You really need to read more--and I mean peer-reviewed work, not some website. The Protestant Reformation did NOT promote religious freedom. The general principle was that Protestant rulers mandated Protestantism, and Catholic rulers mandated Catholicism. Jews were left out, and suffered under both Protestants and Catholics. The political principle of the Reformation was"cuius regio, eius religio", NOT religious freedom. On that note, the Pilgrims who landed in Mass were not interested in religious freedom for those who did not agree. The early settlers in this nation were interested only in freedom for themselves, not for those who disagreed with them. Throughout MOST of its history, Christianity--and Islam as well--have emphasized OPPRESSING those who disagree with them, NOT giving them freedom. Christians cited specific passages of the Bible to defend anti-Semitism. Jews were blamed for the Black Death, and thousands of Jews died in pogroms in the centuries after that calamity. Christians cited Genesis 9--the curse of Ham--to defend the transatlantic slave trade and then segregation. They also cited Paul the apostle in defense of slavery as well (the example of Philemon). Christians today STILL cite specific New Testament passages to deny women the right to serve in church leadership, and STILL cite specific passages to defend discrimination against homosexuals. You can believe anything you want, but many of the key Enlightenment figures were NOT Christians. I'd suggest reading, but I am afraid you are one of those who hates it when people question their beloved principles. Go right ahead, put me on ignore.
I just love it when a supposed expert claims he has peer reviewed articles. Do you want to produce them. Are they even on point. I would like to read them. Now lets get this straight are you claiming that the reformation did not lead to political rebellion or reformation as well. I am sure you know that luther and his writings are filled with contradictions. He was a tortured man in a difficult time. But my thesis is that his work claiming individuals have a right to choose how to worship and read the bible themselves served as the foundation of the belief in individual rights. I ask you what was the landscape of the political structure before the reformation. Was it not dramatically different after. Do you think it was a coincidence that power to the individual followed? Now your arguments about the Pilgrims is so off point it is silly. We are talking about the what happens when lots of people from different denominations came to America and set up a government which allowed them to worship as each group saw fit. It was their desire for their individual rights to worship as they saw fit which lead to the concept of being endowed by the Creator with individual rights. And as I said before in an inaugural speech Jefferson said the Creator was the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob. As far as peer reviewed articles. I had a noted philosophy professor in college in wrote a book on the the subject of how locke rosseau others writings influenced jefferson and the framers. Half our class consisted of reading their writings. My school was not religious. In law school my professor wrote a peer reviewed article on the framing of the Constitution. His article was chock full of cites to facts about the Establishment clause and the fact that a majority of the states had established or strong ties to religion. My law school was not religious - as far as I know - no ABA accredited law schools at the time were. You seemed to want to argue that Christians were not nice therefore we were not founded on Christian Principles. I have no need to disabuse you of such a theory.
getting back on topic.... yes some evangelics are the new kkk. one that immediately comes to mind is John Hagee and his islamofascism hate speech. in fact if you watch tbn or daystar you see a strong trend of islamofascist hate propaganda. its almost as if they are controlled by an unseen hate group. how odd that the prince of peace has been hijacked and given their own cable networks... things that make you go hmmmm. then you have warren and huckabee aligning themselves with the CFR a known hate group.
Your argument contains several fallacies: (1) straw man. I did not say that the Reformation did not lead to political rebellion, nor did I make the claim that this nation was not founded on Christian principles because "Christians were not nice." There are other instances of straw man in your response, but two examples should suffice You need to be more honest in responding to other's arguments and/or read more carefully; (2) attack on the person. You seem to want to mock those who disagree with you and seem to take it personally; and (3) slippery slope. Indeed, the Whig interpretation that you suggest--the Reformation focus on individuality leads to democrac--is based on slippery slope. It is as simple minded as the notion that the Reformation "led" to the Wars of Religion, the English Civil War and Revolution, and the Thirty Years War--all extremely violent. Historical reality is far more complicated than a leads to b. You really have not provided an effective rebuttal to my original points. It is no wonder why you cannot: they are based on sufficient historical evidence. Jefferson did state belief in a God, but belief in God does not make one a Christian. The major founding fathers to a man were not Christians who believed in the Incarnation or the Resurrection, or in miracles, or in the reliability of Scripture. They were rationalists who thought that Jesus had some good points on morality, but was certainly NOT the Son of God. You can believe what you want, but the Pilgrims DID persecute those of other religions. They even persecuted Baptists. Fortunately for this nation, the founding fathers rejected such narrow minded thinking.
A summary of your argument does not equal a straw man - it is a summary. You provided examples in your view which showed some Christians were not what -- tolerant? I summarized your argument. My summary was fair. I still do not know why you brought those facts up if it was not to say - Christians were not acting Christian so the country could not have been founded on Christian principles. I did not respond to your point about the founding fathers not being Christian - because the debate is all over the internet. 1. Many if the not most of the "Deists" made many remarks which would seem Christian and at other times they would be seen as not being Christian. They may have been rational - ists but they did profess a belief in God. Their beliefs were obviously a mixed bag. But, even if we granted you that some of the famous founders were not Christian - they were only a small percent of the founders. The large majority of the founders were Christian and probably over 95% citizens of the US were. And because they believed in an individuals rights the western world was changed. The impetus for them to set up a govt based on self determination was the Protestant reformation.
I think for current purposes the personal beliefs of the Founders are not nearly as important as the actual practice at and immediately after the ratification of the new Constitution as well as after the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Clearly at that time religious observations were commonplace in public life. It is hard to believe that they would have adopted a Constitution or First Amendment that would invalidate precisely the practices that they were carrying on. To me, this is a total answer to the ACLU and other anti-Christian extremists who want to drive any mention of religion out of the public square on First Amendment grounds. I've heard attacks on Mike Huckabee to the effect that he would establish a theocracy. The other night I listened to a jewish liberal tell me how "frightened" his Christmas ad made her feel. What planet do these people come from? I'm not a big Huckabee supporter, but there is absolutely nothing in anything he has said or done in 20 years of public life to make jews or anyone else feel "frightened." Yes, he might utter Jesus' name in public, but it seems to me that those who have made a career out of demanding tolerance could extend a little to those who practice the dominant religion in our country.
When I find the time I will start another thread refuting the notion that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation" (there is a big difference between a "Christian nation" and a "nation of Christians"). Since it is Christmas Eve, now is not the time. I think that this argument does not belong in a thread on whether evangelicals are the new KKK. Although evangelicals were certainly active in the leadership of the old KKK, I think it is unfair to paint with such broad strokes. Many evangelicals, including members of my own family, are good people who would repudiate any kind of hate.
People today overlook the fact that when Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, it meant that by law any other religious or spiritual ideas were outlawed. So if your beliefs were not a part of the rapidly developing doctrines of the new church then you were an overnight heretic - which was a crime punishable by death. It was as if your Congress suddenly passed a law saying all religious beliefs that are not exactly in line with the Christian Coalition are banned, and any disagreement by you is a crime equal to murder. Let's not underestimate the intolerant beginnings of this western world. If there were ever a leader with the mentality of a Constantine able to get hold of power, something like an evangelical KKK could emerge. Jesus
Tolerance did not become part of the Western tradition until the Enlightenment, and many of the key philosophes and other thinkers in this movement were not Christians, but instead were freethinkers, deists, and even atheists. Most of the history of Christianity since the time of Constantine and later Augustine has been the story of intolerance. This is rather obvious, to those who know the basics about Western Civ (in other words, not many). Indeed, Jesus himself was rather intolerant of other belief systems: John 14:6 is not actually encouraging different religions now, is it?