Supporting Civil Rights for Atheists and the Separation of Church and State

Jan

2011

More Shipboard Preaching

Author: admin / admin's blog

Log in or register to post comments

An active duty member of the Navy, who is currently at sea aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, reported that the only available meal on a particular day during the holiday season contained a program and menu that specifically included a sectarian prayer as part of the meal.

USS Abraham Lincoln is famous for the "Mission Accomplished" banner. US Navy Photo, licensed under creative commons.

According to our informant, who must remain anonymous in order to safeguard his career, the menu included this prayer: "Praise God, from whom all blessings flow. Eternal God, this joyful day is radiant with the brilliance of your one true light. May that light illuminate our hearts and shine in our words and deeds. May the hope, the peace, the joy, and the love represented by the birth in Bethlehem fill our lives and become part of all that we say and do. May we share in the divine life of your son Jesus Christ, even as he humbled himself to share our humanity. Bless us and the feast that you have provided for us, let us be thankful for the true gift of Christmas, Your Son. Amen."

You can see the actual menu here (Word document).

This situation has been verified by several sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, and according to our source, complaints through leadership and equal opportunity channels resulted in no action.

This is just another example of the military's failure to ensure religious parity. If you were on the USS Abraham Lincoln during the holidays and didn't want a Christian prayer with your dinner, on this day, you were out of luck.

By Kathleen Johnson

Comments

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 01/29/2011 - 08:16

Ironic that you chose to mention the Puritans, since there are few groups in our history that were more intolerant of other's beliefs than them. Any tolerance for religious differences that this country may or may not have sure as heck didn't come from a Puritan foundation. When our country turned away from Puritan ideals, it was a good thing.

And I said nothing about your intelligence - you are obviously intelligent - I said that you would choose to ignore any proof that I presented about intolerance on naval ships. But thank you for answering my question about Muslim prayer.

Your posts have been pretty polite (except for a lecturing and patronizing tone, which I'm choosing to ignore). I think you would do better if you had anything new to offer that we haven't already heard a million times from other religious folks who make a hobby of visiting this board (and others like it) because they just can't stand the idea of leaving us alone so that we can discuss things important to us.

Kathleen

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 01/29/2011 - 12:52

"(except for a lecturing and patronizing tone, which I’m choosing to ignore)."

And I choose to ignore it from you and others here also. It's a normal part of discussion because you believe that you have superior positions just like I do. If you did not believe that you have the best position, and yet you still held them, then you would have a mental disorder. No one thinks, "Hey, I'm wrong in this belief but what the heck... I believe it anyway and I want to persuade other to believe it also."

Anyway, the Puritans were very strict people, no doubt about that, but what we call the American Way, today is a secularized version of a lot of things that were particular to them. I won't go into that here because it would be a huge digression from the topic at hand.

When you said, "I think you would do better if you had anything new to offer that we haven’t already heard a million times from other religious folks..." you really confuse me like most every other atheist does when they rail against anyone who is religious.

What you have done here is discount what I've said simply because I am religious. Nothing I've said here is theological in nature, but because I hold theological ideals you say things like this.

"Well, he believes in a god so nothing he says is valid." is essentially what you and others here have said.

What I've always wondered is why so many atheists don't seem to want to discuss anything other than what they already believe to be true. You all claim to be free-thinkers, but then when someone comes along in your life and offers up a different perspective (and a nonreligious one) then you simply dismiss that person based on his worldview without ever really addressing what he has said that has nothing at all to do with his religion.

My position on the prayer menu has nothing directly to do with my religious beliefs so using it to discount my position on the menu prayers is ridiculous.

It's almost like saying, "Oh, well he sawed off his own arm to free himself from a rock-slide, so because he is a volunteered amputee, what he says is ridiculous."

So, the Puritans set up the colonies for themselves and outlawed other denominations and religions. This is true. They wanted the colonies for their own so that the could discuss the things they believed and so that they could live the way that they wanted without having to deal with Baptists, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Lutherans, atheists or anyone else coming into their colonies and offering any dissension or input at all.

They wanted to be left alone so that they discuss things important to themselves.... sort of like what you said you wanted this board to be... who's the Puritan again? Who are the ones who are intolerant of others' beliefs?

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 01/29/2011 - 16:20

Anyway, the Puritans were very strict people, no doubt about that, but what we call the American Way, today is a secularized version of a lot of things that were particular to them.

No doubt they fucked this country up.

I won’t go into that here because it would be a huge digression from the topic at hand.

LMAO! Are you not that self-aware? That's been your M.O from the start.

You all claim to be free-thinkers, but then when someone comes along in your life and offers up a different perspective (and a nonreligious one)

Seriously? Wow. You realize, of course, that you came outta nowhere & said the exact same crap every other theist has repeated here. & as for 'nonreligious', you about announced it when you showed up here.

then you simply dismiss that person based on his worldview without ever really addressing what he has said that has nothing at all to do with his religion.

Ah, back-handed hominem. Nice.
Of course, there's no way we've heard all the same arguments ad infinitum from a hundred others, no way we'd understand them unless they were repeated constantly, NO WAY we had heard them all before.

They wanted to be left alone so that they discuss things important to themselves…. sort of like what you said you wanted this board to be… who’s the Puritan again?

Polite stubbornness won't work here.

Who are the ones who are intolerant of others’ beliefs?

Apples to oranges. Comparing ostracization & burning witches to a little harsh language on a blog?
Your martyr complex is showing.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sun, 01/30/2011 - 06:31

You have made a lot of assumptions that I personally have said things or implied things about you and your posts, which I have not. You see what you expect to see.

Kathy

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 01/29/2011 - 11:44

there’s really no reason to imply that I choose to ignore facts.

Dude - you've refused to acknowledge any that have been proffered.

Instead of allowing these facts to speak for themselves,

That is undoubtedly the funniest thing you've said yet...

which is what honest, intellectual discourse is for,

You've not indulged in that yet.

it’s easy to insult the intelligence of the other person.

Dude, your opening salvo was full of wrongful 'facts'. 1st impressions, they say.

There’s really no reason for it and it stifles the conversation.

Since you're not a moderator, I'd advise getting over it.

You can read through my responses and you’ll find that I haven’t tried to directly insult anyone simply because we disagree on conclusions.

Inferring there were indirect efforts to do so.

What I’ve tried t o do is have a conversation about the issue

No, you've brought up all sorts of 'issues' that had nothing to do w/the thread content.

and not about personalities or the people involved in the conversation.

It's hard not to take it personally, when some nobody from Alabama glides right in & tries to educate people on topics they already know, & treats everyone like lost teenagers.

What I have received in return from several on this article is the exact opposite. Like I’ve said, there’s no reason for that.

Oh boo hoo poor you. A theist comes where he's not wanted, & doesn't receive laurels for his effort? Horrors!

No, it is in the West which had Christian Worldview that has allowed religious dissension to grow and thrive because the Christian Worldview allows it.

Wow, your grasp on history is as ephemeral as the morning dew. The xtian 'worldview' was burn it all, for millennia. Dissension wasn't allowed. In fact, America is among the only countries that allow religious diversity, due to the fact that it's founded on secular values.

The very fact that we’re having this discussion is evidence that the Christian Worldview demands tolerance and TRUE inherent value for all human life.

Oh, you're just a quart low. 'Demands tolerance' my homesick ass. Christians burn witches regularly in Africa, discriminate against gays in America, & have a piss poor track record in re: human rights. If you think that America is based on your anachronistic values, that's intellectual dishonesty of the highest caliber.
Your religion gets no credit. For anything.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 01/29/2011 - 12:58

Krys, please point me to a country today that has human rights like the Bill of Rights that does not have a Christian Heritage or was heavily influenced by countries that did. Likewise, please point me to a country that has an atheistic heritage that observe the same rights.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 01/29/2011 - 14:54

please point me to a country today that has human rights like the Bill of Rights that does not have a Christian Heritage or was heavily influenced by countries that did.

I'll do you 1 better. the Treaty of Tripoli, article 11, stipulates:
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 tranquility, 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.
Fairly unambiguous, I'd say.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 01/29/2011 - 17:55

That doesn't answer my question.

I've asked you to show me a country today that observes the human rights laid out in the Bill of Rights that does not have a Christian Heritage or was not heavily influenced by countries who do have a Christian heritage.

This doesn't do that. This merely says that the Adams administration in 1797 agreed to whatever wording necessary to form an alliance with a Muslim nation and that they promised not to ever make war with them based on religious beliefs.

Your treaty doesn't tell me where a nation is that observes human rights as laid out in our Bill of Rights that did not come from.... well I've already said that.

Also, you haven't shown me a country that comes from an atheistic worldview that observes the same rights. Would you like me to point you to atheistic countries that directly deny them?

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 01/29/2011 - 18:12

I’ve asked you to show me a country today that observes the human rights laid out in the Bill of Rights that does not have a Christian Heritage or was not heavily influenced by countries who do have a Christian heritage.

I just gave you your answer.

This merely says that the Adams administration in 1797 agreed to whatever wording necessary to form an alliance with a Muslim nation and that they promised not to ever make war with them based on religious beliefs.

Dude - treaties reflect & represent the laws those countries abide by.
How is that not clear to you?

Your treaty doesn’t tell me where a nation is that observes human rights as laid out in our Bill of Rights that did not come from…

It didn't. It's based on secular values. Advise you look up the word 'secular' before you insert hoof in mouth (again).

Also, you haven’t shown me a country that comes from an atheistic worldview that observes the same rights.

So...countries are more humane if they have some supernatural belief? Are you high?
There's no denial that xtianity had some sort of influence back then. However, the use of biblical quotes outside of being in the BoR, the constitution, & the DoI, does not signify that your religion had as much influence as you might think.

Also, you haven’t shown me a country that comes from an atheistic worldview that observes the same rights.

Sweden, Norway, Finland....shall I go on?
(You're too easy)

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 01/29/2011 - 18:16

This merely says that the Adams administration in 1797 agreed to whatever wording necessary to form an alliance with a Muslim nation

So...you're saying a Founding Father LIED to a Muslim nation? Why, how Christian!

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 01/31/2011 - 04:45

It's interesting though that lying isn't always disallowed in scripture... but this isn't a Biblical Studies Blog, though, is it? Either way, the idea that telling an untruth is always wrong isn't really in the scriptures.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 01/31/2011 - 05:18

Either way, the idea that telling an untruth is always wrong isn’t really in the scriptures.

You're joking, right? Commandment about not bearing false witness?

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 01/31/2011 - 14:25

Nope, not kidding at all. That commandment isn't about lying. Before you go down that road, I'll go ahead and tell you that I'm not going to explore scripture and such on this blog because I'm not here for that. If you want to explore the whole "lying isn't always wrong" idea then find me on FB and we'll have that discussion.

A few atheists here have already done that which is really cool.

But, out of respect for Mr. Scott and the other people here, I won't go into a discussion about scripture as far as exposition goes.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 01/31/2011 - 05:04

No Krys, I'm not saying that countries are kinder and gentler because they have a supernatural belief. Haiti and Jamaica have a belief in the supernatural and most of their population languish is poverty while the gov't lives in luxury.

What I am saying is that the tenets of the Christian Worldview provide the basis for what we have today that we call, "human rights." Human rights did not exist in gov'ts prior to the advent of Christendom. Now, these rights did not always play themselves out and there was a lot of inequities in societies within christendom, but that was in spite of the worldview and not because of it. When the faith left Jerusalem and went out into the ROman Empire and the rest of Europe and the other continents it encountered systems that oppressed and exploited human beings. In many cases the people who were the oppressors simply "converted" and continued oppressing. Sometimes, like today, people who were Christians would gain power and be corrupted.

In either case, the oppression of others was in spite of the faith and not because of it. As time progressed through the Reformation and into modern times those in the faith who were not in power have been able to operate from the foundation of the Christian Worldview and reform Christendom. What we have today is merely the 2010 phase of the reformation that began in Jerusalem when Christianity became a system for all people regardless of nationality, race, gender or whatever.

The ability of people like the AA to safely dissent from the ruling beliefs of the society is a testament to the tolerance of Christian societies. When you go to places like Saudi Arabia, North Korea (atheists,) and places like that, you don't see groups like the AA being able to freely speak and operate.

As for Finland, Sweden and Norway being atheistic societies that observe human rights for all people. These countries were converted centuries ago from their Norse Paganism to Catholicism and/or Protestantism. More specifically, they are/were either German Lutherans or Evangelical Lutherans. They are some of those Western nations that have a Christian history that I was talking about.

So, let me ask you again...

Please point me to a country that observes human rights that does not spring from Christian heritage or was not heavily influenced by nations with Christian heritages. Please point me to nations that extend human rights to all people that are pagan, atheist, or anything of that sort that voluntarily within their own nonChristian citizens have decided to recognize the inherent worthof all human beings.

Where are those nations? You say that the religion has nothing to do with it so you should be able to point to an example of a society that respects all people that at the same time does not have a Christian heritage.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 01/31/2011 - 05:38

No Krys, I’m not saying that countries are kinder and gentler because they have a supernatural belief.

That is exactly what you're saying. Xtianity is a supernatural belief.

What I am saying is that the tenets of the Christian Worldview provide the basis for what we have today that we call, “human rights.”

No they don't. Your religion doesn't deserve credit for anything. Besides which, your knowledge of history is skewed.

In many cases the people who were the oppressors simply “converted” and continued oppressing.

More proof religion doesn't make a single difference.

Sometimes, like today, people who were Christians would gain power and be corrupted.

Still more proof.

In either case, the oppression of others was in spite of the faith and not because of it.

Always w/the excuses, you people.

The ability of people like the AA to safely dissent from the ruling beliefs of the society is a testament to the tolerance of Christian societies.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow, you do live in your own little world, don't you? The only reason the xtians don't discriminate against others in this country is because it's against the law. America is NOT an xtian society.

When you go to places like Saudi Arabia, North Korea (atheists,) and places like that, you don’t see groups like the AA being able to freely speak and operate.

That could easily be said of the USA 50 years ago. Or even 20 years ago.

These countries were converted centuries ago from their Norse Paganism to Catholicism and/or Protestantism.

Luckily they got over that particular illness.

Where are those nations? You say that the religion has nothing to do with it so you should be able to point to an example of a society that respects all people that at the same time does not have a Christian heritage.

You really are dense, aren't you? They gave all that crap up for a reason.
Besides which, history shows that your precious 'Christian heritage' consists of slaughter, torture, the repression of human rights, hostility towards science & intellectualism, & a variety of other uglinesses. Which doesn't seem to change human nature 1 iota. Atheism, however, is the simple lack of belief in the supernatural, that's it. The big plus is, that the religious whackos are easier to spot. Unless some sociopath is in charge.
The simple fact is, this isn't a 'battle between atheism & theism'. It's a battle between logic & emotional fantasies.
You are more than entitled to have your little fantasies. Just don't tell me those fairy tales are the basis for morality or human rights. That's horseshit, plain & simple.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 01/31/2011 - 14:22

Krys, I think what you are missing is that there is far more to the Christian Worldview than simply a belief in the Theos. There are many people in the world that believe things that sprout from the Christian Worldview, but who may not themselves be Christians or any religion at all.

You still haven't pointed me to a nation rooted in atheism that does not end up with a "sociopath in charge."

I would love to have a conversation with you where you actually supported your assertions rather than attack mine, but I'm realizing that that may not be possible, so hasta on this.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 01/31/2011 - 14:49

Krys, I think what you are missing is that there is far more to the Christian Worldview than simply a belief in the Theos.

Actually, I'm quite familiar w/your worldview, inside & out.

There are many people in the world that believe things that sprout from the Christian Worldview, but who may not themselves be Christians or any religion at all.

Oh great - more expositions on how your superstition is responsible for all things good in the world.

You still haven’t pointed me to a nation rooted in atheism that does not end up with a “sociopath in charge.”

That's because your religion shut everybody down for centuries, & subjugated all dissent & human rights. A lack of supernatural belief doesn't change human nature anymore than religion does.

I would love to have a conversation with you where you actually supported your assertions rather than attack mine

I have been supporting my assertions - you aren't listening.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 01/31/2011 - 15:13

Nope, not kidding at all.

So lying is okay? In the right context? Sounds like Eusebius. Or Chrystotam.

That commandment isn’t about lying.

It's obviously about honesty. Oh but wait...xtianity isn't about truth, it's about those warm fuzzy-wuzzy feelings.

Before you go down that road, I’ll go ahead and tell you that I’m not going to explore scripture and such on this blog because I’m not here for that.

You're here to correct a bunch of lost teenage souls on what you perceive to be as outrageous mendacities. Likelihood is good that you teach Sunday school to a bunch of toddlers.
Newsflash: all adults here, nobody's lost, there's no such thing as a soul, & you've been lied to.

If you want to explore the whole “lying isn’t always wrong” idea then find me on FB and we’ll have that discussion.

No thanks. You're just not that interesting. Some bum who can't get a real job, & instead plays shaman to feeble-minded folk vested w/thanatophobia.

A few atheists here have already done that which is really cool.

Dude, you were being corrected.

But, out of respect for Mr. Scott and the other people here, I won’t go into a discussion about scripture as far as exposition goes.

Good thing too, because I know my way around that crap pretty well. In fact, it was your book of fables that convinced me it was all hogwash.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 01/31/2011 - 17:50

Dane, I appreciate your inputs and your stimulation for thought. I am glad you come in here and interact with us, rather than avoid the "heathens" as many do. I respect your opinions and do find value in some of the points you make.

That being said, I remember when I was in school (both private and public) and the teachers would talk about the founding fathers. I remember the lessons about how people came here for religious freedom and set up a Christian nation (I went to public school in a state where they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into evolution, Tennessee).

When I read some of the writings and ideas of the most popular of the founding fathers, however, I discovered that my taxpayer funded education lacked a bit of truth. Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin worked together on the Declaration of Independence. All three made several statements about their disdain for religion, and how the new nation was not founded upon it. Jefferson, specifically, was not a Christian, but instead believed in a disinterested God that created everything and then left it be, not interacting with it at all. Jefferson even cut-and-pasted a version of the New Testament that excluded the miracles of Jesus, because while he believed Jesus was a great philosopher and teacher, he was not God, nor savior.

There is not much evidence in the Constitution or the Declaration that Christianity had anything to do with it. Just because there may not be an example of an atheist country with a Bill of Rights such as ours does not mean anything, as there also isn't an example of a Christian country with one, either. There is no other example, so that does not prove that we were formed on Christianity. Our system of government was crafted more on the Roman Republic, with a few lessons from its weaknesses, to try to prevent the same from happening here.

The idea of human rights does not come from religion. Human rights is not a Christian idea, but an idea that comes from any people who are on the bottom of the ladder of society, and those who are compassionate for those on the bottom. The people who are persecuted, tortured, and denied the respect as equals by the controlling powers of a society dream about equal rights. This is not a dream exclusive to Christians. Early Christians were simply one example of such people. It does not take religion to realize there is something wrong with being mistreated because of your differences. Christians, for all their persecutions in the past, and even in the present in places where they aren't welcome, should understand the universality of the concept of equal rights.

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 02/01/2011 - 05:24

WOW fester30. We disagree on a few things, but I really appreciate your comment. I think you and I would enjoy a coffee and some great conversation at a Starbucks or Waffle House (whichever happened to be available.) We would probably leave the meeting still soundly rooted in whatever it is that we believed, but having enjoyed the intellectual stimulation all the same.

To respond to your comments though, I have to say that on a rudimentary level I really don't disagree with a lot of what you've said. To really go into it fully I would have to go on for quite a while, but I have some errands to run this morning so I will just make a few quit points.

I think that part of the misunderstanding is that when I say that the Christian Worldview gave birth to what we call human rights today, I am not saying that throughout the last 2000+ years that everyone involved in shaping the West were devout Christians. Many of them we of different faiths or no faith at all. No doubt there.

What I am talking about is more of a paradigm amongst the populace. I know that 53 of the 56 signers of the Constitution professed to be Christians. Now, were those 53 all devout Christians who would have died for their beliefs?

I have no idea, but 53 of the signers professed Christianity, and we have to consider that in that culture, being a Christians involved more than simply shaking a preacher's hand and saying a prayer. Those 53 men were not uneducated Christians who couldn't even read the Bible. Many of them were educated men who understood the philosophy and such of the days so, contrary to the popular idea of a Christian, they did not put on blinders and only draw from what the Bible said. These were men who lived full lives and were informed, read men.

I could go on about it, but what I'm saying is that these 53 signers didn't want a theocracy any more than Jefferson or Franklin. They had lived under a gov't that had a state religion, and they didn't want that either. I think that often atheists picture the Christian founders as a bunch of ignorant farmers who were bent on excluding everyone who wasn't like them and that they were restrained by the 3 nonChristian signers.

That just isn't the case. In that day different denominations were viewed the same as different religions today. The only way that the country would be able to stand together in a revolution would have been if the people would have been able to come together and focus on the commons, whether it be Baptist, Episcopalian or Christian, Judaism.

In that culture it would have been impossible to create a theocracy because, for instance, Baptists primarily did not marry Lutherans. Several of the colonies had been created to give a safe haven to individual denominations and Pennsylvania had been created to give a safe haven to all denomination. It would have been impossible for the colonies to come together and establish a state religion.

Also, the Christian Founders didn't want that either.

What I'm saying though, is that the overwhelming majority of colonists were Christians and held to a Christian Worldview. Just like today, I'm sure that there were many people who claimed to be Christians, but weren't, as well as many who were Christians but did not declare it. Also, just like today, there were people who were not Christians, but still appreciated the Christian system of morality and ethics and that you could not maintain that apart for the religious aspects.

So, I'm not saying that the country was founded as a theocracy or founded with a state religion of Christianity. I'm not saying that at all, so you and i are in complete agreement on that.

Also, I don't want it to be a theocracy either.

What I am saying is that the people of the colonies were overwhelmingly Christians in some flavor or another. When it came time to unite in revolution the founders, even the nonChristian ones, appealed to the common faith and values of the Christian colonists. When it came time for a Bill of Rights, it was argued that men held these rights for what reason? If we are all merely highly intelligent animals then we don't have any inherent rights at all.

"The idea of human rights does not come from religion. Human rights is not a Christian idea, but an idea that comes from any people who are on the bottom of the ladder of society, and those who are compassionate for those on the bottom. The people who are persecuted, tortured, and denied the respect as equals by the controlling powers of a society dream about equal rights. This is not a dream exclusive to Christians. "

I wholeheartedly agree with what you've said here. The yearning for freedom and liberty is not unique to Christians, but dwells in the hearts of all people. I agree 100%.

What I'm saying is that because of the Christian Worldview of the colonists, that yearning was able to come alive in reality. The human condition and desire for liberty is universal to mankind, but had not been able to put down roots and grow until the American Revolution. When it came to debating and working out exactly how that would look in real life, the founders as well as the populace were able to appeal to what they believed to be true in their common worldview.

This is what I am saying and not that only Christians want to be free or that the USA is a theocracy of some kind. I'm not saying that at all.

Some religious historians have said that one thing that contributed to the rapid growth of Christianity was the use of the Greek language and also the Latin eventually. This enabled the scriptures and such to travel across a lot of miles and still be understood. IN a sense, the Greek language was fertile soil for the the religion to take root. This is basically the argument I am making about things like the human rights. All people have the same rights because all people are human. I mean, it's ridiculous to say that only Christians have them or whatever. What I'm saying is that like the Greek Language for the Church, the Christian Worldview provided fertile soil for these ideas take root. There was a lot of reforming to do over things like slavery, women's rights, and all of that... and there still is, but it was this worldview that received the idea of universal human rights and enabled it to grow.

I agree with you that oppressed people have this in common, but when we look at other countries where oppressed people have risen up and seized power, often times the oppressed becomes the oppressors. Why? Well, many reasons, but I think largely because they lack the restraint within their worldview.

Look at the revolution after revolution that France had after our revolution. They attempted to set up a secular gov't and began preying on the defeated classes. Blood ran through the streets, I believe, because those who came into power tried to establish a purely atheistic government.

Anyway, I'm digressing a little here, and I really need to go take care of some business in Mobile, but the point I'm making is that the Christian Worldview among the populace is what has enabled the West to enjoy the freedom and liberty that it enjoys and the prosperity that comes with it. It's interesting that when we speak about the "undeveloped world" or "Under-developed world" that we are referring primarily to countries with Christian Histories.

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 02/01/2011 - 09:17

Dane, I get that Christians were the majority of the founding fathers, according to a .gov website that lists their religious affiliations. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but the Declaration was signed by 56, not the Constituation, which was signed by 39 of the 55 delegates that attended the Constitutional Convention. The 53 Christians that signed the Declaration were signing a document created by Deists that exclaimed that "all men were created equal" and spoke of "inalienable rights." This happened before the Constitution was created.

Out of the Constitutional fathers, names such as Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Washington, and the father of the Constitution, James Madison, were not Christians (while Washington did attend church 12 to 15 times a year and write of the importance of religion in social order, he never was seen to pray or take communion or talk about anything specific in Christianity, instead referring to Providence, which suggests that he was a Deist). While the majority of the founders may have been Christian, these are arguably the most important minds in crafting the government and the rules that originally bound it.

As for the Christian Worldview allowing the USA to have the Bill of Rights and to be successful in establishing rights versus other revolutions that led to oppressive regimes, I would argue some of the most oppressive regimes were the result of what the Christian Worldview had been at times. The Christian Worldview has at times been one of one ruler, and zero tolerance or rights to non-Christians. We have examples such as the Spanish Inquisition and Bloody Mary of England. There have been peaceful and loving Christian rulers, and there have been depraved and violent ones as well. Just as there have been peaceful and loving, and also depraved and violent rulers, of many other religions.

Most subsections of society are also microchosms of society. In the military, we have criminals, just as we do on the outside. We have our fair share of good and bad people. It's the same with Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, and none of the above. No matter what a person's belief system is, some will use his or her beliefs to promote philanthropy and kindness to others, some will use his or her beliefs to sieze power, corrupt, and destroy. This is human nature, and it is independent of religious belief.

This is why I don't believe there is or ever was a Christian worldview, Muslim worldview, or atheist worldview. For every part of the world that you happen to find benevolent Christians at any given point of time, I'm sure we can find another part of the world with malevolent examples. I'm certain it's the same in every religion.

One more point on this. When we discuss the influence of Christianity on the founding of our government (and I am sure there was at least some influence, just that we aren't a government "founded" on Christianity) we should also look at what sort of nation the Constitution set us up to be. Jesus and his followers, if the stories are true, were Communist. The Puritans were Communist. The Amish were and are Communist. These were small communities with no one ruler who all had their role to play according to their talents and all benefitted equally from the work of the group. Our Constitution set us up to be a Representative Democracy, with a Capitalist leaning, and methods to keep Capitalism from getting out of control.

When I look at the Bill of Rights, I don't see Biblical references. I don't know that the Bible would have a problem with what we think of as illegal searches and siezures. I don't think the Bible would agree with our right not to self-incriminate (confession of sins is encouraged). The court trials in the Bible were a Roman/Greek influence.

If our revolution had happened in France or Britain, the result would likely not have led to freedom of religion. If there was any Christian view in the founding of our country, then you might more accurately call it the Christian America-view instead of worldview. The Christians who first came here were seeking a life free from religious persecution, to practice as they wished. This was not a worldview, but something more unique to our continent, and spread in languages other than Greek.

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:03

WOW fester30. We disagree on a few things, but I really appreciate your comment. I think you and I would enjoy a coffee and some great conversation at a Starbucks or Waffle House (whichever happened to be available.)

Since fester's IP originates in Qatar, I wouldn't hold my breath. An atheist from Tennessee in a Muslim country? Huh.

I think that part of the misunderstanding is that when I say that the Christian Worldview gave birth to what we call human rights today, I am not saying that throughout the last 2000+ years that everyone involved in shaping the West were devout Christians.

Uh...yes they were. Don't be yanking out the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

What I am talking about is more of a paradigm amongst the populace.

An argument from numbers is also a fallacy.

I know that 53 of the 56 signers of the Constitution professed to be Christians.

In public. In private, most of them detested the 'faith'.

Now, were those 53 all devout Christians who would have died for their beliefs?

What? Oh yeah, they were so hardcore, they had to write in all those references to jebus, Yahweh, & the resurrection. Oh wait...
Besides, a willingness to die for a belief is no validation of it.

I have no idea, but 53 of the signers professed Christianity, and we have to consider that in that culture, being a Christians involved more than simply shaking a preacher’s hand and saying a prayer.

Or writing the Age of Reason. Or creating the Jeffersonian bible.

Those 53 men were not uneducated Christians who couldn’t even read the Bible.

This isn't Sunday school. Nor is this a novel argument.

Many of them were educated men who understood the philosophy and such of the days so, contrary to the popular idea of a Christian, they did not put on blinders and only draw from what the Bible said.

This still doesn't validate your book of fables.

These were men who lived full lives and were informed, read men.

Yeah, this isn't way off topic @ all.

I could go on about it, but what I’m saying is that these 53 signers didn’t want a theocracy any more than Jefferson or Franklin.

Do you have any NEW information? This is literally, old news.

I think that often atheists picture the Christian founders as a bunch of ignorant farmers who were bent on excluding everyone who wasn’t like them and that they were restrained by the 3 nonChristian signers.

Where on earth do you get these stupid fucking ideas? Obviously you don't do any research, & jump to conclusions. Talk about hasty generalizations.

The only way that the country would be able to stand together in a revolution would have been if the people would have been able to come together and focus on the commons, whether it be Baptist, Episcopalian or Christian, Judaism.

Remember Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli? Signed by Madison, unanimously passed by House & Senate, published in all the newspapers? Nobody got upset 1 iota?
That simple article deflates all your stupid nonsense.

Also, the Christian Founders didn’t want that either.

Yet oddly, they didn't put anything religious in writing in the founding documents. Odd that.

When it came time for a Bill of Rights, it was argued that men held these rights for what reason?

A. That was the DoC, not the BoR, & B. it doesn't matter how they got the idea or what source you attribute it to.

If we are all merely highly intelligent animals then we don’t have any inherent rights at all.

Here's the crux of the problem w/theists: first, it's this elevated sense of self. We HAVE to be better than the animals! Pure raging egotism. Second, this introversion leads inexorably to the mistreatment of others, both human & animal. Then thirdly, it leads to these crazy ass fairy beggars taking collective credit for something that an individual did.

The human condition and desire for liberty is universal to mankind, but had not been able to put down roots and grow until the American Revolution.

That's actually right: Christianity up until then had a penchant for squashing free speech & liberty if it ventured outside strict parameters.

Some religious historians have said that one thing that contributed to the rapid growth of Christianity was the use of the Greek language and also the Latin eventually.

Blah blah. Constantine & the Nicene council. Oh, & Theodosius II & his edict that xtianity become the state religion, & pagans were put to death. Yep. That worldview sure did come in handy.

This enabled the scriptures and such to travel across a lot of miles and still be understood.

Who cares? It's all a pack of lies anyways. Not even written by the attributed authors. & you yourself stated there's no rule against lying, so why should we trust it @ all?

There was a lot of reforming to do over things like slavery, women’s rights, and all of that… and there still is, but it was this worldview that received the idea of universal human rights and enabled it to grow.

Now that right there is a lie. Your own source book states that women are inferior & slavery is permissible. So women's rights & civil rights were achieved IN SPITE OF your ridiculous superstition.

Look at the revolution after revolution that France had after our revolution. They attempted to set up a secular gov’t and began preying on the defeated classes. Blood ran through the streets, I believe, because those who came into power tried to establish a purely atheistic government.

Wow, I'm writing that 1 down on the calendar: you actually got something right!
But bringing up this point actually contradicts what you said earlier, about how the supernatural doesn't help people be more humane.
Nothing except the learning curve does that.

the Christian Worldview among the populace is what has enabled the West to enjoy the freedom and liberty that it enjoys and the prosperity that comes with it.

You are completely wrong - we enjoy freedom & liberty because as a species we evolved to finally understand it. IN SPITE OF religion, we overcame our inherent selfishness to learn that others are as deserving as we are.
The supernatural need not apply.

It’s interesting that when we speak about the “undeveloped world” or “Under-developed world” that we are referring primarily to countries with Christian Histories.

Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 02/02/2011 - 04:03

Thanks, Krys. I'm also rather new at this (1 month). If at times I don't sound like an atheist please understand I was a Christian for 33 years until 1 month ago. I'm still finding all kinds of behaviors and traditions (like saying "thank god" when I'm relieved... still catch myself doing that sometimes) that 33 years of habit build up. I hadn't realized just how much I had built that stuff into my life. I liken it to a fragmented hard drive. Bits and pieces interwoven. Anyway if you have seen my post at the bottom of the screen, you can see that I'm already experiencing a slightly less inviting working environment. I have already had to talk to one coworker about how we should avoid discussions of religion and politics in the workplace because he was getting rather angry.

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 02/01/2011 - 14:55

Krys, It's completely possible that the person is on business or in the military.

Anyway fester, again, I appreciate your comment but I think you and I are not really arguing against one another. You seem to be arguing to me that the US Gov't wasn't established as a theocracy and that the founding fathers who were Christians did not inculcate the gov't with religious tones and tenets.

I agree with that and I've never said that they did.

What I am saying again is that it was the Christian Worldview that enabled the gov't to take root and survive. I don't have the time of space here to really go into it all, but as I've already said previously the colonies were primarily divided amongst denominational divisions.

The Revolution wasn't fought and won by the founding fathers. It was the colonists who fought and won the war as well as supported the gov't that came from it. What I am saying is that it was their worldview that enabled the ideals of guys like Locke and etc to finally take root and grow.

Oh, something else that's off topic that I'd love to discuss some other time and place besides here is that your assertion that Jesus and etc were communists simply isn't true... but this isn't the place for a church history discussion. Maybe you can find me on FB and we can discuss it there?

And, we aren't really a representative democracy either. We are a democratic Republic which is a little different.

Anyway, I think we've strayed way off topic from where we started with the prayer menus. I think the atheistic sailors should simply set the menus aside and enjoy their meal.

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 02/01/2011 - 15:45

I'm an American, born in Illinois, lived five years in Tennessee, and currently reside in Arkansas. I am a deployed military member, which is why my IP isn't US.

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 02/01/2011 - 19:53

Sorry Fester. Over the years, I've had to chase off all sorts of people: people pretending to be atheists, theists pretending to be other theists, & I've even banned actual real atheists (as well as had some nasty exchanges).
I figured you probably were stationed over there, which is why I waited for confirmation.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 01/31/2011 - 17:29

I can say from my personal experience that prayer in the military happens not just on menus, but before nearly every official ceremony, whether that be change of command, retirement, Memorial or Veterans' Days, etc. It's always a Christian prayer "in Jesus' name." Not once have I heard a praise to Allah, Mother Nature, or any other subject of worship. As a former Christian, it was very comforting and easy to be in the military, knowing that not only was I in the majority but could speak openly about it. I also had believed I was in the majority as a conservative Republican. I even talked down to atheists and liberals and derided them for their views. Now I feel guilt for these behaviors (proof that God didn't invent remorse, therefore he didn't invent morals).

Within the last six months I have realized that I was always a little atheist in denial, masking my inner confusion and disbelief about what did not make sense with bravado in my faith and obnoxious behavior in its defense. Meantime, I was going about my life to learn science, history, literature, and art while purposely avoiding any part of these subjects that I knew would force my little atheist out of the prison where I held him.

Since I am now the not-so-little atheist, I have a different view of the military. While not as hostile as I expected it to be, there are many arcane (thank you spell check) traditions that seem an uphill battle for any of a differing view than Christianity (not just atheists). The prayers are just the tip of the iceberg. There are also the office conversations, the test mentioned in this article, and other such things that rear their head from year to year. The UCMJ even still contains some archaic (thank you again spell check) articles originating from a conservative religious view. There is currently an article banning sodomy (without an exception for consensual sodomy, so we can only make love missionary style through a hole in a sheet that we must keep between us, lest we see each others' nakedness). There is an article banning adultery. Until recently, homosexuals were banned (finally that will be taken care of shortly).

Even so, while the military has its ignorance and, at times, its bigotry, there are things that can be done that work. While there isn't much one individual alone can do to change the overall culture, talking about it in the chain of command really can make a difference at the local unit level. While I may not be able to change the individual attitudes of the coworkers toward me, I can change the way they talk and joke about religion and politics, as it is unlawful discrimination and harassment, even in the laws of the military. Commanders have to deal with the legal office on nearly a daily basis, so most of them completely understand the ramifications of discrimination and harassment, and will make every effort to make things right to the best of their ability. They may not be able to change the culture enough to strip the protocol of a change of command ceremony of its Christian invocation, but they can ensure the workplace is an environment more accepting to those of any belief system, whether Christian, Muslim, Pagan, or none of the above.

Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 02/02/2011 - 12:47

fester, excellent post, although I am a little late reading it. I can't say that I am happy that you have declared yourself an atheist, but we all have to draw our own conclusions about it. The last thing I'll ever try to do is intimidate someone into the faith. This wasn't an issue years ago when the Romans were feeding us to lions.

Anyway, I like your outlook too and honestly, I wish you the best in trying to change the system from the inside like you've talked about. That is really what I want too in the culture in general. I am 100% for an atheists (or whatever) coming into the public square and making his argument. I just want Christians to also be there and not dismissed out of hand simply because someone who is there thinks that we don't deserve time at the podium or whatever.

I know... I know... the church has held state power for centuries... that's not what I'm talking about. Everyone here knows as well as I do that politicians use religion for their own power. If the reigning paradigm was atheism then every politician would be an atheist too.

I heard a radio interview from a Christian author this week about a book he had written where he chastised Christians for the tone they take when dealing with people inside and outside of the church who disagree with him. It was interesting so I think I may buy the book. What he was saying is sort of what I say all the time. We can disagree on ideas and still be agreeable as people. He was the president of some Nazarene college somewhere. I forget where.

Anyway, I enjoyed your post. Good luck with your struggle.

Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 02/02/2011 - 16:34

I don't have a problem with Christians in the public square... if Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Buddhists, atheists, etc, were also provided the same opportunity. Freedom to assemble is there, and there are of course permit laws and such that allow peaceful assembly in public places. I didn't like what the World Church of the Creator (racist group) had to say, but I didn't argue with their right to say it.

As it pertains to the subject of this post, a prayer on a menu isn't quite the same, nor is a cross, Star of David, or crescent moon on public land. I'll use the same argument the conservatives use when it comes to many things in government. It's a slippery slope. A little ten commandments in front of one little courthouse may not seem like much. When people who don't follow the Abrahamic religions (is that a word?) see it, the fear is if we allow one concession of the appearance of the state sponsoring a religion, do we set ourselves up for greater abuses? If we give them an inch will they take a mile?

Nice having a conversation about the issues, however, instead of attempting to push our reasons to believe or not believe in god on each other. I agree with you on that.

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 02/04/2011 - 05:26

fester,

When I say "in the public square," I don't mean having an assembly of Christians on Main Street, America. What I mean is in the arena of public discourse in academics, politics, public policy making, education and etc. I mean, for instance, that some people even on this board dismiss what a Christian says simply because he holds a Christian worldview and not because of anything in error in his argument.

Their position seems to be, "Since he holds to the idea of the Theos, nothing he says is of any value whatsoever so we need not listen to him or try to defeat his arguments through logic and reason. He simply needs to sit down and shut up and let us atheists handle this."

That position completely ignores the contribution of the Church to the development of civilization as we know it, but that seems to be the sentiment with most every atheist I've ever talked with. I almost NEVER bring up anything to do with theology, scripture or anything of the sort, but atheists will make that leap and attack my religious beliefs rather than defeating my argument through reason.

This is what I mean by theists having a voice in the public square.

I understand your analogy of the slippery slope, but I see a weakness in it. To say that we are on a slope is to say that we are on one position and we are stepping off and sliding to another.

This doesn't really fit, because religious symbols have been a part of the American life since its beginning and even before. The slope analogy would hold true only if we had started as a secular nation and colonies without any inclusion of religion at all and then recently began to see religious symbols, prayer and etc creeping in.

In that situation we could say that allowing religion in the state arena is a slippery slope.

This is not the case. Religion has long been a part of the American life. When you go to Washington D.C. you see granite and marble buildings with Christian writings, prayers and scriptures engraved into the rock itself. Religion isn't something that has recently become a part of America. The removal of religion from public life is what is relatively new.

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:53

I mean, for instance, that some people even on this board dismiss what a Christian says simply because he holds a Christian worldview and not because of anything in error in his argument.

Excuse me? That's BS. If you were an atheist & made some of those 'arguments', I'd still call bullshit. In fact, I've done it many times in the past.
I don't hand out free passes. To anyone.

That position completely ignores the contribution of the Church to the development of civilization as we know it, but that seems to be the sentiment with most every atheist I’ve ever talked with.

That's because religion has always been a major road block to progress.

but atheists will make that leap and attack my religious beliefs rather than defeating my argument through reason.

Again, utter shit.
I have primarily gone after your incredibly unreasonable speculations w/nothing but reason. That I've been unkind in the process is irrelevant. To claim criticism of an opinion as criticism of the holder is a non-sequitur.

I understand your analogy of the slippery slope, but I see a weakness in it. To say that we are on a slope is to say that we are on one position and we are stepping off and sliding to another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.
In this case, Fester is 100% right. To nutshell it: give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile.

When you go to Washington D.C. you see granite and marble buildings with Christian writings, prayers and scriptures engraved into the rock itself.

Along w/statues & plaques of Greek/Roman gods.

Religion isn’t something that has recently become a part of America.

Zen master of the bleedin' obvious, you are.

The removal of religion from public life is what is relatively new.

As usual, missing the big picture.
A. America was founded on secular values,
B. The demographic of religious diversity has changed radically in the last 50 years,
C. Why can't you folks just keep it to yourselves? &
D. We have far too many religious wackaloons who have some kind of control in our government.
& you're still WRONG about the Treaty of Tripoli. It spells out in unambiguous language that America is in no way founded on your superstition.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 02/07/2011 - 06:01

Krys,
your wiki link supports what I am saying about a slippery slope. Religion has long been a major part of American life from the beginning of the colonies. IN order for the slippery slope analogy to work theism would have to be a new paradigm that society would be moving towards. There has to be a top of the hill. There is and it is the historical religious beliefs of the society. At the bottom is complete secularism and society is moving in that direction. Because of this, there is no "inch" to give the church... the church has held the entire yardstick for centuries. What the humanists are doing is taking the inch.... not giving it.

Why can't we just keep it to ourselves? Well, because we don't have to. We have the same human rights to speech and religion and etc that everyone else does. We get to come to the public square and speak just like you do. Why are you afraid of the free discourse of ideas?

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 02/07/2011 - 11:20

your wiki link supports what I am saying about a slippery slope.

In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also known as thin edge of the wedge, or the camel's nose) is a classic form of argument, arguably an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.
So yes, it does support Fester's contention.

IN order for the slippery slope analogy to work theism would have to be a new paradigm that society would be moving towards.

First, that isn't true. There is no stipulation that a trend has to be new. Second, 1 only has to chart the idiocies of the intelligent design movement to see how the slippery slope isn't a fallacy in some regards.

There has to be a top of the hill.

More absolutism from the religious. No newsflash there.

There is and it is the historical religious beliefs of the society.

Trust me, religion's a deep gully, not an apex.

At the bottom is complete secularism and society is moving in that direction.

So...you see secularism as what? A disease? Lowest rung on the ladder? Do you know what 'secular' means?

Because of this, there is no “inch” to give the church…

It never should have had the mileage it got.

the church has held the entire yardstick for centuries.

& that doesn't seem inequitable to you, does it?

What the humanists are doing is taking the inch…. not giving it.

After centuries of the 'church' ramming the yardstick up people's arses, I say good riddance.

Why can’t we just keep it to ourselves?

You mean like pestering atheists on an all atheist blog?

Well, because we don’t have to. We have the same human rights to speech and religion and etc that everyone else does.

That's never been anyone's contention. Of course you have the same rights as anyone else. Who has suggested otherwise?

We get to come to the public square and speak just like you do.

As long as you leave it there. You start legislating based on your superstitions? Uh uh, no thanks.

Why are you afraid of the free discourse of ideas?

Wow, you're just not getting it. You got nothing. It's all a bunch of primitive anachronistic superstitious ritual. There's no substance, no philosophy, no evidence scientific or otherwise.
Until you come w/something more than some occultic trappings, arguments from antiquity AND from authority, or debunked crap from Craig, Aquinas, or Anselm, you are relegated to the cheap comic relief.
Sorry.