Re-writing History

[dieseltaylor]

Generally i am in favour of history remaining the same unless important research raises new information. Anyway I was browsing around and came across this politician who was doing some major re-writing of her own families history. This seems wrong:

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/4/8/121538/4990/Front_Page/Michele_Bachmann_Lies_About_Her_Own_Family_History_To_Sound_More_Iowan

And you also have to wonder who is being stupid here. Does she know she is lying - in which case she is not to be trusted. Or is she too stupid to get someone to get things right for her, or is she just sure her audience will swallow anything? How far can you disrespect your electorate before they rumble you?

However the real nub of the re-writing history is the often-repeated tying of God and America together from the days of the Pilgrims. Being a little foggy on American history I was surprised how categorical the destruction of the deceit:

There are any number of facts showing the country was not founded as a "Christian nation" that we can offer in the debates to come. For starters: the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated with Muslim states in the first decade of the United States, was ratified unanimously by the Senate and signed by President John Adams in 1797. It stated in part, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

The treaty is important because it clearly reflects the view of the founding generation.

But the strongest part of the story will always be the Constitution. It does not mention God or religion, except for Article 6 which prohibits religious tests for public office. Article 6 meant that any free, propertied man, religious or nonreligious, Christian or non-Christian, could vote and hold public office. If the framers, who were mostly Christians of various sorts, had wanted to declare a special place for Christianity in governance and society, they would have done so. But they didn't.

The Christian nationalists have to engage in some rather spectacular evasions to get around this inescapable fact.

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v21n2/history.html

[abneo3sierra]

I think there are worthwhile arguments on both sides. The Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence of the United States, both imply a fervent belief in a God who gave humans rights that a government cannot take away. The Supreme Court has an image of the Ten Commandments, a Jewish/Christian symbol..the Capitol in the chamber where the President stands to give his State of the Union Speech, has behind him, and directly in front of him, Judeo-Christian Symbols..Moses accepting the Ten Commandments from God, etc. All the way to the currency "In God we trust", the tradition of placing hands on the Bible to swear into office or affirm an oath, etc etc.

Presidents such as George Washington, the first, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, all the way through Abraham Lincoln all wrote of their beliefs that Christian beliefs should be a factor in their decisions.

[Stalins Organ]

"God" wasn't added to the currency until teh 1950's or thereabouts wasn't it?

[Affentitten]

Mid-late 19th century on coins and the 1950s on paper money. Funnily enough I was looking at this a couple of weeks ago for a lecture I was giving on democratisation and the issue of secularity. You've also got the "one nation under God" thing in the pledge of allegiance, but again that's late 19th century.

[abneo3sierra]

mm..I think the 1860s for coins, and the 1950s for paper currency.

[abneo3sierra]

ha,Aff beat me to it

[dieseltaylor]

An excellent article here covers the subject very well. And reading it seems to suggest that in times of war countries reach for the God cloak - well apparently just the US.!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm

Reading it is seems there has been a perpetual grinding down of the founding fathers wise decisions.

As for architectural symbolism I suspect there are a plethora of Greek or Roman columns also in Government buildings but I do not suppose that recommends Gods of those era. And of course the American eagle must symbolise ... er....um ... a nation of bird watchers?

Religious symbols seem to be adopted from prior religions - see how the Roman church endorses Baal:

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/wheel.htm

: )

[abneo3sierra]

Isn't really architectural symbolism I mentioned, it was ordered specifically for this building, again, because of the "Christian heritage" they wished to impart.

[Michael Emrys]

You've also got the "one nation under God" thing in the pledge of allegiance, but again that's late 19th century.

Actually, that came in during the Eisenhower administration. I was a kid in school when it happened and we had to change the pledge as we recited it every morning.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

The Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence of the United States, both imply a fervent belief in a God who gave humans rights that a government cannot take away.

Right. However, they were written by Deists rather than straight up Christians. It's rather a pity that Deism went out of style. I think that with its passing something in the national consciousness was lost. Apparently Unitarianism is the closest thing to it these days, and it is not exactly widespread among the leadership.

Michael

[abneo3sierra]

Actually, that came in during the Eisenhower administration. I was a kid in school when it happened and we had to change the pledge as we recited it every morning.

Michael

Michael, you are older than I thought lol...not a bad thing though.

[dieseltaylor]

Anyway having read the evidence that there has been a Christianising of the original constitution/society what say you of your original posting AB?

I must admit to being surprised how apparently Godless the rest of the World is with their coinage - but then thinking about it I realised in fact for the US perhaps it is just sooo right. : )

[abneo3sierra]

I think that in general America has remained Christian, recent polls have placed near 70% of people claiming they are some form of "Christian". For myself, I prefer government based on at least the foundation, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence"people are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..." This means to me,that no government can take those rights away,rather than to have a government claim THEY gave you rights,because in that case, they can take them away as well. So I am quite in favor of Christian basis for a government, PROVIDING that they do not , as the constitution prohibits, establish a state religion...the original US founders were very strict Christians, who even had laws for many years prohibiting most things from operating on Sundays, etc. I actually think this goes too far, and comes dangerously close to "establishing state religion" but as long as that can be avoided, I am glad if people can apply some sense of morals to their governmental duties,wherever they get those morals from,generally, some form of religion.

[dieseltaylor]

70% think of themselves as a type of Christian, ties in rather well then with this:

"The 2005 Eurobarometer poll discussed above found that on total average, of the EU25 population, 52% "believe in a God", 27% believe in "some sort of spirit or life force" and 18% had neither of these forms of belief. Across the EU, belief was higher among women, increased with age, those with strict upbringing, those with the lowest levels of formal education and those leaning towards right-wing politics.[26]:10-11"Wikipedia"

But perhaps we ought to consider this report also:

The world's happiest countries have been announced, and three of the top five are among the least religious countries in the world, reports Alfredo Garcia at Religion News Service. Garcia acknowledges that this "might be like comparing apples to bookshelves" and that "measures of 'happiness' or 'religiosity' can often be so vague and difficult to quantify that they lose their meaning" but it's a notable finding all the same. Here's more:

The nations taking the top spots include: Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. This might not come as a surprise to many who have been to these nations. What is surprising, however, is that three of these five nations are among the top

10 least religious nations

in the world (also from Gallup).

Indeed, Sweden, Denmark and Norway came in at second, third, and fourth, respectively. Only Estonia was less religious than these nations

Read more: http://www.utne.com/spirituality/the-worlds-happiest-countries-are-the-least-religious.aspx#ixzz1JNk6GhGi

but talking of governance and moral duty perhaps we need to look at Transparency International - most of the top countries do not seem overly religious. SO is moral worht related to chuch or is it something else. Or does religion provide a some sort of screen - a confession and absolution every week is handy if you sin. Or in Blai or Bush case it was God's will.

[Vanir Ausf B]

But perhaps we ought to consider this report also:

Perhaps we can prove anything with the right report:

Importantly, Lim said, the study suggested a causal link between religion and life satisfaction: People who had started attending church more often between the 2006 and 2007 surveys became happier. Again, the happiness was explained entirely by a boost in close church friendships.

"We think it has something to do with the fact that you meet a group of close friends on a regular basis, together as a group, and participate in certain activities that are meaningful to the group," Lim said. "At the same time, they share a certain social identity, a sense of belonging to a moral faith community. The sense of belonging seems to be the key to the relationship between church attendance and life satisfaction."

While a higher number of secular close friendships were also associated with life satisfaction, church friendships seem to involve something that lifts satisfaction even more, Lim said.

[dieseltaylor]

And of course reading the whole report :

Instead, satisfaction was tied to the number of close friends people said they had in their religious congregation. People with more than 10 friends in their congregation were almost twice as satisfied with life as people with no friends in their congregation.

Shock horror. Johnny-no-mates are only half as satisified! But it is not religion but working usefully with others that makes for satisfaction. : ) I could have told them that : ) Incidentally I don't wish to put a downer on this but it is only looking at Americans so there is no comparison with the happy non-religious countries in my survey. And survey wise there are some people who think they are friends with everyone - regardless of what those people actually think .... just saying.

Theoretically, Lim said, belonging to a secular friend group that engages in meaningful activities and shares a social identity might also boost life satisfaction. The researchers plan to carry out a third round of surveys with the same group of participants in 2011 in which they hope to gather data on secular friendship groups.

But they are going to prove it with a survey. They should just ask CM*1 players who play PBEM!

[abneo3sierra]

Diesel,

Not sure how they decide happiest nation in Europe...I have alot of very happy relatives in Germany also lol.

My point was actual Christian base(really, actual RELIGION base) to politics to give a moral backing..this does obviously not count for the hypocrites who would see it as a weekly confession to make them feel good over their sins of the week lol. This means rather, people who actually follow the morals,which are generally the same in all major religions...do not steal(this rules out most current politicians) do not covet what others have, do not lie(wow,again ruling out most current politicians) love your neighbor as you love yourself..etc...this general moral code, actually FOLLOWED, would make people, their politicians, and their countries, much better overall.

[womble]

Diesel,

Not sure how they decide happiest nation in Europe...I have alot of very happy relatives in Germany also lol.

My point was actual Christian base(really, actual RELIGION base) to politics to give a moral backing...

I think you did this once before, Abneo: equating religion with morals. Please stop it.

[dieseltaylor]

AB - what you say are my moral compass points but I am totally without religion. A large peroportion of non-religious people would be the same as me. I think that they are innate within advanced pack animals.

To ascribe them solely to religion is actually slightly offensive. To reverse it slightly I would say religions tend to use what it is innate for some social engineering/control.

In primitive tribes this was actually very important as it also allowed for some disciplne as tribes grew toward cities/nations etc.

However with better education and scientific discoveries it becomes increasingly obvious that religions are not unique. By that I mean almost without exception every religion believes it is right, other religions are wrong. And therefore the people who follow those other religions are deluded, lied to, stupid etc.

For those of us who believe humans are advanced mammals the sight of all these churchs claiming that they are the one and only is an example of both mans need to believe, and the nasty ends they will go to prove themselves correct.

Incidentally the reason why man has risen above other animals may well be to do with DNA mutations. Recent research has identified 510 lost bits of DNA - that is humans do not have it but other animals do. The DNA's looked at were the ones found to be conserved most frequently in mammals - well chimpanzees, macaques, humans , chickens, and mice. So out of all the species Humans lacked 510 of these DNA pieces and therefore the question was what was it that they controlled.

AR was suppressed in mice and were revealed to control facial whiskers and penile spines. Humans therefore no longer having this gene lost both attributes.

GADD45G regulator controls the growth of brain cells in the cortex. Loss of GADD45G meant that parts of the brain could grow larger than before.

The next stage of the study has now commeced with mice who have the two bits of DNA missing = will thye develop as suggesested with human-lke traits?

[Michael Emrys]

AB - what you say are my moral compass points but I am totally without religion. A large peroportion of non-religious people would be the same as me. I think that they are innate within advanced pack animals.

Huh? Pack animals???

:confused:

I eagerly await clarification on this point. Seriously.

Michael

[womble]

Huh? Pack animals???

:confused:

I eagerly await clarification on this point. Seriously.

Michael

While 'pack' might not be the correct term, we are a social species, evolved from a tree that has numerous other social species dangling from the fruiting growth. Most other primate social groups are called, I think, "troops", though chimps live (generally) as part of "communities".

However, I don't think it's necessarily fair to ascribe the morals that DT does to even primates, except maybe Bonobos.

[dieseltaylor]

... do not steal(this rules out most current politicians) do not covet what others have, do not lie(wow,again ruling out most current politicians) love your neighbor as you love yourself..etc...this general moral code, actually FOLLOWED, would make people, their politicians, and their countries, much better overall.

Perhaps I should have said social animals - in the UK it would probably be understood given the context.

4 a troop of animals living and hunting together as a group, eg dogs or wolves.

Chambers

Womble I am not sure which attributes you think humans have that are different to animals ... : ) I will accept that we may dress our motivations ups in fancy language. If there are specific areas you are interested in please say.

The ability to work together to solve a human made puzzle does not only apply to apes but to crows and elephants also. Studies show dogs understand unfairness and will sulk to show it. Crows count to three - roughly the same as some Amazonian tribes.

There are so many instances of animals sharing some of our smarts, and all our primal desires, it would seem impossible to say we are divinely different. : )

[abneo3sierra]

I think you did this once before, Abneo: equating religion with morals. Please stop it.

Actually am equating those who follow religion(actually follow it, not just pay it lip service) as having morals...does not mean those who do not follow it have none, as the old school exam question "if all A's are also B's, and some C's are A's...it does not mean that all C's are B's."

[abneo3sierra]

Perhaps I should have said social animals - in the UK it would probably be understood given the context.

Chambers

Womble I am not sure which attributes you think humans have that are different to animals ... : ) I will accept that we may dress our motivations ups in fancy language. If there are specific areas you are interested in please say.

The ability to work together to solve a human made puzzle does not only apply to apes but to crows and elephants also. Studies show dogs understand unfairness and will sulk to show it. Crows count to three - roughly the same as some Amazonian tribes.

There are so many instances of animals sharing some of our smarts, and all our primal desires, it would seem impossible to say we are divinely different. : )

While on the other hand, we have ability to REASON,rather than to just THINK...this, I think, is the primary difference. Also..see my above reply..it does not mean that those with no religion have no "moral compass points" but rather, it means that those who actually follow the religion, do,those who do not follow any "code" may, or may not. Those who follow religion will be TRYING to be good, while those who follow none...what incentive to be good? No hope of "heaven" or "after life rewards"..maybe can still be good, but it is not a guarantee, for sure.

[Michael Emrys]

Perhaps I should have said social animals...

Ah, okay. Gotcha. When you wrote "pack animals" my thought was of horses, burros, and mules.

Michael