I'm curious when the revisionist idea that the Founders were fundamentalist Christians, and founded America as a Christian nation originated, as it's very popular in many evangelical churches in the US. On Wikpiedia I see D James Kennedy and David Barton as prominent proponents of the idea. Any information on this?
Out of someone's ass.
Religious people wanted their religion to be dominant here, and it was. We're outgrowing that now.
You had the "great awakening" in the mid 1700's and the "second great awakening" in the late 1800's which is probably more responsible for the idea.
Not sure but I'd be willing to bet it got pulled out of some evangelist's ass.
Here's a wiki Article that has a list of Religious movements that started in the US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_movements_that_began_in_the_United_States#17th_century
I think perhaps there's a connection here, all these religions are American religions, so I think this would have created a natural connection between patriotism and region.
Quote from: Termin on June 10, 2015, 11:57:40 PM
Here's a wiki Article that has a list of Religious movements that started in the US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_movements_that_began_in_the_United_States#17th_century
I think perhaps there's a connection here, all these religions are American religions, so I think this would have created a natural connection between patriotism and region.
All those religions that started in America are American religions? Are you sure?
I don't understand this question. Honestly, politely put, I find it silly.
People who invaded Americas, settled there and oppressed their people were European Christian monarchs. They massacred and slaved the population to assert their authority to use the land and its sources and attacked everything that wasn't theirs. They didn't just force their religion on them, they also forced their language and way of life, but of course them as the inferior being themselves as god's gift among them. They defined themselves as civilisation and others anything as savages and wild and what did they accomplish as 'Discovery'. It's still efined in book as Discovery and tuaght to children like that in the West. (This is similar what's happening today.)
Today, they are almost all wiped out. Near future, they will be. And you are asking why any other religion -any of them on the planet- didn't take a hold on the land?
What did you think would come out a genocide that has gone for hundreds of years?
Asking a question like this, and reactions most people gave in the thread, reveal a lot about the domestic policy regarding the Mesoamerican Genocide in the US. It's almost like it never happened. It's so forgotten and people today feels so seperated and alienated from it historically, it is almost like white Americans fell out of the sky on to the land along with Christianity itself and noone was there anyway.
The Mesoamerican genocide wasn't unique to the US. It's estimated that 80-200,000,000 natives died under Spanish and Portuguese rule. City-building cultures disappeared wholesale. And all this was done by troops with men in robes waving crosses out front. (Except when there was danger, of course.)
If I were a moderate Christian, I would say most of the Europeans who settled here were Christians, and that defines our roots as Christian. I would admit that the constitution and the founders built a nation that was not Christian nor affiliated with any specific Christian Church, but I would make claims that the Constitution was based on Christian values. I would reject the idea that the constitution was built on secular values, and I would claim any secular values which appealed to me as Christian. And why not? Christianity steals most everything that it values from Christmas and Easter to its savior man god from pagans and other religions.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 11, 2015, 07:16:20 AM
The Mesoamerican genocide wasn't unique to the US. It's estimated that 80-200,000,000 natives died under Spanish and Portuguese rule. City-building cultures disappeared wholesale. And all this was done by troops with men in robes waving crosses out front. (Except when there was danger, of course.)
Sure. That's why I said Europeans. And Christianity -Catholicism no less- is the religion of nations in South America too. That's why I said "People who invaded America
s" The reason I said "Americans fell out of the sky..." because I am communicating with Americans here.
I am not trying to be offensive or obnoxious. I am ctricising a policy I recognise very at home. Because in the country I live in, the same bullshit goes on. People completely feel seperated from the atrocities and genocide commited by an empire a 100 years ago and more. And exactly like in the US, the state and gov policies are designed for that. The difference is the political powers of both countries. One is strong enough to prevent this from becoming a discussion topic, let alone an issue, other is not.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 11, 2015, 07:16:20 AM
And all this was done by troops with men in robes waving crosses out front. (Except when there was danger, of course.)
I want to add something here which probably you are aware. Those troops and men in robes waving crosses out front got there after it was understood that some yellow metal and other goods were abundant in the savage land. :lol:
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 11, 2015, 08:10:39 AM
I want to add something here which probably you are aware. Those troops and men in robes waving crosses out front got there after it was understood that some yellow metal and other goods were abundant in the savage land. :lol:
Oh, I'm sure they would have colonized the "New World" just for some good old foot-on-neck fun. Gold just made things go faster and more disastrously. On, IIRC, Hispaniola natives had a metal tag chained to their necks and had to bring in a certain amount of gold each month or be killed when found.
The reason this is relevant here is that the Pope divided the New World between Spain and Portugal (See where those languages are spoken in South America today to gauge his power to do this.) In return, both countries spread the filth, I mean FAITH, and donated generously to the churches at home, meaning "donated generously to the Pope." Sins committed in the execution of this policy were automatically forgiven.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 11, 2015, 08:49:43 AM
Oh, I'm sure they would have colonized the "New World" just for some good old foot-on-neck fun. Gold just made things go faster and more disastrously. On, IIRC, Hispaniola natives had a metal tag chained to their necks and had to bring in a certain amount of gold each month or be killed when found.
The reason this is relevant here is that the Pope divided the New World between Spain and Portugal (See where those languages are spoken in South America today to gauge his power to do this.) In return, both countries spread the filth, I mean FAITH, and donated generously to the churches at home, meaning "donated generously to the Pope." Sins committed in the execution of this policy were automatically forgiven.
Yep. I don't know about the fun but probably the land and people are good resources too. Yeah I have read about it. I actually translated a book refering to these issues recently.
Apparently, native population was allowed to wear hats or ride a horse -to be counted as among the 'civilised gentlemen'- only if they learn the European language of their oppressors invaded their land.
People came to the "New World" for two basic reasons. Economic. That covers everything from Columbus who came for spices but settled for gold and slaves---to the French who came for furs and trading, and everything in between. The religious came so they could worship in the fashion they wanted to. But not for religious freedom. And, of course, the two reasons were intertwined. For Columbus he, apparently, according to his diary, considered himself the second coming of Jesus and he wanted to save souls for the church. That Columbus was a righteous man is demonstrated by the fact that before he allowed his crew to disembark, he has his high priest deliver a message from the Pope to the natives; he told them to repent and accept Jesus Christ as their redeemer and they would go to heaven. If they refused, they would be killed. So, it was clear from the beginning what the natives needed to to--and they refused, so the slaughter began. That the speech was delivered in Spanish, which the natives had never heard before, was beside the point; God clearly delivered the message. And things went downhill from there.
There is the history you know (and is wrong) and the history you don't know (and is right). History from the beginning, was and remains, propaganda. Among this propaganda, which motivated some of the early English-speaking colonists, is Anglo-American Israelitism. That the Anglo-Saxons are a lost tribe of Israelites. This particular theology went back to John Wycliffe, who invented the English Reformation 150 years before Martin Luther's German version. Basically 1375 vs 1525. The conventional story about the origins of the Protestant Reformation are ... propaganda. Part of the backstory to this early Reformation was the notion that the Anglo-Saxons aka English ... are crypto-Jews. And that the British royal family are biological descendants of Jesus.
Now Jesus is an archetype, based on Moses ... and it is the fate of Anglo-Saxon Israelites to be led to a Promised Land. This did eventually figure into Gen. Allenby's conquest of Jerusalem in 1918 and the Balfour Declaration ... but before that, it figured into Francis Bacon's plan for the New World, called New Atlantis. So when the Anglo-Saxons arrived in the New World .. they understood the natives to be Canaanites to be driven out or exterminated ... and that the other Europeans were no better than Philistines. So when Queen Elizabeth I (of Davidic ancestry) successfully stood up to King Phillip II of Spain (aka Goliath the Philistine) ... the English knew their hour had come. It is on that basis, that the original British Empire (in America/Canada first, in India later) was conceived.
Now I don't think any of this propaganda is truthful, but I think it is historical ... and that powerful people believed in it. I know a local person who still believes in it. Madness perhaps, there are Japanese who believe that they are a Lost Tribe of Israel too. Modern American Christian fundamentalism ... is a third Great Revival ... and the backstory behind all three is this myth of Anglo-American Israelitism ... that reappears in modified form in the Book of Mormon. The point being that the real America isn't just Christian, it is Israelite, and will usher in the Second Coming of Jesus. To people who believe this, your mere facts are distractions from this underlying reality ... everything that happens is translated into terms that match the mythology.
Quote from: Mermaid on June 10, 2015, 07:16:29 PM
Out of someone's ass.
Literally the first thing I thought.
Quote from: Baruch on June 11, 2015, 11:02:27 PM
There is the history you know (and is wrong) and the history you don't know (and is right). History from the beginning, was and remains, propaganda. Among this propaganda, which motivated some of the early English-speaking colonists, is Anglo-American Israelitism. That the Anglo-Saxons are a lost tribe of Israelites. This particular theology went back to John Wycliffe, who invented the English Reformation 150 years before Martin Luther's German version. Basically 1375 vs 1525. The conventional story about the origins of the Protestant Reformation are ... propaganda. Part of the backstory to this early Reformation was the notion that the Anglo-Saxons aka English ... are crypto-Jews. And that the British royal family are biological descendants of Jesus.
Now Jesus is an archetype, based on Moses ... and it is the fate of Anglo-Saxon Israelites to be led to a Promised Land. This did eventually figure into Gen. Allenby's conquest of Jerusalem in 1918 and the Balfour Declaration ... but before that, it figured into Francis Bacon's plan for the New World, called New Atlantis. So when the Anglo-Saxons arrived in the New World .. they understood the natives to be Canaanites to be driven out or exterminated ... and that the other Europeans were no better than Philistines. So when Queen Elizabeth I (of Davidic ancestry) successfully stood up to King Phillip II of Spain (aka Goliath the Philistine) ... the English knew their hour had come. It is on that basis, that the original British Empire (in America/Canada first, in India later) was conceived.
Now I don't think any of this propaganda is truthful, but I think it is historical ... and that powerful people believed in it. I know a local person who still believes in it. Madness perhaps, there are Japanese who believe that they are a Lost Tribe of Israel too. Modern American Christian fundamentalism ... is a third Great Revival ... and the backstory behind all three is this myth of Anglo-American Israelitism ... that reappears in modified form in the Book of Mormon. The point being that the real America isn't just Christian, it is Israelite, and will usher in the Second Coming of Jesus. To people who believe this, your mere facts are distractions from this underlying reality ... everything that happens is translated into terms that match the mythology.
Jesus Fucking Christ.
Even if this is a Christian nation, why should religious dogma over cede common sense of what is right or wrong that causes harm?
Gawdsilla Sama - or we can just assume Nietzschean social darwinism. Random people form random groups, in random places and times ... and that whatever they may think they are going ... in fact they are achieving material, racial and sexual dominance. There are relatively few atheists, empirically. So they are always on the losing end of any contest with theists ... assuming that they are even noticed, while the dominant theistic configurations duke it out. Mammals hiding out while the dinosaurs go tooth and nail.
However ... in ancient Greece, young men were educated in Homer. The whole point of Plato was to overturn this Homeric education. Meanwhile the average Greek was finding their own archetype in the characters that Homer invented. Personally, I rather like Odysseus myself. And can we ignore that President Lincoln idolized President Washington (whether the stories were true or not) ... and that strongly characterized his presidency? So do ideas, even mythos, matter?
While the Anglo-American Israelitism is a mythos, and it was primarily 17th century ideology, can we say that it isn't still circulating under the water level? There are many aspects of current American politics, that have echos from the first decades of American government. Yet we are not people living 200 years ago. The colonial ideologies are still present ... our view of things passes on, but the things themselves remain. People and societies are like ogres, layers, but not like parfaits.
Solitary ... what is this common sense that you speak of? I haven't seen any evidence for it in American society. On the other hand, I agree it is a pathology ... any reality denying theology or ideology. For example the idea that all Americans can become Christians, let alone attend the same denomination. Where is common sense in a society where insanity is the norm?