Thomas Jefferson was an atheist is incorrect. More accurately, he was a Deist. Two completely different things.

cindyabs

The interesting thing is that when you see who was what, it almost follows along the Mason Dixon line-the New Englanders were the Congregationalists (although a few were Congregationalist/Unitarians) and the CofE/Episcopalians were from the South. The Catholics were from MD and the Dutch Reformed were from NY.

But there still weren't any Baptists.

paddingtongreen

If the laws governing the country were secular, they would only define the boundaries between the rights of different citizens that would overlap in the absence of that law. Our right to own property trumps your right to take it for yourselves. Our right to speak freely, trumps your right to stop us from speaking. Our right to a safe environment, trumps your right to make and sell dangerous products, or to manufacture them in a way that brings us into danger. Our right to use the public spaces in safety, trumps your right to do unsafe things. The law would delineate a boundary between the individual's right to comfort and your right to do things that would make the individual uncomfortable. None of these boundaries can be based on morality, they can only be based on common sense and the consensus opinion where common sense does not provide a clear line.

That is not to say that the secular laws would not coincide with some moral tenets. Using the Ten Commandments, there is agreement that killing is not permitted, that one should not steal from, or lie about others, but that is it. The rest of the Ten are laws for the adherents.

There are many laws that have no secular reason for being, e.g. the anti-drug laws. All of the reasons given for the illegality of drugs for recreational use also apply to tobacco and to alcohol, but those are legal. Tobacco is more addictive than heroin, and may be more damaging. The justification used for the anti-drug laws are that the addicts become criminals to feed their addictions, but they commit these acts because the drugs are expensive; the drugs are expensive because they are illegal. If the drugs were legal, they would cost much less and could be regulated, criminal organizations from the high level organizations to the street gangs would lose much their reason for being.

We are governed by laws written by Congress, and regulations that implement those laws, written by the Administration. While those laws may have a secular base, they are put into operation with regulations that are, or should be, written minimally, to obtain compliance with the law. In real life, administrators that mirror the moral values of President, integrate those values into the regulations. In other cases, the President insists on some tenet of his being included to avoid his veto, e.g. "No condoms" in aid packages for the relief of HIV/Aids in the third world countries.

There are more examples, especially if we include state laws, but I won't go into an exhaustive list

Gotta stop before it turns into a book.

RoadWarriorFromLP

There are many laws that have no secular reason for being, e.g. the anti-drug laws.

Actually, there are couple of reasons for those that have nothing to do with religion.

One reason was that "patent medicines" (useless snakeoil and bogus medicines that included products such as Coca Cola and Dr. Pepper) had proliferated widely throughout the country. Books such as The Jungle alerted people to their impure foods, and got them thinking about these fake drugs. So laws were passed to distinguish between what was good for one's health, and what was not.

Another reason is racism. Substances such as pot were associated with blacks and Mexicans, who were (naturally) unsavory and indecent and all of those other nasty things. I suppose that you could attribute some of that indirectly to Christianity -- the desire to live a pure life of temperance -- but negative ethnic stereotypes nonetheless played a role with this.

Roland Hulme

That describes me to a T.

I stopped believing in Christianity and am very resentful of the shit I got spoonfed for 30 years. I honestly am an athiest - but i will admit that the majority of my bile is saved for Christianity (especially the evangelicals.)

Protestantism is such a stupid concept anyway. I was an Anglican and that was a religion founded purely so Henry VIII could annul his marriage and plunder the monastaries. Pretty much every branch of protestantism from Lutherism onwards is really just a petty little cult giving lip service to the Bible.

RoadWarriorFromLP

The Bible thumpers are clearly trying to undue all of these rights.

Abortions are, for all practical purposes, unobtainable in parts of the country. Add one more conservative justice to the Supreme Court, and Roe vs. Wade may very well be overturned.

This interview of Bush in Christianity Today was interesting. Said El Presidente: "I can be a voice of cultural change. Part of the responsibility era is the responsibility that comes with promoting—taking care of your bodies to the point where we can promote a culture of life. Father Richard [Neuhaus] helped me craft what is still the integral part of my position on abortion, which is: Every child welcomed to life and protected by law. That is the goal of this administration." http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...5-24-51.0.html

Elvira

I'll never forgive the Protestants for all the wonderful artworks they destroyed in the process of rooting out Catholicism...

rincewind

It always confuses me as to why those that oppose religion and the bible spend so much time harking on about it.

I've been an atheist for more years than I can remember and in all fairness, I have been known in the past to be as loud as you when it comes to this topic. However, it comes to a point when you just ignore it (and grow up a little). Regardless of what you say, it will never change anything and all you end up doing is start to sound like the very people you apparently despise.

If you don't believe in it, then fair play. Just move on. Find something more interesting to blog about.

Sometimes I feel the very reason why atheists get a bad wrap is not because that we don't believe, it's because some of us just don't know when to shut the hell up.

another bloody yank

Good, because you're who I had in mind when I wrote it. Not the only one though...


Forget about it. All you're going to do is annoy people and give yourself an ulcer.

Sally Redux

Then again, if the believers can thunder from their pulpits (substitute religion-appropriate place) why should we miss out on the fun?

rincewind

Because then you are no better than they are.

Sally Redux

We are entitled to an opinion, though.

rincewind

As are they.