You completely missed my point. They (our founding fathers) WERE often called atheists, because being a deist was as good as such to the society of the time. There are numerous sources on the fact. A few I managed to find include:

"Like priestcraft, atheism, and freethinking, deism was one of the dirty words of the age. Deists were stigmatized – often as atheists – by their Christian opponents."

"Deism stood between the narrow dogmatism of the period and skepticism. Though deists rejected atheism, they often were called "atheists" by more traditional theists."

"The most common false perception concerning the reality of deism is the assumption that deism equals atheism. This misunderstanding of deism is not a contemporary issue but it goes back to the seventeenth century as J.M. Robertson explains: "Before deism came into English vogue, the names for unbelief were simply 'infidelity' and 'atheism'- e.g. Baxter's Unreasonableness of Infidelity (1655) ... Bishop Stillingfleet's Origines Sacrae deals chiefly with deistic views, but calls unbelievers in general 'atheists'... ". So, the term 'atheism' was used as a basis for rational critique before the term 'deism' being used. But by the first half of the 18th century, when English deism had explicitly become an intellectual movement, the term 'atheism' was only flung at deism as a term of abuse. Anything breaking the bounds of heterodoxy was atheism in actuality."

Just Google it.

Allow me to repeat myself; Deism was a different ideal dating back at least to Atheism's origin.
It seems to me you've managed to make my point. Should I have added the fact that it was equally villified? *shrugs*
Our founding fathers weren't called atheists because they attended church regularly, and made certain that everyone knew they were God-fearing folk just as the common folk were. Even that hell-raiser Franklin did that. The only time one may have been "called" an atheist is when it was used as an accusation from a political opponent.

Lol, you neednt repeat yourself, believe me, I got it the first time. Still has nothing to do with what I'm talking about really, only your last sentence is relevent to my original point. I was simply stating that being a deist was as taboo as being an atheist, and the terms were often interchangeable when someone wanted to be offensive and/or ignorant.

For example, despite the fact that these men attended church, their differing beliefs were in no way hidden. They were very outspoken about their greivances with the Bible. Remember, Jefferson even wrote his own version, making him a huge target for fundamentalist Christians of the time. He WOULD have been called an atheist. In fact, he still is today. Doesn't matter if it's incorrect labeling, it's just a fact that he's referred to as such for his deist beliefs. Case closed.

Now, can we get back to the original topic? I have some friends who do not agree with this plan, because they don't want their taxes paying for other people's healthcare. One even said, "They should just stop being lazy and get jobs."

Clearly, I was quite distressed by this. That's the typical American ideology, and it literally infuriates me. People are being laid off left and right, losing insurance for themselves as well as their families. I know, because my family is currently going through this. It's not about being lazy. It's about this economy. We all need to support each other through it. After all, it isn't just the extremely poor who are suffering right now. It's many more people than you'd think.

Wow, you really have no idea of the time period of what you’re posting about. I even gave you a link to look over and you obviously ignored it. (People were tarred and feathered for holding different beliefs) But these people were politicians. Even today, you can’t be a politician and be an Atheist, or even a Deist, and still expect any support. Or do you honestly believe, in some stretch of imagination, that colonial Puritan New England was in any way open-minded about talk of rejection of God? Or among the plantations in the south?
Jefferson wrote his little Bible and only showed his intimates it. By his request, it was never published in his lifetime. And he had a firm belief in Jesus Christ


Sure.

The problem with this is that everyone will have to purchase insurance. No getting around it, it’s the law. Those in extreme poverty will be exempt. But if anyone thinks it’s great being poor just for the sake of healthcare, then those selfsame people need their collective heads examined. Because it sucks hard.

Oh boy, oh boy. So many things wrong with that entire paragraph.

First of all, you ignored MY quotes, because they ARE relevant to the time period, no iffs ands or buts. Secondly, you ignored your own link, because what is said about Jefferson's beliefs would in fact mean he had NO belief in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, and only as a prophet. Jews today believe as much. Furthermore, it appears as he was VERY open about his beliefs.


Say what??

Now, incase you have ANY doubts about what I'm saying, let me break it down for you. I just got done doing a show with a crap ton of Evangelists, so I'm pretty fresh on this topic.

Not believing in Jesus' ability to perform miracles makes you un-Christian in any fundamentalist setting, back then or today. The belief that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected is the most important belief in the Christian faith. That belief is held today, and absolutely would have been held in 1776. If Jefferson refuted the idea that Jesus was ressurected, he held no religious belief in him as the messiah. ONCE AGAIN, Wiki even says:


Teacher does NOT equal messiah. Sorry, case closed.

Moreover, none of this matters. You're still dancing around my original point. Being a deist was as good/bad (however you wanna take it) as being an atheist in this time period. You won't change my mind.

P.S. Just a little fun fact for everyone. Obama's parents were both atheists, openly. He undoubtedly fell right from that tree. Isn't it a shame he's forced to go to church for the sake of playing the game? It's disgusting.

And no, Dax, Jefferson didn't play the same game. Not even close. Just go back and re-read your own link

Pulling dubious quotes out of your ass doesn't mean anything. For all I know you yanked from some 3rd grader.

Irellevant point. He believed in him. That's all that's needed.


Seems to me you should be reading your own link. (The one I found you were using below. And obviously misreading)


Indeed. That's not from my link now is it (The "find" feature is very helpful in finding text. the word "clergy is used once in the TJ link I provided..)...So I have to wonder where it came from. Ah, here we are. Lets look at the whole quote:

The relevant notation

To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other.... And in confiding it [an enclosed syllabus] to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations and calumnies. I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public; because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience, which the laws have so justly proscribed...."

He never once "expressed" his deism in public speech.

And to use that same link that you didn't reveal; Accusation of being an infidel
At that time, calling a person an infidel could mean a number of things, including that they did not believe in God. It was an accusation commonly levelled at Deists, although they believe in a deity. It was also directed at those thought to be harming the Christian faith in which they were raised.

While opposed to the institutions of organized religion, Jefferson consistently expressed his belief in God. For example, he invoked the notion of divine justice in 1782 in his opposition to slavery,[27] and invoked divine Providence in his second inaugural address.[28]

Following the 1800 campaign, Jefferson became more reluctant to have his religious opinions discussed in public. He often added requests at the end of personal letters discussing religion that his correspondents be discreet regarding its contents.2]

Use common sense. THINK! Politics and religion is bad today, but it was puritannical then.


Doesn't mean a damn thing. I can school them too in history as well as the Bible. (Old timers here already know that...)


Obama's Spiritual Journey
In such a life I, too, might have contented myself had it not been for the particular attributes of the historically black church, attributes that helped me shed some of my skepticism and embrace the Christian faith.
In the history of these struggles, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; rather, it was an active, palpable agent in the world.
It was because of these newfound understandings — that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved — that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. It came about as a choice and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.
----------
Putting words in the president's mouth...he's got enough problems.


This one was more informative on such as attending church.

You really hate being wrong on this subject LOL! Let me guess; TJ was some sort of patron saint of atheism for you?

That has to sting! What makes you think for a second that anyone in this country would vote for an infidel? please let know! I could use the laugh.

I literally can't help but smile at just about everything you wrote.

Seriously though, you're completely full of crap. Hardly anything you've written on here is coherent, let alone "school" worthy. You just attack, and attack and cherry pick your points, ignoring mine completely by saying they're irrelevant or wrong because you say so. This conversation is clearly going nowhere. You won't change my mind and I won't change yours.

And by the way, if I'm not mistaken, I've been on these boards almost as long as you. So don't go throwing "old timer" stuff my way. I'm pretty sure a good chunk of the users on here know me better than they do you.

And for God's sake (literally though), read through the lines. Obama became baptized to further his political career. Furthermore, there is quite a bit of research to suggest that his Trinity Whatever Church is incredibly corrupt in itself. Again, just Google it. MIND YOU, none of this matters to me. Religion is irrelevant to politics.

Oh, and for the record, I'm not even an atheist (though there's nothing wrong with anyone who is, to each his own). I just think you're full of crap. Completely and utterly. And I'm not afraid to tell you so, and won't in the future when you continue to shove horse manure down people's throats. Okay?

I'm sure you are. The simple tend to do just that. I pat them on the head and they move on.

Your own links used against you..(That I had to look for it, shows me what you were hiding)

Right back at you. You picked a couple of points out of your own link and embraced them as if they were the entire truth. The critical thinking skills that you clearly lack would have told you something different. (Fact: Colonial society was strictly religious; Fact: Politicians played up to it; Fact: The common man wasn't even close to the education that the elite had; Fact: Bibles were often the only source of reading material) Yes, I'm sure you'll deny them. But since the facts are against you, denial is all you have left.


Well, since you obviously don't remember the religous warring here, then you are mistaken. Which is a feeling that I'm certain you're well acquainted with .

Whoa waitaminute! LOL!
Here's your problem; You want to reinterpret the words of those you favor to mean exactly what you want them to mean. In this case, you want our Founding Fathers to be atheist...and Obama as well. And to hell with the English language.
Yeah...Your bias is showing.


ok...We went over a few of your problems. This touches upon my own...
Pragmatism versus Idealism. And this is the president we have now. So I won't dispute your words about him. I can't. He's proven himself to be exactly as you say. A political opportunist. If it weren't for the Iraq War by his predecessor, it could easily be said that Obama is more right-wing that Bush. I voted for "hope and change." Instead, I got more of the previous administration than I care for.


Wow, I bet you think your tough. But the whole "internet tough guy" doesn't get far. Less awesome and more yawnsome.
The crap you taste is in your own words.

Now run along and get an education.
You can start here: History News Network Although I'd avoid the Monticello link, which is all about Thomas Jefferson. You'll only get upset at his complexity.

Lol, you're about as simple as they come. I'm not even going to waste my time arguing with you. You're own links contradict everything you're saying. I can't take you seriously. Bye bye. Good luck with this thread. I'm done responding to your inane remarks.

So, uhhhhh I thought it would've been nice if there was a public option.

Umm...whatever.

...moving along...


*nods*
It would have been fantastic.
But it would have created competition for HealthCare Insurers, and that would have been too much to go against the "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" crowd. (Yeah, I know.)

A public option would have also given some credibility to the claim that Obama does lean left...
Needless to say the one demographic that Obama has a difficult time winning over nowadays are those firm left-wingers.

Spoilered for the sake of the "children."


hnn.us/articles/133032.html=What Did Jefferson Mean By "Wall of Separation"?

In October 1801 the Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson, lamenting Connecticut’s state-supported Congregationalist Church. The state offered them religious freedoms only “as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights,” they told the president. Jefferson wrote back sympathetically. He knew that as president he could not change Connecticut’s laws on the subject, but he reminded them that at least the national Congress could never make a law respecting an establishment of religion. The First Amendment, then, erected “a wall of separation between church and state.” Jefferson and James Madison thought separation of church and state entailed more than just the banning of official denominations (Jefferson, for example, refused to call for national days of prayer and fasting), but state-backed churches were clearly the core concern for both Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists.

Jefferson sent the “wall of separation” letter on New Year’s Day weekend of 1802. These were a busy few days for Jefferson, and a time he chose to highlight his ideals of religious liberty. That weekend, he received a prodigious gift from another New England Baptist, his staunch supporter Elder John Leland. On New Year’s Day, Leland ceremoniously delivered to the president a 1200-pound block of cheese, sent by the Baptists of Cheshire, Massachusetts. Inscribed on the cheese’s red crust was the motto “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” Then, that Sunday morning, Jefferson sat in the audience as Leland preached before a joint session of Congress. The signal Jefferson meant to send by attending this service was that he believed in real religious liberty, but not the purging of religion from the public sphere. To be sure, he didn’t approve of calling national days of prayer and fasting, but he did attend church services in the House chambers and routinely allowed such services in a variety of government buildings, too.
----------------------

guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/17/thomas-jefferson-revolutionary-bible-reissued=Jefferson Bible was Reissued this year

Mitch Horowitz, editor of the new edition, said: "Ethically, Jefferson was a Christian, but – as he put it – 'a real Christian,' who believed in the moral philosophy of Christ rather than the religion later created around Christ, which Jefferson felt would have appalled the man himself."
"There's an incredible beauty and realism in Jefferson's rendition," said Horowitz. "The figure of Christ emerges as a vivid and consistent figure of great moral power. What Jefferson did was create a deeply persuasive historical and ethical portrait of a great teacher."

Hmf...Healthcare ruling is having a nasty effect on political races. Ruling not very popular in swing states.