In my view, anyone who puts their religiosity forward as something that qualifies them for elective office, is unfit for that office by definition. His claims for America's Christian foundations sound like one of David Barton's fantasies. The words Christianity, Jesus, and Bible do not appear in the Constitution. That foundational document does, however, ban religious tests for holding pubic office, and Article VI pre-dates the Bill of Rights. That this country was founded on Christian principles flies in the face of history. The founders were part of, and products of, The Enlightenment which among other things represented a push-back against the role of religion in government. Conservative Christians never stop trying to institutionalize their sense of privilege.
Christians love to whine that others want to shove their agendas down the throats of Christians (usually LGBTQs and "wokes"). It is, of course, patently false.
The truth of that matter is that it is projecting Christians who are constantly trying to shove their agenda down everyone else's throats. Fox is just the latest example. He won't be the last, by any means. Christians are rapacious.
“This teaching must include, but is not limited to, information concerning how the pilgrims emigrated because of persecution and how that* influenced the ideals and fundamentals behind early communities, and how, as these communities were formed, the communities cultivated democratic forms of government and Christian ethics simultaneously for the prosperity and safety of the commonwealth.“
* lead to the pilgrims persecuting others in the new world.
The obnoxious group known as round heads in their religious forever, got music halls in theaters closed in London. These were two of the people's main diversions, as they didn't have TV or streaming video, and it wasn't received well by the people of London. The loudmouth sanctimonious Street preachers started getting beaten up for being pious assholes. And that's why they left. It was persecution bread on by their own actions, and the people didn't like it. But they never mentioned that.
Yes, let's go into explicit detail of how the natives were re-paid for their charity towards the pilgrims of Plymouth, MA. Let's discuss what the puritans did in Salem Village, MA. All in the name of Christianity.
The Pilgrims did not come to this country, as this country was still over a hundred and fifty years in the future. A more intollerant group would be hard to find. A lot of them came from Holland which was the most religiously tollerant country in Europe, and they didn't like that at all. They came to British North America to creat a theocracy.
Remember the Religion Tolerance Act of 1649. My impression is that this act arose because the various cults--almost entirely all religious cults that had settled the eastern seaboard of North America leading up to this date--despite surviving the many hardships of disease, weather, famine, fighting with the native Americans, etc., were abusing and killing each other due to religious bigotry.
This is ironic in the face of the fact that these settlements were the result of all of them fleeing Europe to escape religious persecution there.
To a great degree, the freedoms bestowed to us in the US come directly or indirectly from this act--a "time-out" (so-to-speak) called on the religious fanatics' impositions on alternative ways of life.
Note that the act--although a milestone that led to our Bill of Rights--protected everyone from religious persecution regardless of their faith. There were two exceptions: atheists and Jews.
Religious tolerance is one thing, and said tolerance should extend to ALL religions and not just Christianity. The brand of religious license that Fox and those like him seek would see our democracy overwritten with a Christian theocratic model which would step on EVERYONE's rights, especially those rights associated with religious belief or lack thereof. Were I a member of Michigan's legislature, it would be my duty to call out Joseph Fox on the floor of that body, to state in boldface his mistaken and dangerous ideas, and to inform him that his efforts are not welcome in a secular government.
Whether he would actually listen or not is, of course, another matter, but I would be certain that he was present when that statement was made.
To me, the Religious Tolerance Act is a demonstration to Fox that US freedoms are NOT based on Christianity, but based on avoiding the yoke of Christianity (and other religions).
No worries. In this day and age, any talk of "religious tolerance" has a bad tendency to be meant as "Religious LICENSE" to run roughshod over minority belief systems, never mind atheistic or agnostic attitudes.
I suppose I should Google the Act you cited. Don't hurt to learn a little something new every day!
Hmmm. According to Google, "The law made it a crime to blaspheme God, the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Mary, or the early apostles and evangelists." Personally, I have no problem in blaspheming any or all of the above, so as an outspoken atheist, I would be in danger of being subject to that particular legislation. Indeed, I would also think such a law would be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Granted, that little snapshot I got from Google may be incomplete, but what I see of it is still potentially problematic.
“…the Christian foundations of the United States are taught.”
To be fair, slavery and genocide are a part of historic Christianity that were included in our nation’s founding.
“This teaching must include, but is not limited to, information concerning how the pilgrims emigrated because of persecution and how that influenced the ideals and fundamentals behind early communities…”
What the Pilgrims took away from the Christian sectarian wars in Europe and England was that they wanted to be the ones oppressing the minority instead of the minority.
“the communities cultivated democratic forms of government…”
Which aren’t in the Bible. And aren’t historically Christian forms of government. Historically, you served the King who had the divine mandate. How do you know he had divine mandate? Well, he was born in the royal family.
The language Fox speaks is the same language Dumb Idiot Ham speaks when he spews out his projections, destructive lies, fascist, authoritarian, dictatorship talk, and creation fantasies. It's the language that people like me can all reject in favor of pure, secular freedom.
His name is Fox. Because of course it is. Too bad for him that the mostly Deist founders didn't like or trust Christians and didn't want religion of any kind to have a say in governance.
Want to teach Christianity itself? Fine. Teach the entire bloody horrific history of the Cult of the Cross. Leave no gruesome detail unexamined, I say.
My eldest had a tiny stuffed Fox toy when they were little. It was their favorite thing, they had it with them at all times (it was very tiny it fit in a pocket, maybe three inches all around). The fox’s name was Sly because foxes are reputed to be crafty, which brings me to my point.
Fox News uses the name because foxes are tricky. This guy is trying to be slick with his legislation, it’s irrelevant if it passes he gets to say he fought for Christians to get re-elected, so his name is more a description of character.
So Joseph Fox is trying to do his best David Barton impersonation ... and it isn't going over very well in the Great Lake State. The one saving grace here (if I may use that term!) is that Michigan has gone largely BLUE in recent days, and such attempts to subvert its secular government have all the popularity of hobnailed boots on a dance floor.
Still, attention must be maintained on such people. Their efforts have to be checked and counterbalanced and constantly argued against, if the integrity of the government is to be maintained. That lawmakers such as Koleszar and Arbit are actively arguing against Fox and his efforts is mightily encouraging. Someone said a few years back that this is a never-ending battle, and that is exactly correct.
We can't let our guard down for so much as a moment ... and I have no intention of letting it down at all.
Most of the early beliefs of the time of Jefferson were deist beliefs not monotheistic Christendom. Fewer people went to church and went less often. Also, there is absolutely nothing in the foundation of the making of the United States that is uniquely or particularly "Christian". It seems this is one myth that just never dies but continues to be regurgitated despite being a contrivance.
The people of Michigan should be made aware of this legislation, and they ought to see it for what it is and vote Fox and the rest of the sponsors out of their government. They are not competent at their jobs.
How supposed christians performed mental gymnastics as they codified enslavement of God's children into bondage even as they uttered prayers to It even as they cried to It to free them from the tyranny of a King in a far away land.
We should all hope this stuff backfires. All these political theater stunts should be red flags to the voters. Alas, most voters in these elections never hear about the stunts unless they are interested in the legislation passing.
I don't think that the average voter has either the awareness of people such as Joseph Fox and what he and others like him are attempting to do, or an understanding of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and its importance for all citizens, regardless of their beliefs or lack of beliefs. I think we need to do a MUCH better job of getting stories like this into the general media and into discussions outside of OUR particular bubble (the Friendly Atheist one).
I'm sure democracy was considered Greek and Pagan and decidedly not Christian. Got to love emperors and kings and the holy books they command be written, compiled, and/or translated.
OT: Didn't know cataract surgery would throw my vision this off. Everything looks smaller through the remaining corrective lens of my glasses, which is playing havoc with my depth perception. Took a nasty tumble onto gravel misjudging a large step off my father's new porch.
I hope I get used to it soon, I'm afraid to drive, which is a big problem in a city with limited public transportation and Uber/Lyft is expensive. ($8 for less than 2 miles) Luckily I can work from home.
If they don't bother you, then life is good. If they do begin to obscure your otherwise good vision, consider a vitrectomy. They are very good at these nowadays. Mine took literally a few minutes, in and out. And the results are worth it after the gas bubble subsides and you are off the eye drops.
If you are still on prescription eye drops, it may take a while for your vision to normalize. I even had some noticeable floaters in my periphery directly after my surgery. After a few weeks even they somehow moved in a spot where I no longer see them at all. Usually in cataract surgery they can give you prescription lenses. It may take a bit of time.
Yeah, they corrected the vision in my right eye. It's weird seeing clearly in front of me without glasses after 40+ years. Of course, without everything is blurry to the left, with them the aforementioned depth perception problem. It's also a little weird how everything out of my left eye is slightly yellow. They tell me that's the remaining cataract.
Edit: Can't focus on my phone, so once the left eye is done, may end up with plain glass with bifocals or the old lady reading glasses chain.
My right eye took almost a month to focus. The left eye about a week. Both eyes for distance and I wear glasses for reading and some computer. I can see the dashboard of the car with no problem.
In my view, anyone who puts their religiosity forward as something that qualifies them for elective office, is unfit for that office by definition. His claims for America's Christian foundations sound like one of David Barton's fantasies. The words Christianity, Jesus, and Bible do not appear in the Constitution. That foundational document does, however, ban religious tests for holding pubic office, and Article VI pre-dates the Bill of Rights. That this country was founded on Christian principles flies in the face of history. The founders were part of, and products of, The Enlightenment which among other things represented a push-back against the role of religion in government. Conservative Christians never stop trying to institutionalize their sense of privilege.
Jesus “is not dead, HE IS RISEN!”
He's pining for the fjords.
I didn’t realize the Pillsbury Dough Boy was God’s only son.
I thought yeast was a no no, or is that just certain holidays.
Well, the Eucharist is supposed to be unleavened bread, so he can never really rise.
I forgot my comment halfway through and remembered after the post. My bran isn’t braining right lately.
I think that's just at Passover.
And 1 Corinthians 5:6 says "You know the saying: A little bit of yeast makes the whole batch of dough rise."
Poke him in the sword wound on his side instead of his stomach.
Bet he doesn't giggle.
But, but Jesus wasn't Norwegian.
In some paintings/filmed versions he looks Scandinavian.
The only white guy in the middle east.
Amazing, isn't it?
Hey you ! You got up early :)
Always up by 6 AM. Was just lacking Internet access at home for awhile, so nobody knew it. :D
Finally got it sorted out? Glad to hear it.
Thanks. Had some time on my hands due to the holiday yesterday and tried a couple of things.
Here's hoping it lasts.
No, but beautiful plumage though.
Oh yes, he was Norwegian. I remember him well as one of my father's friends or former colleagues.
He's Mexican-American.
He’s a Judeo-Christian Mexican-American.
https://images.app.goo.gl/1rmWctwqiCEfDdBz8
So Jesus is bread now.... great.
Christians love to whine that others want to shove their agendas down the throats of Christians (usually LGBTQs and "wokes"). It is, of course, patently false.
The truth of that matter is that it is projecting Christians who are constantly trying to shove their agenda down everyone else's throats. Fox is just the latest example. He won't be the last, by any means. Christians are rapacious.
“This teaching must include, but is not limited to, information concerning how the pilgrims emigrated because of persecution and how that* influenced the ideals and fundamentals behind early communities, and how, as these communities were formed, the communities cultivated democratic forms of government and Christian ethics simultaneously for the prosperity and safety of the commonwealth.“
* lead to the pilgrims persecuting others in the new world.
FTFY Fox. Stop lying to children.
The obnoxious group known as round heads in their religious forever, got music halls in theaters closed in London. These were two of the people's main diversions, as they didn't have TV or streaming video, and it wasn't received well by the people of London. The loudmouth sanctimonious Street preachers started getting beaten up for being pious assholes. And that's why they left. It was persecution bread on by their own actions, and the people didn't like it. But they never mentioned that.
“ The loudmouth sanctimonious Street preachers started getting beaten up for being pious assholes.”
AKA, the good ole days!
Yes, let's go into explicit detail of how the natives were re-paid for their charity towards the pilgrims of Plymouth, MA. Let's discuss what the puritans did in Salem Village, MA. All in the name of Christianity.
The Pilgrims did not come to this country, as this country was still over a hundred and fifty years in the future. A more intollerant group would be hard to find. A lot of them came from Holland which was the most religiously tollerant country in Europe, and they didn't like that at all. They came to British North America to creat a theocracy.
Exactly, their "persecution" consisted of not being allowed to persecute others.
The more things change, yeah?
Except he's from Michigan. Doesn't their colonialist history owe more to French Catholic fur trappers than it does anabaptist (etc.) puritans?
Remember the Religion Tolerance Act of 1649. My impression is that this act arose because the various cults--almost entirely all religious cults that had settled the eastern seaboard of North America leading up to this date--despite surviving the many hardships of disease, weather, famine, fighting with the native Americans, etc., were abusing and killing each other due to religious bigotry.
This is ironic in the face of the fact that these settlements were the result of all of them fleeing Europe to escape religious persecution there.
To a great degree, the freedoms bestowed to us in the US come directly or indirectly from this act--a "time-out" (so-to-speak) called on the religious fanatics' impositions on alternative ways of life.
Note that the act--although a milestone that led to our Bill of Rights--protected everyone from religious persecution regardless of their faith. There were two exceptions: atheists and Jews.
Outlawing blasphemy is not religious freedom. The only way it "led to our Bill of Rights" is an example of what not to do.
Religious tolerance is one thing, and said tolerance should extend to ALL religions and not just Christianity. The brand of religious license that Fox and those like him seek would see our democracy overwritten with a Christian theocratic model which would step on EVERYONE's rights, especially those rights associated with religious belief or lack thereof. Were I a member of Michigan's legislature, it would be my duty to call out Joseph Fox on the floor of that body, to state in boldface his mistaken and dangerous ideas, and to inform him that his efforts are not welcome in a secular government.
Whether he would actually listen or not is, of course, another matter, but I would be certain that he was present when that statement was made.
They like to whine about religious persecution that drove the pilgrims out of Europe. But the details are interesting.
Perhaps I was incomplete in making my point.
To me, the Religious Tolerance Act is a demonstration to Fox that US freedoms are NOT based on Christianity, but based on avoiding the yoke of Christianity (and other religions).
No worries. In this day and age, any talk of "religious tolerance" has a bad tendency to be meant as "Religious LICENSE" to run roughshod over minority belief systems, never mind atheistic or agnostic attitudes.
I suppose I should Google the Act you cited. Don't hurt to learn a little something new every day!
Hmmm. According to Google, "The law made it a crime to blaspheme God, the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Mary, or the early apostles and evangelists." Personally, I have no problem in blaspheming any or all of the above, so as an outspoken atheist, I would be in danger of being subject to that particular legislation. Indeed, I would also think such a law would be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Granted, that little snapshot I got from Google may be incomplete, but what I see of it is still potentially problematic.
Certainly! It was also greatly amended in the decades thereafter.
It was only a small step--although an important step--toward the Bill of Rights.
“…the Christian foundations of the United States are taught.”
To be fair, slavery and genocide are a part of historic Christianity that were included in our nation’s founding.
“This teaching must include, but is not limited to, information concerning how the pilgrims emigrated because of persecution and how that influenced the ideals and fundamentals behind early communities…”
What the Pilgrims took away from the Christian sectarian wars in Europe and England was that they wanted to be the ones oppressing the minority instead of the minority.
“the communities cultivated democratic forms of government…”
Which aren’t in the Bible. And aren’t historically Christian forms of government. Historically, you served the King who had the divine mandate. How do you know he had divine mandate? Well, he was born in the royal family.
The language Fox speaks is the same language Dumb Idiot Ham speaks when he spews out his projections, destructive lies, fascist, authoritarian, dictatorship talk, and creation fantasies. It's the language that people like me can all reject in favor of pure, secular freedom.
They get their information from the same place. David Barton and his ilk.
Farton's book on Jefferson was so off-target that his own Christian publisher pulled it.
His name is Fox. Because of course it is. Too bad for him that the mostly Deist founders didn't like or trust Christians and didn't want religion of any kind to have a say in governance.
Want to teach Christianity itself? Fine. Teach the entire bloody horrific history of the Cult of the Cross. Leave no gruesome detail unexamined, I say.
His name is Fox. And he wants to be assigned to guard the henhouse.
Yup. That's what I meant (that, and a shot at FOX "News") :)
My eldest had a tiny stuffed Fox toy when they were little. It was their favorite thing, they had it with them at all times (it was very tiny it fit in a pocket, maybe three inches all around). The fox’s name was Sly because foxes are reputed to be crafty, which brings me to my point.
Fox News uses the name because foxes are tricky. This guy is trying to be slick with his legislation, it’s irrelevant if it passes he gets to say he fought for Christians to get re-elected, so his name is more a description of character.
Democrats currently control both houses in Michigan. This won't pass. I hope.
So Joseph Fox is trying to do his best David Barton impersonation ... and it isn't going over very well in the Great Lake State. The one saving grace here (if I may use that term!) is that Michigan has gone largely BLUE in recent days, and such attempts to subvert its secular government have all the popularity of hobnailed boots on a dance floor.
Still, attention must be maintained on such people. Their efforts have to be checked and counterbalanced and constantly argued against, if the integrity of the government is to be maintained. That lawmakers such as Koleszar and Arbit are actively arguing against Fox and his efforts is mightily encouraging. Someone said a few years back that this is a never-ending battle, and that is exactly correct.
We can't let our guard down for so much as a moment ... and I have no intention of letting it down at all.
Most of the early beliefs of the time of Jefferson were deist beliefs not monotheistic Christendom. Fewer people went to church and went less often. Also, there is absolutely nothing in the foundation of the making of the United States that is uniquely or particularly "Christian". It seems this is one myth that just never dies but continues to be regurgitated despite being a contrivance.
The people of Michigan should be made aware of this legislation, and they ought to see it for what it is and vote Fox and the rest of the sponsors out of their government. They are not competent at their jobs.
I think it should be taught with context...
How supposed christians performed mental gymnastics as they codified enslavement of God's children into bondage even as they uttered prayers to It even as they cried to It to free them from the tyranny of a King in a far away land.
As but one example.
First year legislator?
In the minority party?
This is political theater.
We should all hope this stuff backfires. All these political theater stunts should be red flags to the voters. Alas, most voters in these elections never hear about the stunts unless they are interested in the legislation passing.
I don't think that the average voter has either the awareness of people such as Joseph Fox and what he and others like him are attempting to do, or an understanding of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and its importance for all citizens, regardless of their beliefs or lack of beliefs. I think we need to do a MUCH better job of getting stories like this into the general media and into discussions outside of OUR particular bubble (the Friendly Atheist one).
That'll take some work, though.
Political theater AND blatant virtue-signaling. 😝
What "Christian foundations" is he talking about?
Freedom of religion is NOT anywhere in the Bible. God and his "chosen people" mete out death to everyone in cities for worshipping the wrong god.
Freedom of speech is NOT in the Bible. The penalty for speaking out against the status quo is again, death.
Representative government? NOT in the Bible. Both heaven and earth are only portrayed as iron-hand absolute monarchies.
I'm sure democracy was considered Greek and Pagan and decidedly not Christian. Got to love emperors and kings and the holy books they command be written, compiled, and/or translated.
OT: Didn't know cataract surgery would throw my vision this off. Everything looks smaller through the remaining corrective lens of my glasses, which is playing havoc with my depth perception. Took a nasty tumble onto gravel misjudging a large step off my father's new porch.
I hope I get used to it soon, I'm afraid to drive, which is a big problem in a city with limited public transportation and Uber/Lyft is expensive. ($8 for less than 2 miles) Luckily I can work from home.
I had a vitrectomy a few months ago and I absolutely love it. The huge cloud of floaters I had parked in the center vision are completely gone.
I have floaters but they drift in and out of vision.
If they don't bother you, then life is good. If they do begin to obscure your otherwise good vision, consider a vitrectomy. They are very good at these nowadays. Mine took literally a few minutes, in and out. And the results are worth it after the gas bubble subsides and you are off the eye drops.
Same with me.
If you are still on prescription eye drops, it may take a while for your vision to normalize. I even had some noticeable floaters in my periphery directly after my surgery. After a few weeks even they somehow moved in a spot where I no longer see them at all. Usually in cataract surgery they can give you prescription lenses. It may take a bit of time.
Yeah, they corrected the vision in my right eye. It's weird seeing clearly in front of me without glasses after 40+ years. Of course, without everything is blurry to the left, with them the aforementioned depth perception problem. It's also a little weird how everything out of my left eye is slightly yellow. They tell me that's the remaining cataract.
Edit: Can't focus on my phone, so once the left eye is done, may end up with plain glass with bifocals or the old lady reading glasses chain.
You will notice improvements in the following weeks. The hardest thing for me was the gas bubble. Felt like I was going insane.
My right eye took almost a month to focus. The left eye about a week. Both eyes for distance and I wear glasses for reading and some computer. I can see the dashboard of the car with no problem.