demagogue on 2/12/2008 at 21:12
I have a lot of thoughts on this, but I'd have to start with the general caveat, if you're going to research this seriously, you need critical distance. (The old-hat vehicle to that is to pretend you're a Martian anthropologist that has absolutely no stake in how the answer comes out.)
That sign looks familiar as part of a general human practice to maintain (... define, ...fight over) a narrative continuity with a regime's "Founding" moment. At its root, it's an issue in the phenomenology of regime legitimacy (anyway, that's one productive way of looking at it). To a lesser extent, you could usefully look at it as an issue of political struggle and agency. And it's embedded in a social context with a particular history, tradition and sociology that fett was getting into.
But I think if you read up on how humans in lots of different contexts have dealt with maintaining the sovereignty and legitimacy of their regime by invoking "Founding" values, and how they go about defining (fighting for) what those values are ... in both political, legal, and theological contexts (all parts of the same phenomenology, really), it would get you to a stronger theory that has a lot more generality than just what this one guy was thinking. (You could start with Max Weber, or Paul Ricoeur for a more theological perspective.)
Shoshin on 2/12/2008 at 21:12
Quote Posted by raph
For the sake of fairness, let's point out that Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on violence, it shares this trait with many other <s>superstitions</s>religions.
For the sake of even more fairness, let's point out that religions don't have a monopoly on violence, it shares that trait with many other organizations that include people.
ercles on 2/12/2008 at 21:13
Also, on a larger scale, it's not like religion is the only thing at play in a lot of these large scale acts of violence. I always had the impression that it was used as a tool to take advantage of those less educated in achieving other goals. It's not like the sole aim, or even the key aim in Iraq or Afghanistan is to wipe out another religion.
Kolya on 2/12/2008 at 21:38
They're praying, in the name of Christ, that their new leaders hold dear that, which this country was founded (on). It's just missing some commata.
"We must pray, that our new leaders hold dear that, which this country was founded, in the name of Christ."
Seems fine to me, and not aggressive at all. Just a bit badly worded.
Nicker on 2/12/2008 at 22:06
Pretty much what fett said.
But why just bitch when you can take charge in one of three ways -
(
http://www.churchsigngenerator.com/) Classic Mode (with 17 styles to choose from)
(
http://www.says-it.com/wbc/) Westboro Baptist - for the hard core believers
(
http://www.says-it.com/cos/) And for adherents of the Church Of Cruise... (revisionist scum excepted - that means you, fett!)
Old Hat, I know but new and improved Old Hat.
Strangeblue on 2/12/2008 at 22:52
Hm, this is funny. Here are our homegrown wingnuts saying the Constitution is based in a specific religion and yet, I was informed by some Canadians just before our election that the Founding Fathers were atheists.
I'm sure this comes as a surprise to them, if they were paying attention in some ghostly way, since IIRC one was a Unitarian minister, another was a staunch and active Methodist, while another was a member of the Society of Friends (Quakers). Granted, Jefferson was a deist of no particular church affiliation, but he certainly wasn't an atheist. He believed in a God, just not that particular Christian stripe that was pretty popular at the time and definitely not the C of E version.
The Constitution quite specifically separates Church and State, not to protect the State, but to protect religion from the state. Since they all had separate and individual practices, the founders wanted to make sure everyone after them got to have the same freedom they desired. That's the primary motivation for the Constitutional clause about separation of Church and State. Most of them were religious men, but they weren't necessarily Fundamentalist Christians and the definitely didn't want the government of their new nation to be based on or favoring any one religion. This is all fairly obvious when you read the Jefferson and Adams letters, so the resurgent harangues by certain loud God-botherers about this being a "Christian nation" and how we must return to those roots if we're to remain strong and powerful and blah, blah, blah... amuse me in a not-so-amused sort of, man-are-you-misguided sort of way. I do wish people were actually taught some of this stuff in school. And I wish they actually paid attention. I also wish the ardent God-botherers would STFU.
There. I'm done.
BEAR on 2/12/2008 at 23:01
I don't think that religion being attacked by the state has historically been as much of a problem as vice versa.
And I don't think the founding fathers were "athiests" as such, I'm not sure when the term was coined exactly but what I've mostly heard and read was that they were (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deist) deists.
sergeantgiggles on 2/12/2008 at 23:21
Quote Posted by BEAR
I don't think that religion being attacked by the state has historically been as much of a problem as vice versa.
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims)
Although the Founding Fathers were in no way predominately Christian, the role that religious persecution played in the founding of the American colonies cannot be denied.
Scots Taffer on 3/12/2008 at 00:19
Quote Posted by Shoshin
For the sake of even more fairness, let's point out that religions don't have a monopoly on violence, it shares that trait with many other organizations that include people.
FUCKING BOOOM
stone cold right there, folks
heywood on 3/12/2008 at 01:08
Quote Posted by Strangeblue
Hm, this is funny. Here are our homegrown wingnuts saying the Constitution is based in a specific religion and yet, I was informed by some Canadians just before our election that the Founding Fathers were
atheists.
I'm sure this comes as a surprise to them, if they were paying attention in some ghostly way, since IIRC one was a Unitarian minister, another was a staunch and active Methodist, while another was a member of the Society of Friends (Quakers). Granted, Jefferson was a deist of no particular church affiliation, but he certainly wasn't an atheist. He believed in a God, just not that particular Christian stripe that was pretty popular at the time and definitely not the C of E version.
The Constitution quite specifically separates Church and State, not to protect the State, but to protect religion
from the state. Since they all had separate and individual practices, the founders wanted to make sure everyone after them got to have the same freedom they desired. That's the primary motivation for the Constitutional clause about separation of Church and State. Most of them were religious men, but they weren't necessarily Fundamentalist Christians and the definitely didn't want the government of their new nation to be based on or favoring any one religion. This is all fairly obvious when you read the Jefferson and Adams letters, so the resurgent harangues by certain loud God-botherers about this being a "Christian nation" and how we must return to those roots if we're to remain strong and powerful and blah, blah, blah... amuse me in a not-so-amused sort of, man-are-you-misguided sort of way. I do wish people were actually taught some of this stuff in school. And I wish they actually paid attention. I also wish the ardent God-botherers would STFU.
There. I'm done.
I'll quibble by saying that deism is a creation philosophy borne from rationalism and not really a religion. Quite a few of the Founding Fathers were deists, most famously Thomas Paine who wrote scathing criticisms of organized religion.
But otherwise, I think you're right on the money. Unfortunately, most Americans think of the Founding Fathers as a homogeneous bunch and are unaware of the diversity of religious, philosophical, and political views they held. I find it amazing that the states were able to come together under the Constitution given the kind of differences that would probably lead to a civil war today.
