Bill O'Reily Says Christianity is NOT a Religion

[tylerdolphin]

Yes, I see your point Tyler, and it is a tough problem. However, I think we could find ways around it and still not have our government spending so much money on education. I actually had a student who was very similar to the one given in your example, her father passed away leaving only her and her mother. Her mother was an immigrant and cleaned houses for a living, yet we were able to get her an education using scholarships and she’s now in college and I feel she got a better education than she would have at a public school. It’s a tough problem but I think if privatizing schools is never allowed to be put on the table we may be eliminating the best option a priori. Thoughts?

I think certainly some kid would get into school for free, but a private system couldnt handle the burden of taking everyone that couldnt afford it IMO. And if they can only take so many kids for free or greatly reduced prices, how is it determined which kids will be so fortunate? It cant be merit based because starting out there would be no schooling history for any kid.

Im all about downsizing government, but public education is one thing thats pretty much here to stay. Theres no real way to privatize it and improve the country as a whole. Sure, some private schools are better than public schools, but its just not feasible to expect the private sector to eat the cost of all the kids that would need a lot of help to attend school. When you end up illiterate and have no prospects for landing a good job, all a sudden criminal activity doesnt sound like such a terrible idea.

[TheWalrus]

So why would supposed Deists who didn’t want the government to reference any god or gods not only permit but actually attend protestant church services in the congressional hall on Sundays and worship the very god you claim they didn’t believe in? That just doesn’t add up.

Jefferson and Madison (as well as Adams, Franklin and Washington, for that matter) recognized in their private letters the usefulness of religion as a means of social order and the necessity that they, as politicians, be seen to be sufficiently devout.

A better example of how they viewed policy can be seen in the fight that led to the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom. I'll quote here from Brooke Allen's book Moral Minority.

Despite the fact that there was no established church in Virginia, a number of it's prominent men, led by the religiously conservative Patrick Henry, believed that citizens of the state should pay a tax to support all churches there. Madison spearheaded the resistance to Henry's proposed Bill for a Religious Assessment, and Jefferson egged him on from France, where he was serving as American minister. Then, in 1786, Madison steered through the Virginia legislature the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which Jefferson had written nearly a decade before. This document, which remains in the Virginia Constitution, would become the basis for the Religious Clauses in the Bill of rights three years later.

The statute is worth reading on it's own. Wikipedia reprints it in full:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Another quote here from Allen, on the inclusion of the phrase "Holy author of our religion" in the statute:

... some of the legislators proposed that the name "Jesus Christ" be inserted before this phrase. This insertion, Jefferson recounted in his biography with considerable satisfaction, "was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."

.....

Endorsing a particular faith or belief system is not the same as establishing it.

There are plenty who view it way. But it is also part of precedent to view it as mean "non preference" of one religion over another.

[Statler Waldorf]

To someone who makes 30k, I'd assume 5k of their taxes doesn't all go to education. The money those lower income people would get back in taxes is most probably less than what it would cost for yearly private tuition. You also have to remember that there's a decent amount of people who are unemployed with little to no money whatsoever; many of those people have children & those children should be afforded an education. I appreciate that your school offers to help lower income families, but what about those kids who aren't the brightest, most well behaved, most driven? Are they to be kicked out & be school-less? We can not just give education to the best & brightest, there should be some level of government involvement in education, whether that be on the state, federal, or some combination of both, though that's another discussion.

We’re actually not too far apart on this issue, I recognize this is a tough problem, but I think it is solvable if we put more attention to it. I don’t think it’s a problem that justifies lowering the quality of everyone’s education though; just allowing more competition between schools and faculty for positions would do a lot to improve the quality of our public school system. I was very fortunate to be able to attend a very good public school system when I was growing up, but I think we can both agree many children are not so fortunate.

You’re never going to agree with every single thing your tax dollars are spent on, that’s an inane notion.

This is true, but this doesn’t mean I should therefore have no say over how my tax dollars are spent.

Yes, everyone has their biases. Would I like to see children educated about all the important world religions in a non-biased fashion? Absolutely. Is it possible, (especially with the lower quality of professional you attract when you only pay 35k as opposed to some other high paying professions)? I don’t know that on a consistent basis it would be. I have a hard time thinking you’d be okay with an admitted athiest teaching your child about Chrisianity, or inversely an open Christian teaching someone else’s kid about Evolution, etc, etc. Sadly, perhaps it’s necesarry that this sort of thing be left out of Public School curiculum. I know that I didn’t learn anything about any of the world religions when I attended High-School; I’m trying to remember if there was something akin to an elective “world-religions” class, but I don’t recall one if it existed.

I agree with most of this.

I think certainly some kid would get into school for free, but a private system couldnt handle the burden of taking everyone that couldnt afford it IMO. And if they can only take so many kids for free or greatly reduced prices, how is it determined which kids will be so fortunate? It cant be merit based because starting out there would be no schooling history for any kid.

Im all about downsizing government, but public education is one thing thats pretty much here to stay. Theres no real way to privatize it and improve the country as a whole. Sure, some private schools are better than public schools, but its just not feasible to expect the private sector to eat the cost of all the kids that would need a lot of help to attend school. When you end up illiterate and have no prospects for landing a good job, all a sudden criminal activity doesnt sound like such a terrible idea.

I still just think you’re underestimating the private sector, if the demand is there it can do almost anything. It was long thought that we needed a federal postal service because private companies just couldn’t do what they do at the scale they do it, but now UPS and FedEx have made the US Postal Service completely irrelevant and many of their offices are now closing. We are actually seeing something very similar in New Orleans where many private and charter schools have popped up in the wake of Katrina and are now raising the level of education in what was one of the more poorly educated cities in the nation. We may not have to completely privatize the whole system, but I think we can both agree we must reform it.

Jefferson and Madison (as well as Adams, Franklin and Washington, for that matter) recognized in their private letters the usefulness of religion as a means of social order and the necessity that they, as politicians, be seen to be sufficiently devout.

Do you have any examples of these writings where these men admitted that their Christian faith was all a conspiracy in order to appear to be something they were not? That seems like quite a stretch to me.

I think the whole “the founding fathers were only Deists” claim is one of the biggest myths out there, it is obvious by their own words that many of them were Christians (24 of them held actual degrees in Christian Theology) and those who were not Christians still believed in a single personal creator god which would be a form of Theism not Deism.

“"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian." – George Washington, The Writings of Washington.

“Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." - John Adams, Diary and Autobiography of John Adams

“Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System." – John Adams wrote on June 28, 1813 in a letter to Jefferson

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event." - Thomas Jefferson, --Notes on the State of Virginia

“As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see.” - Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790

There are dozens upon dozens of quotes like these from nearly all of the “Founding Fathers”.

[tylerdolphin]

We may not have to completely privatize the whole system, but I think we can both agree we must reform it.

Definitely. Not sure what though. Not saying nothing can be done, just that I dont consider myself very informed on the feasible options to make it better.

[tylerdolphin]

Do you have any examples of these writings where these men admitted that their Christian faith was all a conspiracy in order to appear to be something they were not? That seems like quite a stretch to me.

I dont know enough about this to really comment on the founding fathers specifically, but I think its pretty obvious that a lot of politicians claim Christianity but don't really believe it. Its just good political sense. Atheists are less trusted than rapists according to one study I saw. Its political suicide to not be religious I think.

[rob19]

I dont know enough about this to really comment on the founding fathers specifically, but I think its pretty obvious that a lot of politicians claim Christianity but don't really believe it. Its just good political sense. Atheists are less trusted than rapists according to one study I saw. Its political suicide to not be religious I think.

Only in America. Bringing religion into politics in most parts of Europe is no where near as tolerated as it is here.

[GoFins!]

You don’t believe that system exists now? Our public education system is always out performed by the private education institutions even though private educators are paid less than public teachers are. So we have a system that is doing less with more money.

If education were privatized people would have more money in their own pockets to choose the schools they want, school tuitions would drop because there’d be more competition, education quality would increase because of added accountability and I am sure many non-profit schools would be created to accommodate the students who cannot afford the other schools.

Here's two different solutions to the problem currently being implemented.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

vs

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The first example indicates that high achievement is an outcome of high expectations. It'll be interesting to see how well the second example works if implemented.

[TheWalrus]

There are dozens upon dozens of quotes like these from nearly all of the “Founding Fathers”.

Nearly all of these quotes, so far as I can remember, is covered in Brooke Allen's book.

These quotes you cite are really only saying that Christian principles are generally good principles. That's something that atheists from John Lennon to Bertrand Russell have also said, to say nothing of what a Deist or Theist might say. But that is certainly not the same thing as affirming the divinity of Jesus Christ and accepting him as your personal savior.

There were plenty of "founding fathers" who were indeed devout Christians. Perhaps the most interesting chapter of Allen's book is the one on Alexander Hamilton's long and tumultuous and frankly strange journey toward faith. But if we're talking about Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and Madison, who almost surely would be the first draft picks in a founding father draft, then these were not men of Christian faith.

Not that it particularly matters to me, anyway, as I'm not an originalist or textualist and don't particularly care what the intent of the laws were when written. But it bothers me to see religious people today twist and manipulate the words of these men to fit their own agenda and then use something they didn't believe as a pillar in their argument about something.

To be fair, though, this practice dates back to the 19th century. In Washington's case, that meant an almost totally fictitious biography written by a huckster and preacher named Parson Weems, who completely fabricated stories about Washington (such as the cherry tree story and Washington praying in the snow at Valley Forge... and a hilarious account of Washington's ascent into heaven after his death) as a good way to sell books as the Second Great Enlightenment was sweeping the country in the early 1800s. First published as a little pamphlet in 1800, by 1825 it had gone to 29 editions and included a whole history of early America and, as Allen says, "colored the entire culture and historical sensibility of early nineteenth century America."

[Statler Waldorf]

I dont know enough about this to really comment on the founding fathers specifically, but I think its pretty obvious that a lot of politicians claim Christianity but don't really believe it. Its just good political sense. Atheists are less trusted than rapists according to one study I saw. Its political suicide to not be religious I think.

Sure, in our current age of instant media this is definitely the case. You certainly know more about the teachings of Obama’s claimed Christian faith than he does. However, in the late 1700s news about these men attending church services would not have spread very far into the region, so pretending to be something they were not would have been a bit of a waste of time.

Only in America. Bringing religion into politics in most parts of Europe is no where near as tolerated as it is here.

Rob, are you saying that Europeans are less tolerant than Americans? :- )

Nearly all of these quotes, so far as I can remember, is covered in Brooke Allen's book.

These quotes you cite are really only saying that Christian principles are generally good principles. That's something that atheists from John Lennon to Bertrand Russell have also said, to say nothing of what a Deist or Theist might say. But that is certainly not the same thing as affirming the divinity of Jesus Christ and accepting him as your personal savior.

Did you read the quotes? Most of them refer to a personal God who has immutable attributes; this is obviously a form of Theism, not Deism. Many of the founding fathers even use Biblical language to describe this god, such as “The Almighty”, which would make them at the very least Biblical Theists. Atheists such as Russell would never refer to god as “the Almighty” in a respectful manner.

There were plenty of "founding fathers" who were indeed devout Christians. Perhaps the most interesting chapter of Allen's book is the one on Alexander Hamilton's long and tumultuous and frankly strange journey toward faith. But if we're talking about Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and Madison, who almost surely would be the first draft picks in a founding father draft, then these were not men of Christian faith.

I never said they were all Christians, but they certainly were more than mere Deists, that’s a complete myth and their own words refute it quite easily.

Not that it particularly matters to me, anyway, as I'm not an originalist or textualist and don't particularly care what the intent of the laws were when written. But it bothers me to see religious people today twist and manipulate the words of these men to fit their own agenda and then use something they didn't believe as a pillar in their argument about something.

I was able to directly quote these men and make my point rather easily, you have yet to directly quote the men themselves but rather you keep quoting a “matter of opinion” book on the subject.

To be fair, though, this practice dates back to the 19th century. In Washington's case, that meant an almost totally fictitious biography written by a huckster and preacher named Parson Weems, who completely fabricated stories about Washington (such as the cherry tree story and Washington praying in the snow at Valley Forge... and a hilarious account of Washington's ascent into heaven after his death) as a good way to sell books as the Second Great Enlightenment was sweeping the country in the early 1800s. First published as a little pamphlet in 1800, by 1825 it had gone to 29 editions and included a whole history of early America and, as Allen says, "colored the entire culture and historical sensibility of early nineteenth century America."

That’s an Interesting tidbit but unfortunately not relevant to our discussion.

[TheWalrus]

I was able to directly quote these men and make my point rather easily, you have yet to directly quote the men themselves but rather you keep quoting a “matter of opinion” book on the subject.

Ok then, I'll compile a few:

Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in His government of the world with any particular marks of His displeasure.

Franklin also described himself as a "thorough Deist" and spoke of how he can converted friends to his point of view. His denial of the divinity of Jesus but an acceptance of the rightness of morals of the Bible is typical not just of him but of the beliefs of the founders generally. For instance:

Every religion consists of moral precepts, and dogmas. In the first they all agree. All forbid us to murder, steal, plunder, bear false witness &ca. and these are the articles necessary for the preservation of order, justice, and happiness in society. In their particular dogmas all differ; no two professing that same. These respect vestments, ceremonies, physical opinions, and metaphysical speculations, totally unconnected with morality, and uninportant to the legitimate objects of society. Yet these are the questions on which have hung the bitter schism of Nazarenes, Socinians, Arians, Athanasians, in former times, and now of Trinitarians, Unitarians, Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, Baptists, Quakers, and c. Among the Mahometans we are told that thousands fell victims to the dispute whether the first or second toe of Mahomet was longest; and what blood, how many humans lives have the words "this do in remembrance of me" cost the Christian world! We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus; but we schismatize and lose ourselves in the subtleties about his nature, his conception maculate or immaculate, whether he was god or not god, whether his votaries are to be intitiated by simple aspersion, by immersion, or without water; whether his priests must be robed in white, black, or not robbed at all; whether we are to use their own reason, or the reason of others, in the opinions we form, or as to the evidence we are to believe. It is on questions of this, and still less importance, that such oceans of human blood have been spilt, and whole regions of the earth have been desolated by wars and persecutions, in which human ingenuity has been exhausted in inventing new tortures for their brethren. It is time then to become sensible how insoluble these questions are by minds like ours, how unimportant, and how mischevious; and to consign them to the sleep or death, never to be awaken from it....We see good men in all religions, and as many in one as another. It is then a matter of principle with me to avoid disturbing the tranqulity of others by the expression of any opinion on the [unimportant points] innocent questions on which schimatize, and think it enough to hold fast to those moral precepts which are the essence of Christianity, and of all other religions.

Jefferson here rightly pointing out that the moral tenements of pretty much all religions are the same, going to Voltaire's idea that morality is natural to man.

It's not necessary to post a long quote from John Adams, as he said his religious belief could be "contained in four short words, 'Be Just and Good.'" Contained here being the operative word.

Here is James Madison, first describing an issue that goes very much to your notion of "preference" not being the same as "establishment."

It gives me much pleasure to observe by 2 printed reports sent to me by Col. Grayson that in the later Cong[res]s. had expunged a clause contained in the first for setting apart a district of land in each Township, for supporting the Religion of the Majority of inhabitants. How a regulation, so unjust in itself, so foreign to the authority of Cong[res]s

so hurtful to the sale of public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated Bigotry, could have received the countanence of a Comm[it]tee is truly a matter of astonishment.

Here is Madison again:

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.

There are dozens of other quotes by Madison going to this same idea. They are best summarized in his general creed on the matter: "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." In every case, he supported the rights of individuals to not be oppressed by religious institutions or allow even the appearance of favoritism toward them. He apposed Congressional Chaplains, religious tests for public service, swearing in on the Bible and opposed the notion of "toleration" to all religions because the word toleration does not go far enough.

As for George Washington, almost nothing survives of his statements of own beliefs, which was considered an interesting and almost amusing fact at that time. Jefferson even speculated about it in his journal:

Doctor [Benjamin] Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green [the Reverend Ashbel Green, chaplain to Congress during Washington's administration] that when the clergy addressed General Washington on his departure from the Government, it was observed in their consultation, that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address, as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so.

However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice. Rush observes, he never did say a word on the subject in any of his public papers, except in his valedictory letter to the Governors of the States, when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he speaks of the "benign influence of the Christian religion." I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended [ie claimed] to be in his secrets and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in that system that he himself did.

Morris, by the way, wrote the preamble to the Constitution (that's his penmanship on the document) as well as many other sections and was a well known deist and bon vivant who's morality was said to come far more from Horace than Jesus Christ.