Discussion: Role of Religion in this Movement

[Compy]

Hello all,

I am a reformed liberal democrat and an atheist, and I think this movement is making a big mistake in alienating both. I firmly believe that Christians are suffocating this movement, and it breaks my heart. The 'Ron Paul / Tea Party movement' would be much more effective and have a much longer reach if it wasn't for the religiosity dripping from every orifice.

Here is an example: a speech by Randy Brogden of Nullify Now! in Ft. Worth, TX (my home state):

YouTube - Randy Brogdon at Nullify Now! (Part 3 of 3)

The speech is fantastic until the very end...where he starts talking about America "returning to the faith of our founding fathers" and "blessed is the nation whose God is Lord"

Hogwash. Pure and simple. God was lord of the Taliban....how blessed is that nation? Maybe the 'blessedness' of a nation has nothing to do with whichever middle-eastern fairy tale is their favorite and more to do with the policies that the Government enacts.

Joining this movement and especially these forums I was searching desperately for Christians who would see my right to be an atheist as just as important as their right to think I am wrong. Instead, what I am seeing are forum members such as "Theocrat" actively arguing for a Christian theocracy and "dale" trying to hijack "The Atheist Thread" and tell them how stupid they all are.

As an atheist in the most Christian population in the world you have to be prepared for some ideological friction.

I don't mind that our money has "In God we Trust" on it, as long as my money retains its purchasing power, it could have pictures of Justin Beiber on it for all I care.

I don't mind that the pledge of allegiance has "Under God" in it, but find it curious that Christians forget that this was added in the 1950's and in no way reflects the beliefs of our founders.

Hell, I don't even care if they have public prayer in school, because the problem is not the prayer itself, its the fact that the public school exists in the first place! If the free market was allowed to take over education then I could more easily (and cheaply) send my children to a school of my choosing, and so could Christian fundamentalists, and everyone would be much happier.

So I pose this simple question: how can supposed members of this movement, who as I understand it are proponents of limited government, say things like "blessed is the nation whose God is Lord?" The whole point of the constitution argues the opposite - 'blessed is the nation whose people are Lord.' Why is it insisted upon that only "Godly" people can get this nation back on track? Why is it accepted to demand limited Government on Obamacare while simultaneously demanding that the government step in to keep two adult males from sticking their wieners in each other's butts?

Am I incorrect in this perception (I hope I am)?

[nate895]

Yes, because pandering to a whopping 2% of the population is going to win us so many votes! And the Taliban were Christians!

[georgiaboy]

welcome to the forums!

[Compy]

Where in this post did I talk about pandering?

What I am suggesting is to focus it on the issues of limited Government. Is your veiled ad populum argument supposed to intimidate me?


So, to you specifically Dale, what's more important?
1) the right for consensual adult males to stick wieners in each other's butts on their property
2) government legislation to prevent #1 from occuring

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I think you should dig around the religion forum to get in touch with the religious sentiments expressed around here.

Other than the occasional religious thread debate most people in the Ron Paul revolution do not talk about returning to the faith of the founding fathers. Actually the faith of various founding fathers has been extensively debated.

The Ron Paul revolution focuses on restoring liberty which includes the freedom to believe whatever you want to believe and the freedom to associate with like minded people.

[nate895]

Where in this post did I talk about pandering?

What I am suggesting is to focus it on the issues of limited Government. Is your veiled ad populum argument supposed to intimidate me?

I wasn't arguing, I was making fun. You can tell when I'm arguing since I'll have discernible premises leading to a discernible conclusion, unlike most of the people on the interwebz.

[gls]

That's probably the main difference between the "Tea Party" movement and the Ron Paul Revolution. Dr. Paul may be a devout Christian but he doesn't wear it on his sleeve, or believe that it OK to use government coercion to enforce moral values. As an agnostic I never felt uncomfortable volunteering for his campaign. On the other hand, even in a largely secular state like CT, the Tea Party rallies I've attended have been full of giant crosses and proselytizing, as well as calls for things that are popular with the Christian Right, like hating gay people and war with Iran.

[Compy]

I wasn't arguing, I was making fun. You can tell when I'm arguing since I'll have discernible premises leading to a discernible conclusion, unlike most of the people on the interwebz.

Oh, then in that case I understand. How refreshing lol

And in a way you're right, it is sort of a moot point... full out "Atheism" is such a small percent (probably larger than 2, but not by much) it may have little effect

and I don't know why I insist your name is dale...

@Live_Free_or_Die

Then I'm glad to hear that. You know the saying "there's no atheists in foxholes" while that's proven untrue, it sets up what I think should be the relationship between atheists and Christians in America: An atheist and a Christian are in a foxhole together and each one is willing to die to protect the right of the other to be either atheist or Christian.

@georgiaboy
thank you! glad to finally make it here lol


In a sense, I wish we could be American first, and then Christian or atheist or whatever second.

[pcosmar]

I wasn't arguing, I was making fun. You can tell when I'm arguing since I'll have discernible premises leading to a discernible conclusion, unlike most of the people on the interwebz.

[Flash]

I'm not a Christian. But I sympathize with them over the Atheists. It seems to me a lot of Atheists in society have an axe to grind against morals, culture, and heritage. Never to mind the atheists I've encountered (in the real world, not on the internet) have a weird obsession with the State.

[heavenlyboy34]

I wasn't arguing, I was making fun. You can tell when I'm arguing since I'll have discernible premises leading to a discernible conclusion, unlike most of the people on the interwebz.

That's what I like about you, Nate, even when we disagree.

[fedup100]

I think you should dig around the religion forum to get in touch with the religious sentiments expressed around here.

Other than the occasional religious thread debate most people in the Ron Paul revolution do not talk about returning to the faith of the founding fathers. Actually the faith of various founding fathers has been extensively debated.

The Ron Paul revolution focuses on restoring liberty which includes the freedom to believe whatever you want to believe and the freedom to associate with like minded people.

wth? If you think you can have a free country without the christian religion , and I do mean the one our founders embraced, your sadly in error.

[torchbearer]

I'm not a Christian. But I sympathize with them over the Atheists. It seems to me a lot of Atheists in society have an axe to grind against morals, culture, and heritage. Never to mind the atheists I've encountered (in the real world, not on the internet) have a weird obsession with the State.

an interesting perspective.
athiest- there is no proof of god. therefore there is no god.
agnostics- there is no proof of god, but i don't know everything, so there could be a god. so there is the possiblity of a higher being of some sort.
christian- either accept jesus christ as your personal savior or go to hell. this group also supports as a whole (with exceptions) the use of the state to enforce their code of ethics on others. jesus would be proud.

[bucfish]

Never to mind the atheists I've encountered (in the real world, not on the internet) have a weird obsession with the State.

Yeah unfortunately the so called "Christians" in the world also have an obsession with the state.

[nate895]

In a sense, I wish we could be American first, and then Christian or atheist or whatever second.

That's literally impossible for the real Christian.

Oh, and btw, ad populum is a legitimate argument in certain instances, as are most "informal fallacies." In the context of who to appeal to in order to win an election, it is perfectly legitimate to say "More voters are Christians than atheists, therefore it is more important to appeal to Christians than to atheists in order to win the election." It is illegitimate when arguing "Christianity has the world's most adherents, therefore it is correct."

The same can be said of ad hominem. In the context of who to vote for in a political race, it is perfectly legitimate to say "My opponents is a proven liar. Since we cannot trust liars in office, you should support me, the honest candidate." It would illegitimate to say "Hitler believed 2+2=4. As we all know, Hitler was pure evil. Therefore, 2+2=4 must be wrong."

The nature of those two types of fallacies are "fallacies of irrelevance," which means they are only fallacies when irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yeah unfortunately the so called "Christians" in the world also have an obsession with the state.

I was disappointed when I discovered this as well.

[Compy]

I'm not a Christian. But I sympathize with them over the Atheists. It seems to me a lot of Atheists in society have an axe to grind against morals, culture, and heritage. Never to mind the atheists I've encountered (in the real world, not on the internet) have a weird obsession with the State.

I don't think this is real. I think this is all a trumped up charade used to scare people in the pew. There is an "Atheist Agenda" that is killing Christmas, destroying marriage, on and on....

All of the atheists I know just want to be left alone. They're not trying to push anything on anyone.

The axe to grind against morals? Whose morals? I don't think government should legislate morality in any way. So if that is deemed grinding an axe, then I suppose you're right. The silly things are a distraction...I think it's stupid to try to fight putting a statue of the Ten Commandments in front of a federal building...how stupid is that...all the outlawing nativity scenes, these are forms of expression, not of policy.

The fear is that these expressions inform policy and in some cases it's true. But, if our country made it a habit NOT to legislate morality, NOT to allow religion to influence policy decisions....that's what's important not statues and nativity scenes.

Culture and heritage....as I said above, I do not pick the fights that the atheists who make the news do, "In God we Trust" on the money or saying "Under God"

Hell, i love Christmas. Christmas music is some of the best around (Hymns, not carols)

Maybe I'm not the average atheist I don't know...it's not like we have weekly meetings to talk about our beliefs lol

[torchbearer]

I don't think this is real. I think this is all a trumped up charade used to scare people in the pew. There is an "Atheist Agenda" that is killing Christmas, destroying marriage, on and on....

All of the atheists I know just want to be left alone. They're not trying to push anything on anyone.

The axe to grind against morals? Whose morals? I don't think government should legislate morality in any way. So if that is deemed grinding an axe, then I suppose you're right. The silly things are a distraction...I think it's stupid to try to fight putting a statue of the Ten Commandments in front of a federal building...how stupid is that...all the outlawing nativity scenes, these are forms of expression, not of policy.

The fear is that these expressions inform policy and in some cases it's true. But, if our country made it a habit NOT to legislate morality, NOT to allow religion to influence policy decisions....that's what's important not statues and nativity scenes.

Culture and heritage....as I said above, I do not pick the fights that the atheists who make the news do, "In God we Trust" on the money or saying "Under God"

Hell, i love Christmas. Christmas music is some of the best around (Hymns, not carols)

Maybe I'm not the average atheist I don't know...it's not like we have weekly meetings to talk about our beliefs lol

Saturnalia is a fun time for everyone.

[pcosmar]

All of the atheists I know just want to be left alone. They're not trying to push anything on anyone.

Really, because this sub forum came into existence largely due to nearly constant Christian bashing by a few on this forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=211512

[Compy]

wth? If you think you can have a free country without the christian religion , and I do mean the one our founders embraced, your sadly in error.

You are absolutely right. Without deism, the extremely secular 'hands off' brand of Christianity, which MOST of the founding fathers subscribed to (and is actually the same as modern agnosticism) those pilgrims would still be burning young girls at the stake for being witches.

[Dr.3D]

Saturnalia is a fun time for everyone.

Not really, I don't like it in the least and I don't consider it fun at all.

[nate895]

You are absolutely right. Without deism, the extremely secular 'hands off' brand of Christianity, which MOST of the founding fathers subscribed to (and is actually the same as modern agnosticism) those pilgrims still be burning young girls at the stake for being witches.

You are incredibly misinformed on this subject. While many of the Founders were Deists, the Declaration of Independence is an incredibly undeistic document. Furthermore, Deists are nothing like "modern agnostics." Modern agnosticism, which came about with Thomas Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog), is the idea that we can't know whether God exists. Deism affirms God's existence, is not Christian, and believes that God created the universe and its laws, and then took a hands-off approach.

[bucfish]

I was disappointed when I discovered this as well.

I wish they had "Jesus was an Anarchist" bumper stickers instead of Yellow Ribbons that state "Support the Troops"

[Compy]

Really, because this sub forum came into existence largely due to nearly constant Christian bashing by a few on this forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=211512

Ok, well like I said, I could be wrong here. I am only sharing my personal experience with athesits I know in the real world. Maybe those same laid back people join forums and turn into militant buttholes, I don't know.

While I don't want to excuse anyone for being a butthole, I do want to raise the point that it is VERY hard to be an atheist in this country...all the while the Christians claiming to be the ones under attack. We are vilified, and in the era of big government perhaps atheists have reached out to the state to make them feel better. I am an atheist and as one I know that I will endure certain hardships. I do not want the government to get involved unless my life, liberty or property are effected.

If a private business owner does not want to give me a job because I'm an atheist (which has happened to me here in Texas lol) I don't go running to uncle sam crying foul. Incidentally, the person he hired went to his church and was later to be found embezzling money lol!

Once again the problem is Government intervention. If the government did not legislate morality- like the war on drugs, for example - maybe atheists and Christians would not be having this war on which way the government should legislate about things it has no business legislating about in the first place.

[fedup100]

You are absolutely right. Without deism, the extremely secular 'hands off' brand of Christianity, which MOST of the founding fathers subscribed to (and is actually the same as modern agnosticism) those pilgrims would still be burning young girls at the stake for being witches.

Lies about the founders abound, deism my ass. Apparently history is also a living document that can be twisted and molded and this scratched out and this added.......NOT!

[pcosmar]

Compy
Who did Ron Paul endorse for President?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Lies about the founders abound, deism my ass. Apparently history is also a living document that can be twisted and molded and this scratched out and this added.......NOT!

What lies do you want to address specifically? Are you claiming the church not the age of enlightenment had some large hand in peoples opinions about government in the 1700's?

[nate895]

What lies do you want to address specifically? Are you claiming the church not the age of enlightenment had some large hand in peoples opinions about government in the 1700's?

The American Revolution was a reactionary movement caused by exercise of extra-Constitutional authorities by the Parliament in the UK. It had little-to-nothing to do with the so-called "Age of Enlightenment." The Enlightenment had an effect on some of the founders, mostly Jefferson. Most of the Revolutionary movement was more influenced by Cromwell than the likes of Voltaire.

The "Enlightenment" supported what were called "Enlightened Despots," not modern democracies.

[torchbearer]

Not really, I don't like it in the least and I don't consider it fun at all.

location is key.

[Dr.3D]

location is key.

Well, I guess the vendors like it. Seems to be the only way they can get some of the trash they sell out the door.