If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wisconsin Gazette)   Holy cow. Third of Americans support Christianity as official religion   (wisconsingazette.com) divider line 251
    More: Interesting, Americans, Christianity, churches, North Carolina Republicans, school prayer  
•       •       •

4900 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Apr 2013 at 12:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



251 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-08 05:14:50 PM

Stone Meadow: Hey, 18% believe that the sun orbits the earth.


Technically the idea that the sun orbits the earth and that the earth orbits the sun are equally true. The math is just much easier to work with in the latter case.

/Actually I'm the center of the universe, and everything moves around me.
 
2013-04-08 05:19:36 PM
Religious Right.

"I don't trust the damn government to do anything right!"
"I want the government involved in my religion"

Whaaaa?
 
2013-04-08 05:21:06 PM

Mr. Right: Try as you may, you cannot deny the influence of Biblical philosophy on the founding of this country.


Maybe you can't...

In any case, there was one source that influenced the Founders waaaaaaay more than anything biblical: the Roman Republic.  Designed entirely by pagans.

The Founders, and the ancient Romans had much better ideas about governing than anything in the bible BY FAR.
 
2013-04-08 05:27:14 PM

nocturnal001: Religious Right.

"I don't trust the damn government to do anything right!"
"I want the government involved in my religion"

Whaaaa?


They don't understand that inviting Washington into your church and taking your church to Washington are the same exact thing.
 
2013-04-08 05:29:41 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Mr. Right: Try as you may, you cannot deny the influence of Biblical philosophy on the founding of this country.

Maybe you can't...

In any case, there was one source that influenced the Founders waaaaaaay more than anything biblical: the Roman Republic.  Designed entirely by pagans.

The Founders, and the ancient Romans had much better ideas about governing than anything in the bible BY FAR.


To say nothing of the fact that the Christian concepts of laws and morality were not invented by Christianity at all.  It's obvious that things like "don't steal" and "don't kill people" were the norm for pretty much any human society.  We even see some of these moral concepts in primates, or even lower animals such as rats.

The Bible = Captain Obvious, except for the dumb shiat rules like "no meat on fridays" or "don't shave your beard".
 
2013-04-08 05:30:57 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: /Actually I'm the center of the universe, and everything moves around me.


Technically, so is everywhere else, but that's another issue.

/but you knew that
 
2013-04-08 05:53:28 PM

Kali-Yuga: Sorry but you lose what little credibility you may have had with this statement regardless of how broadly you want to define the term "founding fathers."


FarkinHostile: Really? What laws are based on:


The Ten Commandments are the most recognizable set of laws from the Bible.  Were they adopted verbatim?  Of course not.  Doesn't change the fact that the philosophy was used.

You reference the Code of Hammurabi.  You do realize that it was codified almost 1000 years after the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt, within 40 years of which the Hebrews had the Ten Commandments and the laws of Leviticus?  No Biblical fragments from that era are preserved, probably owing to the fact that the Israelites were taken into captivity and their Temple destroyed twice in the ensuing years.  There's a better chance that the Code of Hammurabi was based on the 5 books of the Pentatuch than the other way around.

The Magna Carta, by the way, was written by the English while they were still Catholic.  Christianity was the official religion of the Crown from about the 6th century - or about 600 years before the Magna Carta.  You don't suppose their religion had any influence on the writers do you?

Why does the left expend so much effort attempting to discredit any Judeo-Christian philosophical influence on our laws?  I agree that too many fundamentalists try to put too much religion into government and that is wrong.  A lot of the interpretations by various religions and sects are questionable at best. But facts are still facts.  The Bible was a predominant influence in much of Western Civilization.
 
2013-04-08 06:02:20 PM

FarkinHostile: Mr. Right: Try as you may, you cannot deny the influence of Biblical philosophy on the founding of this country.

No? Could, oh, say Thomas Jefferson?:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

The Treaty of Tripoli


Ah, what the fark did he know about the founding of this country?


You'll note that the treaty specifically states that it was not founded on the Christian religion.  It never eschewed the philosophical roots.  There is a difference, as noted by Jefferson himself.  The Jefferson Bible, which is widely criticized by Christians, only cut out what Jefferson thought to be supernatural actions.  He was actually a fan of the moral and ethical teachings of Christ.

If you read the rest of the paragraph of the Treaty, Jefferson is basically being obsequious to the Muslims in Tripoli.  Probably something to do with trying to make sure the Barbary Pirates didn't confiscate any more of our ships and enslave any more of our sailors.  Given that we were about as far from a global superpower as a country could be in those days, it may have been the better part of valor.
 
2013-04-08 06:05:17 PM

Mr. Right: The Ten Commandments are the most recognizable set of laws from the Bible. Were they adopted verbatim? Of course not. Doesn't change the fact that the philosophy was used.


What variation of "Thou shall have no other gods before me" is American law? If there was one, it would be against the very first amendment of the constitution. I could do that with 7 of the 10 commandments. They are worthless. The other 3 are common in EVERY culture/society on the face of the planet. Seriously. If that meets your criteria for "substantial basis of American Law." I cannot help you.

Yes, Christianity has a strong cultural influence in the US. Obviously. But it's not the basis of our laws, it's not the basis of morality, nor should it ever be allowed to be.
 
2013-04-08 06:09:29 PM

TV's Vinnie: Remember when we had an official religion in the US? Good times.

[aislingrunswithunicorns.files.wordpress.com image 404x499]


Where can I get a ladder hat?
 
2013-04-08 06:10:08 PM

Mr. Right: FarkinHostile: Mr. Right: Try as you may, you cannot deny the influence of Biblical philosophy on the founding of this country.

No? Could, oh, say Thomas Jefferson?:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

The Treaty of Tripoli


Ah, what the fark did he know about the founding of this country?

You'll note that the treaty specifically states that it was not founded on the Christian religion.  It never eschewed the philosophical roots.  There is a difference, as noted by Jefferson himself.  The Jefferson Bible, which is widely criticized by Christians, only cut out what Jefferson thought to be supernatural actions.  He was actually a fan of the moral and ethical teachings of Christ.

If you read the rest of the paragraph of the Treaty, Jefferson is basically being obsequious to the Muslims in Tripoli.  Probably something to do with trying to make sure the Barbary Pirates didn't confiscate any more of our ships and enslave any more of our sailors.  Given that we were about as far from a global superpower as a country could be in those days, it may have been the better part of valor.



So they were just taking the piss then?

Hmmm, seems like if these guys really felt that we were a Christian nation they would have let God handle it.  Right?  Doesn't seem like they had much in the way of faith then does it?

Mr. Right: Kali-Yuga: Sorry but you lose what little credibility you may have had with this statement regardless of how broadly you want to define the term "founding fathers."

FarkinHostile: Really? What laws are based on:

The Ten Commandments are the most recognizable set of laws from the Bible. Were they adopted verbatim? Of course not. Doesn't change the fact that the philosophy was used.

You reference the Code of Hammurabi. You do realize that it was codified almost 1000 years after the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt, within 40 years of which the Hebrews had the Ten Commandments and the laws of Leviticus? No Biblical fragments from that era are preserved, probably owing to the fact that the Israelites were taken into captivity and their Temple destroyed twice in the ensuing years. There's a better chance that the Code of Hammurabi was based on the 5 books of the Pentatuch than the other way around.

The Magna Carta, by the way, was written by the English while they were still Catholic. Christianity was the official religion of the Crown from about the 6th century - or about 600 years before the Magna Carta. You don't suppose their religion had any influence on the writers do you?

Why does the left expend so much effort attempting to discredit any Judeo-Christian philosophical influence on our laws? I agree that too many fundamentalists try to put too much religion into government and that is wrong. A lot of the interpretations by various religions and sects are questionable at best. But facts are still facts. The Bible was a predominant influence in much of Western Civilization.



So before the 10 commandments do you think human societies allowed people to murder and steal from each other?
 
2013-04-08 06:10:22 PM

Mr. Right: FarkinHostile: Mr. Right: Try as you may, you cannot deny the influence of Biblical philosophy on the founding of this country.

No? Could, oh, say Thomas Jefferson?:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

The Treaty of Tripoli


Ah, what the fark did he know about the founding of this country?

You'll note that the treaty specifically states that it was not founded on the Christian religion.  It never eschewed the philosophical roots.  There is a difference, as noted by Jefferson himself.  The Jefferson Bible, which is widely criticized by Christians, only cut out what Jefferson thought to be supernatural actions.  He was actually a fan of the moral and ethical teachings of Christ.

If you read the rest of the paragraph of the Treaty, Jefferson is basically being obsequious to the Muslims in Tripoli.  Probably something to do with trying to make sure the Barbary Pirates didn't confiscate any more of our ships and enslave any more of our sailors.  Given that we were about as far from a global superpower as a country could be in those days, it may have been the better part of valor.


Actually, I agree with all of this. Yet Christianity is based on the philosophical roots of other ancient societies/communities/religions. Too often citing the 10 commandments as a basis of American law is a tactic by fanatics to push a religious agenda on us.

/I am also fan of the moral and ethical teachings of Christ.
//Wish more Christians were
 
2013-04-08 06:13:28 PM
Mr. Right:
The Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt
[citation needed]

No Biblical fragments from that era are preserved.... probably

No evidence exists, so we should assume your guesses aren't just reinforcing your confirmation bias about christianity?
 
2013-04-08 06:27:01 PM
One more thing.  If it is true, as people claim that our whole nation was founded on Christian ideals then what do you want? You already won didn't you? Do you need that stamp that says "my religion is government approved' so badly?
 
2013-04-08 06:40:49 PM

Mr. Right: You reference the Code of Hammurabi.  You do realize that it was codified almost 1000 years after the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt,


No, I do not "realize" that.  The Code of Hammurabi dates to 1772 BCE. People who believe that the Exodus really happened place it hundreds of years later, while most secular historians do not think it happened at all.
 
2013-04-08 06:59:50 PM

Kali-Yuga: Mr. Right:
The Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt
[citation needed]

No Biblical fragments from that era are preserved.... probably

No evidence exists, so we should assume your guesses aren't just reinforcing your confirmation bias about christianity?


Does any of the Bible predate the Babylonian captivity?  I mean, besides the parts copied from older, non-Jewish sources during the Babylonian captivity, such as the creation story.
 
2013-04-08 07:00:28 PM
How about this... We ask God.

If he descends from heaven in his glory that cannot be mistaken for anyone else and tells us which religion he chooses as "the religion of the USA" then we go with that. No questions, no debates, that will be it for ever and ever.

If he doesn't show in three days, we can take that as an absolute "No farking way". Okay? Let's go, say it with me...

"Hey God! What religion do you want us to follow as "The religion of the USA"? If you don't show up in three days, we'll have to take your answer to be "not any religion at all". Please let us know quickly! Thank you. (Amen.)"

It's all in the Lord's hands.
 
2013-04-08 07:45:17 PM
And they agreed against making such a choice when they filled out their Civil Service forms.
 
2013-04-08 07:46:11 PM
... because, constitutionally, attempting to force the endorsement of a national, state or county religion is an act of war.  People who do so can be shot.
 
2013-04-08 07:46:59 PM

abhorrent1: Why would America need an official religion? How about you worship what you want and leave everyone else the fark alone? Does that work for you?


LMAO, have you been to America?
 
2013-04-08 07:52:51 PM
America doesn't need an "official religion" for the same reason Yemen doesn't need a constitutional right to bear arms--it's already ingrained in our society far deeper than words on paper could effect.

As long as atheists and followers of non-Christian religions stay politically marginalized, it doesn't matter what the government letterhead says.
 
2013-04-08 08:24:09 PM

Overfiend: HazMatt: Overfiend: God's Hubris: Believe women are incapable of making decisions about their own bodies. Check.

This argument/point is far from the truth.

Those who are Pro-life arent against a woman making decisions about her own body.  Pro-lifers believe the unborn baby (fetus) is a living being - and that's who they wish to protect.  Most Pro-lifers would care less if a woman wanted to go out and:

Get tattoos
Get piercings/body modifications
Get cosmetic surgery
Get a hysterectomy
Or anything else for that matter...

...except dont hurt the baby inside of them.

What is the intersection between these "Pro-lifers" and those that are opposed to a woman learning about / receiving birth control? I could respect the "protect the baby" argument if it didn't so often look more like medieval slut-shaming.

I agree - many people who claim to be Pro-life are so against contraception (when that could prevent pregnancy, thereby no need for an abortion) it makes no sense.

Many Pro-lifers are also rabid Death Penalty proponents - which, again, makes no sense...


You will also find they have huge hard-ons for guns and war, too. And they really love censorship of any arts depicting sexual matters or language (violence is fine for them,).
And support the Koch bros types 100% for getting rid of OSHA regulations.

Nasty individuals.
 
2013-04-08 08:28:36 PM
Did none of you actually read the article? The poll response was that 33% would support Christianity being the official religion of their state, not of the United States. If Utah wants to make Mormon the official state religion and put it in the record books with the official state bird, the California Gull, that would be up to them.
 
2013-04-08 08:39:07 PM

MarkEC: Did none of you actually read the article?


What website did you think you came to today?
 
2013-04-08 08:43:00 PM
Hmmm, I would have thought God would have responded already.

It's not like he actually has to think about it. He already knows. He's all knowing.
Maybe it's all about "presentation". Perhaps catch us when we're all awake, to make sure we all see it at the same time...
because he can. He's God after all.

I'm sorry. I get impatient. I guess I should have said three hours, because... you know... he can do a lot of shiat in three days.
Is this too much to ask- "What do YOU want, and tell us all at one time?" from the spirit who created all the galaxies from nothing in one big bang?
 
2013-04-08 08:50:00 PM
FarkinHostile:

Actually, I agree with all of this. Yet Christianity is based on the philosophical roots of other ancient societies/communities/religions. Too often citing the 10 commandments as a basis of American law is a tactic by fanatics to push a religious agenda on us.

No, just one: Judaism.

/I am also fan of the moral and ethical teachings of Christ.
//Wish more Christians were


I'm not.  He only advocated the positive aspect of the Golden Rule:  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  He whipped a bunch of tax collectors in the temple, and they ultimately returned the favor by whipping him and then nailing him to a tree so he couldn't do it again.  I'm a fan of Confucius (long before Christ came around):  "Don't do unto others what you don't want done to you."
 
2013-04-08 08:53:17 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Does this mean they want a Department of Christianity?  A Secretary of Religion?  A bureaucracy to codify and regulate worship?

WTF does "official" mean??


3.bp.blogspot.com
I can understand why the word might confuse some.
 
2013-04-08 09:06:50 PM

MarkEC: Did none of you actually read the article? The poll response was that 33% would support Christianity being the official religion of their state, not of the United States. If Utah wants to make Mormon the official state religion and put it in the record books with the official state bird, the California Gull, that would be up to them.


How does that invalidate anything said here? If the federal govt. can not establish a state religion due to the 1st, then the states can not do it either.
 
2013-04-08 09:35:25 PM
The 1st as written does not limit the states. The 14th establishes that the rights in the constitution can't be violated by the states. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is not a right of the citizens, it is a function that is denied to the congress. A state naming an official state religion would be no more burdensome on anyone than the state having an official state bird. Is there a Farker out there that wouldn't want to see the FSM as their state's official state deity?
 
2013-04-08 09:46:52 PM

Day_Old_Dutchie: Overfiend: HazMatt: Overfiend: God's Hubris: Believe women are incapable of making decisions about their own bodies. Check.

This argument/point is far from the truth.

Those who are Pro-life arent against a woman making decisions about her own body.  Pro-lifers believe the unborn baby (fetus) is a living being - and that's who they wish to protect.  Most Pro-lifers would care less if a woman wanted to go out and:

Get tattoos
Get piercings/body modifications
Get cosmetic surgery
Get a hysterectomy
Or anything else for that matter...

...except dont hurt the baby inside of them.

What is the intersection between these "Pro-lifers" and those that are opposed to a woman learning about / receiving birth control? I could respect the "protect the baby" argument if it didn't so often look more like medieval slut-shaming.

I agree - many people who claim to be Pro-life are so against contraception (when that could prevent pregnancy, thereby no need for an abortion) it makes no sense.

Many Pro-lifers are also rabid Death Penalty proponents - which, again, makes no sense...

You will also find they have huge hard-ons for guns and war, too. And they really love censorship of any arts depicting sexual matters or language (violence is fine for them,).
And support the Koch bros types 100% for getting rid of OSHA regulations.

Nasty individuals.



Not all of them. I am Pro-life and I want to ban the death penalty.I am against censorship of art. I may hate Piss Christ and think its full of hate but I believe in the artists right and the public to see - if they choose. Also pro contraception!
 
2013-04-08 10:11:37 PM
I bet it was higher than 1/3 just after 9/11, when many tried to tie together Christianity with patriotism.
 
2013-04-08 10:38:06 PM

Mouser: America doesn't need an "official religion" for the same reason Yemen doesn't need a constitutional right to bear arms--it's already ingrained in our society far deeper than words on paper could effect.

As long as atheists and followers of non-Christian religions stay politically marginalized, it doesn't matter what the government letterhead says.


Nice to see your retarded shiat isn't limited to one thread.

MarkEC: Did none of you actually read the article? The poll response was that 33% would support Christianity being the official religion of their state, not of the United States. If Utah wants to make Mormon the official state religion and put it in the record books with the official state bird, the California Gull, that would be up to them.


I don't want any of the states making any religion the official one for them. The country was founded on not allowing one religion to be hailed as the best, leave it at that. It's up there with allowing individual states to decide whether to treat American citizens equally in the stupidity tier.
 
2013-04-08 11:05:48 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: You know, the Puritans came to the New World specifically to get away from their religion-run country because they got thrown the hell out of Europe for being a bunch of insufferable theocratic pricks, which was subsequently proven when their brothers-in-arms overthrew the legitimate government of Great Britain and turned it into a proto-dominionist "Democratic Republic" dictatorship until the legitimate King and non-religionationalist members of Parliament had to stage a counter-coup...and further proven when the Massachusetts Colony became one of the decidedly worse theocratic colonial governments to the point that the Pennsylvania Colony was founded SPECIFICALLY as a refugee colony founded by Friends, deists, and pretty much anyone who was literally in some cases running for their lives.  (As a side note, it's largely the Pennsylvania experience as well as that of Virginia deists and Baptists that led to the whole damn concept of the Bill of Rights, seeing as the excesses of the more theocratic colonies were VERY much in living memory of the Founding Fathers.)


Corrected that for you, extensively:

a) The Puritans were part of a movement that pretty much felt that not only the Protestant Reformation but the CoE splitting from the Catholic Church weren't far enough--that NO Christian church was sufficiently pure other than them--and were hardline Calvinists who were increasingly hostile to the British government to the point they were becoming a frank national security risk...basically imagine ALL the NARasites and dominionists in the US explicitly supporting not only the overthrow of the legitimate government of the US because they WON'T set up a theocracy but believed they HAD to take on the general tactics of the Army of God terrorists so that Jesus could begin his millennial reign, and you get the idea.

(And yes, that was pretty much political Puritanism in a nutshell--they were actually a sort of proto-Christian Reconstructionist group who believed that a "Christian Emperor" had to be installed as a sort of regent for Christ so as to establish the Holy Millennium.)

b) By the time that the Mayflower sailed, the tensions between the CoE and the "Reformed" churches (including the Puritans) was starting to become (to put it mildly) irreconcilable--there were already major protests over the fact that the Church of England (and the King in right of his role as head of the CoE) explicitly allowed sporting events on Sundays and the fact the King had told the Puritans that they had a rather large stick up their collective arses, not to mention their sense that the King was becoming all too friendly towards those Catholics in Spain (instead of wiping them out to the last man, woman, and child) and they were also plenty pissed that the King had not purged the CoE of everything they saw of as "Catholic and pagan influence" (things like, oh, religious holidays and the like--the first "War on Christmas", so to speak, was actually launched by religionationalists).

(Of course, the first fractures between the CoE proper and the Puritans were around even before then--probably as early as 1550 with Queen Elizabeth (the First, not Her Highness of the Royal Spanner).  The Puritans pretty much started out as a hyperfundamentalist, hyper-anti-Catholic branch of the CoE that became increasingly extremist.)

c) The one group of Puritans that a lot of folks like to mention--the Pilgrims, which were actually a group that had forked from the CoE proper--were actually not so much run from England as that the pastor behind the Pilgrims was defrocked by the CoE (for violation of canon laws), proceeded to set up shop in Amsterdam in the Netherlands, moved to Leiden a year later after a VERY major pissing-war-bordering-on-frank-religious-shooting-war with another Puritan pastor ALSO serving the British expatriate population, and finally realising that they were actually rather sick of the Goddamned Dutch they petitioned for (and received) the land grant for Plymouth Colony...whereupon landing, they were incapable of coexisting with the Narrangassett First Nation and other First Nations and launched themselves a right proper Indian War.  Oh, and one of their founding acts (along with that of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, with which it merged in the 1690s) was to make it fundamentally (pun intended) illegal to not be a Puritan, and of course Christmas was also illegal.
(For that matter, so was Thanksgiving after a while; the modern holiday in the US is largely a post-Civil War creation based on an extremely romanticised image of the initial relations between the Pilgrims and the Narrangassett.)

With the Massachusetts Bay Colony in particular (which was pretty explicitly set up as a Plan B in case a planned steeplejack of the British government failed, as I'll note below) there wasn't even anything resembling a pretense of "religious freedom"--it was set up very explicitly as a Puritan-run theocracy, and in fact there were even documented pissing wars between "separatist" Puritans (who wanted to leave the CoE altogether) and "non-separatists" (who just wanted to steeplejack the CoE and turn the whole goddamn thing into a Calvinist church that your average Southern Baptist could point at and rightfully call Farked Up).  The Rhode Island colony (and the state of Rhode Island) actually came into being as a result of at least two of these internecine pissing wars, with the "exiled" packing up and founding Their Own Damn Colony.

Oh, and pretty much one of the BIG Indian wars of the period was pretty much the direct result of the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay Colony pulling their own version of "New Tribes Mission" conversion-at-gunpoint shenanigans--apparently to them, "Passing on tradition via oral history" equaled "Not having the culture of a dog", and it was the plan of one of the head pastors to essentially round up the First Nations into "Praying Towns" where they'd be forced to convert and be "acculturated" into Western European ways and culture.  Suffice it to say that the First Nations in question objected rather strenuously to the concept...that is, when entire towns didn't die of the farking smallpox and yellow fever and manitou-only-knows what other plagues the Puritans were carrying.

d) I am also Not Farking Kidding about the Puritans eventually being seen rightfully as a major National Security Risk by the British government.  Massachusetts Bay Colony was actually founded as a sort of early bench-head and staging area for what would become known as the English Civil War (basically as a Plan B in case Glorious Reform and Revolution did not win out)--this became a sufficient concern (especially by 1640 or so when the Puritans were ACTIVELY talking about overthrowing the King of England) that immigration was actually cut off to the Colonies.

It did NOT help matters that pretty much everyone involved was being a mess of farktardedness--Charles I promoting essentially a Unitary Monarchy (which ironically would lead directly to the American Revolution when Parliament gained CONSIDERABLY more power after the Restoration and pretty much demanded that the Colonies start paying their fair share for defense due to proxy wars being fought with the French with various First Nations being used as the proxies), Parliament itself suffering essentially a steeplejacking by Puritan MPs, and the Puritans themselves promoting a conspiracy theory that Charles I was not only getting Too Goddamn Friendly With That Papist Lady In France but that the King was secretly planning to re-establish the Catholic Church as the state church of England.  (That last--basically the Age of Exploration-era version of a "birther controversy"--pretty much lit the fuse for what was to come.)

By the 1620s, the "debates" were in fact so lively that the Puritan-run Parliament basically had become the Parliament Of No in regards to pretty much any policies needed to run the country (including raising taxes, with or without representation); this had even descended into frank fisticuffs and death threats in Parliament (with one non-Puritan MP actually requesting the 17th Century equivalent of a restraining order against a Puritan MP from the King, and the head of the House of Commons being literally held down by other MPs at another point so the Puritan members of Parliament could issue an Official Condemnation Statement against the King).

The problem of Puritans steeplejacking (non-Puritan) CoE congregations had become serious enough by the 1630s and 1640s that Charles I reissued the statement that Sports Were Not Verboten On The Sabbath (the so-called Book of Sports) and ordered CoE churches to read it in their congregations--the idea being that Puritan churches would not do this, and thus be identified; he also ordered CoE churches to ramp UP the levels of ceremony that the Puritans objected to (essentially as a form of Royal Trolling).  The Ecclesiastical courts for the CoE were eventually given the right to formally try Puritans by the 1630s (by this time, the Puritans were politically powerful enough that there were calls for outlawing the theatre on the Puritan end and royals were PERFORMING theatre on the other end) and eventually culminating in the formation of the Star Chamber as a sort of Special Tribunal for trying the politically powerful...and the trial of a Puritan author for writing a "THEATRE IS FULL OF THE DEBBIL" screed RIGHT as the first royal was performing in a masque.

(This whole Star Chamber thing would of course later end up very infamous in English common parlance, basically as a synonym for a kangaroo court.)

Chuck, of course, was not only engaging in fits of Religious Trolling with the Puritans but the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, and managed to cause a Scottish Revolution in the process; the King then had to call a special session of Parliament to approve putting down the Scottish Rebellion which led to what is now called the Long Parliament (because, legally anyways, it was technically in session from 1640-ish to 1660 in a single session).

Of course, the reason said Parliament was legally (if not de facto) in session for 20 years is that in the 1640s Charles I decided to reform the Confession of Faith, which led to a resolution in Parliament which was basically "Dear Charles: You are a bad person and should feel bad for hanging around with naughty, naughty Papist scum", which led to King Chuck telling Parliament to Go Forth And Fark Themselves, which led to the Puritans banding together with the Presbyterians, which led to the Puritan-led parts of Parliament essentially launching a coup-de-etat against the King on grounds he was being Too Goddamn Friendly To Catholics (and also in the process purged Parliament of any MPs who had military ranks in the King's Army unless they signed up to the New Model Army, thus purging Parliament of royalists), which led to a theocratic dictatorship being established (including the legitimate leadership of what was left of the CoE itself being banned from government chambers), which led to the King being forced to abdicate, which eventually (after more than one attempt to pretty much lock out the Presbyterians unless they were allowed to be steeplejacked) led to Scotland saying "fark this, we were better off with the King", which led to another war which resulted in Charles I being charged with high treason and sentenced to OFF WITH HIS HEAD and a major purge of Parliament of anyone who disagreed with a minor act of regicide, which led to a worsening of the theocracy including an extremely strict government censorship scheme where pretty much most works outside of the Bible were functionally banned and an attempt to head off Charles II proclaiming himself a pretender to the throne and all fun including holidays and theatre becoming illegal as the Cromwells set themselves up as the Puritan equivalent of Kim Il Sung Et Al and a particularly nasty bout of ethnic cleansing against the Irish who had committed the Unforgivable Sin of being Terminally Catholic and finally culminating in yet another war in which the Scots basically save England and restore its legitimate government.  The Colonies, of course, did not exactly want to accept that the Puritans Had Been Pwned, and more than a few spots in the Colonies actually became safe havens for those who had killed the King and set up a proto-Republic of Gilead.

And pretty much even after that there were still attempts by Puritan-linked groups to overthrow the legitimate government afterwards, including a group called the Fifth Monarchists who would be nowadays described as a dominionist, Christian Reconstructionist, apocalyptic group which had some disturbingly influential membership (including the head of the British East India Company, arguably the most powerful corporation in the world at the time) and which believed the king was essentially an agent of the Devil and that the government of the Cromwells was a regent for Jesus--whose imminent return was expected after the seven-year reign of the Antichrist starting in 1666.  (Of note, the Fifth Monarchists were some of the central power behind the overthrow of the British government--much like NARasites and Christian Reconstructionists are the "deep core" of the modern dominionist movement.)
 
2013-04-08 11:12:53 PM

Great Porn Dragon: Keizer_Ghidorah: You know, the Puritans came to the New World specifically to get away from their religion-run country because they got thrown the hell out of Europe for being a bunch of insufferable theocratic pricks, which was subsequently proven when their brothers-in-arms overthrew the legitimate government of Great Britain and turned it into a proto-dominionist "Democratic Republic" dictatorship until the legitimate King and non-religionationalist members of Parliament had to stage a counter-coup...and further proven when the Massachusetts Colony became one of the decidedly worse theocratic colonial governments to the point that the Pennsylvania Colony was founded SPECIFICALLY as a refugee colony founded by Friends, deists, and pretty much anyone who was literally in some cases running for their lives.  (As a side note, it's largely the Pennsylvania experience as well as that of Virginia deists and Baptists that led to the whole damn concept of the Bill of Rights, seeing as the excesses of the more theocratic colonies were VERY much in living memory of the Founding Fathers.)

Corrected that for you, extensively:

a) The Puritans were part of a movement that pretty much felt that not only the Protestant Reformation but the CoE splitting from the Catholic Church weren't far enough--that NO Christian church was sufficiently pure other than them--and were hardline Calvinists who were increasingly hostile to the British government to the point they were becoming a frank national security risk...basically imagine ALL the NARasites and dominionists in the US explicitly supporting not only the overthrow of the legitimate government of the US because they WON'T set up a theocracy but believed they HAD to take on the general tactics of the Army of God terrorists so that Jesus could begin his millennial reign, and you get the idea.

(And yes, that was pretty much political Puritanism in a nutshell--they were actually a sort of proto-Christian Reconstructionist group who b ...


And this is why religion is pointless.
 
2013-04-08 11:33:55 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Mouser: America doesn't need an "official religion" for the same reason Yemen doesn't need a constitutional right to bear arms--it's already ingrained in our society far deeper than words on paper could effect.

As long as atheists and followers of non-Christian religions stay politically marginalized, it doesn't matter what the government letterhead says.

Nice to see your retarded shiat isn't limited to one thread.

MarkEC: Did none of you actually read the article? The poll response was that 33% would support Christianity being the official religion of their state, not of the United States. If Utah wants to make Mormon the official state religion and put it in the record books with the official state bird, the California Gull, that would be up to them.

I don't want any of the states making any religion the official one for them. The country was founded on not allowing one religion to be hailed as the best, leave it at that. It's up there with allowing individual states to decide whether to treat American citizens equally in the stupidity tier.


Go read some state constitutions sometime. Most go farther in their civil rights than the Fed.
 
2013-04-09 12:05:42 AM
A third of Americans are farking stupid.
 
2013-04-09 12:11:24 AM
Looks like Fat Ass had a field day trolling this thread.  No one could actually be that stupid.
 
2013-04-09 12:36:47 AM

The Bruce Dickinson: [www.godsboard.com image 600x250]


People who feed Christians to lions hate lions.  There needs to be a lion rights movement.
 
2013-04-09 12:44:48 AM

Billy Bathsalt: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."  Carlin

The number of the beast shall be 6, 6, and 7, rounded to the nearest tenth.


667 is the number of the neighbor of the beast
 
2013-04-09 12:50:43 AM
Toplines and some crosstabs released.

Most interesting-seeming thing in the crosstabs is low numbers of Hispanics saying church-state separation has gone too far, and high saying there's too much religion in politics. Sounds like a bad sign for any GOP hopes for major gains over immigration reform.

No sampling methodology details; looks to be internet-based random sample, about middle of the pack in terms of accuracy for the last POTUS race.
 
2013-04-09 01:16:44 AM

abb3w: Toplines and some crosstabs released.


*whispers* hey, those tables were released a few days ago. This LGBT site just did a shiatty job at giving you the data except for the broad overview.
 
2013-04-09 01:22:42 AM

Mr. Right: Kali-Yuga: Sorry but you lose what little credibility you may have had with this statement regardless of how broadly you want to define the term "founding fathers."

FarkinHostile: Really? What laws are based on:

The Ten Commandments are the most recognizable set of laws from the Bible.  Were they adopted verbatim?  Of course not.  Doesn't change the fact that the philosophy was used.

You reference the Code of Hammurabi.  You do realize that it was codified almost 1000 years after the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt, within 40 years of which the Hebrews had the Ten Commandments and the laws of Leviticus?  No Biblical fragments from that era are preserved, probably owing to the fact that the Israelites were taken into captivity and their Temple destroyed twice in the ensuing years.  There's a better chance that the Code of Hammurabi was based on the 5 books of the Pentatuch than the other way around.
.

That twice twice as retarded that the most retarded things said by Fat Ass and bevets combined. Throw in the subtlety of Whoopty and you've got whargarbl of earth shattering proportions.
 
2013-04-09 02:08:38 AM

Stone Meadow: ModernLuddite: //Canada, though Godless, is nice.

And by "nice" he means frozen 8 months a year. No thanks.


The most southern point in Canada is south of the California/Oregon border.
 
2013-04-09 02:42:07 AM

Bucky Katt: Billy Bathsalt: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."  Carlin

The number of the beast shall be 6, 6, and 7, rounded to the nearest tenth.

667 is the number of the neighbor of the beast


668 is the number of the neighbor of the beast.
667 is the number of the guy who lives across the street from the beast.
 
2013-04-09 02:58:42 AM

Bucky Katt: Mr. Right: Kali-Yuga: Sorry but you lose what little credibility you may have had with this statement regardless of how broadly you want to define the term "founding fathers."

FarkinHostile: Really? What laws are based on:

The Ten Commandments are the most recognizable set of laws from the Bible.  Were they adopted verbatim?  Of course not.  Doesn't change the fact that the philosophy was used.

You reference the Code of Hammurabi.  You do realize that it was codified almost 1000 years after the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt, within 40 years of which the Hebrews had the Ten Commandments and the laws of Leviticus?  No Biblical fragments from that era are preserved, probably owing to the fact that the Israelites were taken into captivity and their Temple destroyed twice in the ensuing years.  There's a better chance that the Code of Hammurabi was based on the 5 books of the Pentatuch than the other way around.
.
That twice twice as retarded that the most retarded things said by Fat Ass and bevets combined. Throw in the subtlety of Whoopty and you've got whargarbl of earth shattering proportions.


Blame the Sumerians. I'll bet they disseminated their own religious beliefs on tablets since they have the oldest known written language. After that all hell broke loose with copy cat religions cropping up with the need to document their own unwitnessed  myths from the tales of old now that writing had been invented.


I will however adopt their creation story as the only plausible story for being created by some form of a god,  "the gods originally created humans as servants for themselves, but freed them when they became too much to handle."

/ah fark it, there is no hope for the human race
 
2013-04-09 08:47:38 AM

doyner: James!: Which one?

The one that follows the version of the Bible written a short 1600 years after Christ.


Ah. Commissioned by the gay anti-smoking nut who was scared that witches were giving him the ghey and making his peener hard for young guys.
 
2013-04-09 08:50:04 AM

Tenatra: This LGBT site just did a shiatty job at giving you the data except for the broad overview.


The Huffington Post did a mediocre job too, and it was their damn poll.

So do most news outlets... though Nate Silver seems to have more people looking further down than used to.
 
2013-04-09 09:39:48 AM

Farxist Marxist: Stone Meadow: ModernLuddite: //Canada, though Godless, is nice.

And by "nice" he means frozen 8 months a year. No thanks.

The most southern point in Canada is south of the California/Oregon border.


One tiny sliver of land does not make up for the rest of the country. Besides, notice that it's also due east of Chicago, where I spent a miserable decade one year right after college frozen into my apartment and at work. Peeps assured me..."Oh, it's not much further north of NorCal...you'll LOVE it!"

Bastids!
 
2013-04-09 09:56:36 AM

Stone Meadow: Farxist Marxist: Stone Meadow: ModernLuddite: //Canada, though Godless, is nice.

And by "nice" he means frozen 8 months a year. No thanks.

The most southern point in Canada is south of the California/Oregon border.

One tiny sliver of land does not make up for the rest of the country. Besides, notice that it's also due east of Chicago, where I spent a miserable decade one year right after college frozen into my apartment and at work. Peeps assured me..."Oh, it's not much further north of NorCal...you'll LOVE it!"

Bastids!


That's why I'm in California. Can't stand the cold.
/Canadian
//Born in the arctic.
 
2013-04-09 10:22:18 AM

Farxist Marxist: That's why I'm in California. Can't stand the cold.
/Canadian
//Born in the arctic.


Indeed. My inflexible standard is if I can grow oranges, limes and grapefruit. If I can't, the place is too cold.
 
Displayed 50 of 251 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report