It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Easily manipulable people shouldn't have the ability to vote period
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Originally posted by WarminIndy
I wonder if people realize this...perhaps the right to religious expression is there in the event that atheists should be in control of the government? Would we have the right to religious expression if atheists were in charge?
You see, as it is now, atheists have a right to express their views, but from what I have seen, many atheists do not want the rest of us to express our views. They say "oh I don't care if you do", then go on to tell us how they believe we are ignorant and stupid.
Just imagine, the United States as an atheist country. Would anyone have the right to religious expression under that? Perhaps the founding fathers were really thinking about that.
Yes! You are right. The Founding Fathers were all religious people, not atheists. Many people argue they were Deists not Christians, but they were Christians. I found a wikipedia breakdown of the various Christian denominations. The only variationos in religion were Christian denomination. Even those who were Masons were also Christians. You are also right in that when the colonists came to America, many were looking for religious freedom, freedom from persecution of their religious values. Our Founding Fathers wanted to protect that right. One need only look to history to know that religious persecution has persisted through the centuries.
Today we see Sharia law creeping into traditionally Christian bulwarks. Why do atheists not care about that but Christians do? Because Christians know what will be the outcome.
I have had enough of atheists condemning Christians then turning around and defending Sharia Law.
edit on 12-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
Both the Moderate Enlightenment and a Radical or Revolutionary Enlightenment were reactions against the authoritarianism, irrationality and obscurantism of the established churches.
Philosophes such as Voltaire depicted organized Christianity as a tool of tyrants and oppressors and as being used to defend monarchism, it was seen as hostile to the development of reason and the progress of science and incapable of verification.
An alternative religion was Deism, the philosophical belief in a deity based on reason, rather than religious revelation or dogma. It was a popular perception among the philosophes, who adopted deistic attitudes to varying degrees.
Deism greatly influenced the thought of intellectuals and Founding Fathers, including John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and, especially Thomas Jefferson. The most articulate exponent was Thomas Paine, whose The Age of Reason was written in the early 1790
Enlightened Founding Fathers, especially Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Washington, fought for and eventually attained religious freedom for minority denominations. According to the founding fathers, America should be a country where peoples of all faiths, including Catholics, Jews and those who profess no religious belief, could live in peace and mutual benefit.
Originally posted by ancientsomali
reply to post by newcovenant
In the post–Cold War (1945–1991) world, the French Socialist politician Hubert Védrine described the USA as a hegemonic hyperpower, because of its unilateral military actions worldwide, especially against Iraq;
The imposition of the hegemon’s way of life — its language (as the imperial lingua franca) and bureaucracies (social, economic, educational, governing) — transforms the concrete imperialism of direct military domination into the abstract power of the status quo, indirect imperial domination.
The use of language can serve as a means of creating and applying hegemony.
Any source that disseminates information is, intentionally or not, part of hegemony in that the source can only contain a finite amount of information.
Therefore, in the selection of the information it chooses to display, the source is limiting and framing the information that the recipient gets. In this way, the source is practicing its influence over the recipient.
Examples of the societal aspect of hegemony are churches and media organizations that constantly distribute information to the public.
These influential institutions can subtly use language to frame their message and thereby valuate it, helping to further disseminate the adoption of their message.
This phenomenon of language influencing thought within a society is an important tie to the idea of cultural hegemony.
Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by poet1b
Unfortunately, much of our government is being currently controlled by those corporate powers. With mass media it is so easy to manipulate the majority of the population, and to be frank, the majority of the population are a bunch of idiots. We need citizenship tests. For their time, the founding fathers weren't far off in requiring citizens to be white male land owners. They had the most education, the most stake and were the ones bright enough and involved enough to not be easily manipulated.
Everyone wants a voice, but unfortunately, everyone isn't smart enough or aware enough to have a voice. So many people who vote in this country don't even know how the country operates or is supposed to operate. They are manipulated sheep and slaves to the corporate government and either side doesn't matter.
Hell, most of our elected officials are just as oblivious and stupid.
When a Representative thinks that an island may capsize if too many people are on one side of it, he is incompetent to serve in that position, I am sorry, but that is the truth.
It isn't racial discrimination or sex discrimination to require people to be smart enough and aware enough to be a citizen and to enjoy the rights of a citizen. It is jusb-------------------------------------------------being smart, and not wanting our government to be too easily manipulated.
If people want to have that right, they will do what is necessary to achieve the awareness to have that right.
Our striving for fairness to all regardless of knowledge or ability is ridiculous, give equal opportunity and equal requirements for all and it won't matter.
During the colonial period, there was a lot of gray area among believers. Issues of theology and eschatology were more carefully categorized and picked over by the educated classes in the 1700's than they are today. Yet at the same time, Enlightenment thinking allowed for liberal interpretations of religious doctrine. Most of the new emerging denominations were still considered Christian as long as one followed the teachings of Christ.
Since there was no national church in America, the 18th century religious culture operated regionally and locally. Individual religious beliefs also seemed to be going through a creative transformation, especially during the Great Awakening of 1730-50 (scholars do not always agree on an end date). What few people today seem to realize is that real definitions of orthodoxy don't easily apply to the American generations of people born during the 18th century. Protestantism had not matured to its current state, and the Age of Enlightenment was introducing new theological concepts based on reason over scripture. Individuals and Institutions were both in an active state of process.
It was possible to be "Deistic" in principle and still be "church-Protestant". George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have been claimed him as both Deist and Anglican at different times by historians, but this open attitude is largely a reflection of the liberal ideas marking Enlightenment thinking. A perfect religious "package" was not demanded of public officials. Generally, though, there is a faith-based and even dogmatic structure dividing the DeistUnitarians and all other groups such as Anglicans, Puritans, and Roman Catholics. John Adams is the only one of the first five presidents that appears to be a professed Unitarian in the classic sense and whose writings fully support that claim. Other Founding Fathers can be harder to read and have a tendency to blend beliefs.
Deism - Deism has no church and no official organization, hence, it is not considered a religion. It is more a reason-based view of religion in general. Deism is sometimes referred to as a religious philosophy or a religious outlook. In general, Deism did not see Christ as the Son of God, did not believe in the Trinity, had no strong belief in miracles, and had no belief in atonement or resurrection. The Bible was not considered “sacred text” among most Deists, although most Deists were (like Franklin) Christian-friendly.
Deism could fall into certain subcategories of Deist-Christian (i.e. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson) and Deist non-Christian (i.e. Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen). Deist-Christians generally believed the Bible provided good lessons to live by and they attended church regularly. Deist non-Christians generally felt that Christianity was largely an impediment to growth and they did not attend church regularly.
fought for and eventually attained religious freedom for minority denominations
It was James Madison who said, "We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government… according to the Ten Commandments of God."
A wide-eyed and youthful James Madison, travelling in Culpeper County in Virginia, came upon a jail that housed half a dozen Baptist preachers, held simply for publishing their religious views. Madison bristled with indignation at the "diabolical Hell conceived principle of persecution." Writing to his friend William Bradford, he ended with a lament: "So I leave you to pity me and pray for Liberty and Conscience to revive among us."
Madison's lifelong zeal for religious freedom began in May 1776 when state lawmakers wrote a new constitution for the newly independent Commonwealth of Virginia. The document contained a Declaration of Rights with a clause on religious liberty, penned by George Mason. The original clause declared that "all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience...."
Madison didn't like it. He objected to Mason's use of the word "toleration" because it implied that the exercise of faith was a gift from government, not an inalienable right. Madison's substitute--"all men are entitled to the full and free exercise" of religion--essentially won the day. This put Madison far ahead of John Locke, who generally mustered no more than grudging toleration for religious belief.
The American Revolution was the result of a series of social, political, and intellectual transformations in early American society and government, collectively referred to as the American Enlightenment.
Americans rejected the oligarchies common in aristocratic Europe at the time, championing instead the development of republicanism based on the Enlightenment understanding of liberalism.
A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional republic, such as the United States en.wikipedia.org...
Many fundamental issues of national governance were settled with the ratification of the United States Constitution... It guaranteed many "natural rights" that were influential in justifying the revolution, and attempted to balance a strong national government with relatively broad personal liberties.
The American shift to liberal republicanism, and the gradually increasing democracy,caused an upheaval of traditional social hierarchy and gave birth to the ethic that has formed a core of political values in the United States en.wikipedia.org...
Book burning? Didn't all you libs say it was Sarah Palin who did that? Wow caught you in your own hypocrisy.
In the sphere of morality, Deists conceive of God as the supreme authority of the moral world. Many Deists say that just as God provided the laws governing the physical universe, God also set in place the moral order. In this way, he serves as the judge of all moral beings within the cosmos, but he does not necessarily become involved in the enforcement of the law. Instead, humans are punished and rewarded as a function of their own observance of the natural moral laws. Consequently, Deism places emphasis on the requirement of a virtuous life amidst the freedom of human choices. Disobedience to God's laws will naturally result in negative consequences for the moral being, thus God's personal intervention is not required. It is human reason that replaces a personal relationship with God, since "salvation" in the Deist philosophy is assured for those who live a moral life based upon knowledge of the laws created by God, including what constitutes good and what constitutes evil.
it is discriminatory. you said they had the right idea by only making white land owners citizens,
Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
You are the one telling me to burn books because they don't fit your stereotype
I am telling you to burn them because they are grossly unreliable - you never have accurate facts and your poly sci instructor was apparently mad.