Fundamentalism

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Whodey: "I wonder if such people could be labeled fundamentalists even though they profess atheism? "

Oh, sure. Our resident agnostic fundamentalist is no1marauder. The Constitution of the United States of America forms his holy scripture. His god, his idol, is Liberal freedom of which a statue can be admired in the harbour of New York, donated by the French and called "Marianne".

This is the United States. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land here, not the bible.

Originally posted by rwingett
This is the United States. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land here, not the bible.

Exactly, and that's why it is possible that there are secular fundamentalists with the Constitution as their holy scriptures and liberal freedom as their idol.

These fundamentalists, same as other fundamentalists of other ideologies, hold the opinion they are allowed to kill in the name of their god. In the case of secular fundamentalism they think they are allowed to kill unborn human beings, they think they are allowed to kill themselves and they are allowed to kill handicapped or ill people, if it meets the requirements of their ideology.

The above, the position that one is allowed to kill in certain circumstances in the name of one's god and that one claims to have his or her explicite blessing(=permission) to do so, is one of the fundamental aspects of ALL fundamentalism, be it religious or secular.

Originally posted by rwingett
This is the United States. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land here, not the bible.

.... by the way, this is not the United States, this is the internet community, as you know an international entity.

Originally posted by rwingett
The claim that they are not referring to any specific god is a disingenuous one. Even though it's not explicitly stated, it's painfully obvious which god they mean. But even if it wasn't, it wouldn't matter. The fact remains that the phrase endorses the belief in a god of some type. There are many citizens in this country who have no belief in any god and f de reflecting upon anyone's religious faith, it makes far more sense to remove them all.

Just for the sake of arguement lets say that the God that is refered to is the judeo-Christian God. To be honest with you, I would have to agree with your assumption that the Christian God is the God being referred to. After all, the consensus religion in the culture the Founding Fathers presided over was Christianity. I don't think any one disputes that. For example, I doubt seriously they had to avoid offending any Hindus in the early years of the new government. I do realize that there seemed to be some atheists as well as Deists among the mix but they do not seem to have been the consensus. Therefore, it is my conviction that the founders primary concern was to avoid a theocracy and that they have done and at the same time not to go to war with the religious heritage that was based in Christianity that helped form this country. After all, I see no evidence of a cultural war we see today between those of faith and secular humanists.

The founding fathers in no way wanated a state sponsored church. This is the way I interpret them not respecting the "establishment" of any particular organized religion rather than shunning the beliefs of a particular religion as we see today. After all, there is a huge difference between shunning the politics of organized religion and shunning the beliefs of a particular set of religious beliefs and ideals. Here are a few examples to prove my point. In 1781 Congress approved the purchase of Bibles to be used in schools.
Where was the outcry from our Founding Fathers? My guess is that none of you will be able to provide me with any. My only conclusion then is that they would have to have been in agreement with this decision, no? Still not convinced? In 1787 Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance which outlines requirements for governments of new territories so they can quilify for statehood. Article 3 or the Northwest Ordinance directs the people of the territories to extablish schools "to teach religion, morality, and knowledge." Nearly every state admitted to he Union after this has written in their State Constitution wording that the schools are to teach morality and religoin and they all use the Bible as the basis for thier teachings. Granted, there is no doubt in my mind that when Congress said that religion must be taught in schools, they were referring to the religion of Christianity since this was the majority consensus in the early years of this country and since they endorsed using the Bible. You see the Christian religion was so engrained in their thinking that they did not feel it necessary to say to teach the Christian religoin and that the Bible should be used to teach religion. However, does this endorse any particular state sponsored church? No, in fact it did not. Had it endorsed a particular church to teach religion I think they would have been corrected and this would not have been included in the Ordinance because it would have been a direct violation of the Constitution. Could you imagine such an Ordinance being passed today? You see our culture is much different than that of our founding fathers. There is, in fact, no comparison between the secularism of today and the seculurism in the days of our founding fathers.

Originally posted by whodey
Just for the sake of arguement lets say that the God that is refered to is the judeo-Christian God. To be honest with you, I would have to agree with your assumption that the Christian God is the God being referred to. After all, the consensus religion in the culture the Founding Fathers presided over was Christianity. I don't think any one disputes that. ...[text shortened]... son between the secularism of today and the seculurism in the days of our founding fathers.

The first amendment to to the constitution was not even proposed until 1789, and not ratified unil 1791. The northern ordinance was passed under the articles of confederation. The first amendment was the response o the founding fathers to inadequate guarantees of civil liberites, including the freedom to practise any religion or lack therof.

Originally posted by whiterose
The first amendment to to the constitution was not even proposed until 1789, and not ratified unil 1791. The northern ordinance was passed under the articles of confederation. The first amendment was the response o the founding fathers to inadequate guarantees of civil liberites, including the freedom to practise any religion or lack therof.

So after the Constitution was ratified the founding fathers thought it fitting to continue to allow children to learn morals via the Bible? So what I have shown is before, during, and after the Constitution was ratified this was thopught fitting to continue. How about the fact that in 1890 the Supreme Court ruled that America "is a religious people.....this is a Christian nation" as such it is fitting that its people would teach their children the Christian faith. This was stated in the Trinity Case. Can you imagine this being said today?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
.... by the way, this is not the United States, this is the internet community, as you know an international entity.

begging to differ , this is an American site that allows you foreigners to annoy us.

Originally posted by whodey
So after the Constitution was ratified the founding fathers thought it fitting to continue to allow children to learn morals via the Bible? So what I have shown is before, during, and after the Constitution was ratified this was thopught fitting to continue. How about the fact that in 1890 the Supreme Court ruled that America "is a religious people.....this ...[text shortened]... Christian faith. This was stated in the Trinity Case. Can you imagine this being said today?

I was doing some research recently and was very suprised at the large number of people who were sentenced to death, not by hanging, firing squad, electric chair, or lethal injection. They were burned at the stake even as late as the mid-1800's. Do you think that was indicative of a Christian nation?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Exactly, and that's why it is possible that there are secular fundamentalists with the Constitution as their holy scriptures and liberal freedom as their idol.

These fundamentalists, same as other fundamentalists of other ideologies, hold the opinion they are allowed to kill in the name of their god. In the case of secular fundamentalism they think they ...[text shortened]... to do so, is one of the fundamental aspects of ALL fundamentalism, be it religious or secular.

Well, of course people are allowed to kill themselves! When did we become so all-powerful as to stop that from happening?

Originally posted by frogstomp
begging to differ , this is an American site that allows you foreigners to annoy us.

This is still not the United States of America.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Well, of course people are allowed to kill themselves! When did we become so all-powerful as to stop that from happening?

Since when does your god allow people to kill themselves ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Since when does your god allow people to kill themselves ?

From day one when he gave us freewill.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
This is still not the United States of America.

However , its still governed by the laws of the United States

Originally posted by kirksey957
From day one when he gave us freewill.

Does this mean he also allows us to steal and lie ?

Originally posted by frogstomp
However , its still governed by the laws of the United States

Is it ?