She sounds like a kid out of school, maybe not even 20 yrs old, unskilled nm
Posted By: Adeline on 2008-10-18
In Reply to: It is very hard to believe this senario when...sm - sorry
j
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I took it as we are unskilled workers
sent overseas and basically there is nothing that can be done about it. This has been going on for years, but to be called unskilled? We need to now be better educated for other work opportunities in the United States. So I might as well pack it in and go back to school to do something else, even though I have an AA degree with Medical Transcription skills and schooling.
I never saw him mention an MT as being unskilled -
I don't think he necessarily meant every job that is shipped overseas is an unskilled worker job. However, that being said, most people do not think that MTs are "skilled" and think of it as only a typing job. You have to educate if you want people to know the skill that is required for this job.
I, however, choose to look on the bright side and have hope that something is going to change very soon. Now, I don't believe that just brining our jobs home from India is going to save us from ruin, as we still have the VR programs, but at least it won't be a foreign country ruining us!
He isn't unskilled anymore then. Why do you want to argue about EVERYTHING? SM
BS
huh? He did this after school hours, in the catholic school...nm
nm
Wow! Where did you go to school?
At Youngstown University - we complained more about the Indians (hygiene - phew). We partied like animals with the Iraqi's and Iranians and never felt looked down upon by these students - they were good people and treated the female population as equals..........maybe the school wasn't good enough for terrorists?
When I was in school, we were
told to treat others as we would have them treat us.
We didn't get pulled aside and have everything listed out. You can't make fun of fat kids, ugly kids, sissy kids, kids with pimples, kids with body odor. We were told to treat others as we would want to be treated. That is all that needed to be said.
If you want acceptance taught in school then you are going to have to list sex, color, sexual orientation, and all religions. It is much simpler just to say....and always remember the Golden Rule.....treat others as you would have them treat you because bullying and teasing will not be accepted. End of story.
When I was in high school ...
Spanish and French were both offered. They were optional, however. I don't think we should REQUIRE any child to learn a second language. If they want to, fine. And Obama makes the point that most French, Spanish, etc. are bilingual...speaking English AND their native language. Well, duhhh. Of course they do. How else do they cater to American tourists, the lifeblood of several European cities. Or cater to American business. If I moved to France and was going to live there, I would learn French. If Mexicans are going to immigrate and live here, they need to learn English. Where's the rub?
We don't compete with overseas MTs because they are bilingual, trilingual, or multilingual. We complete with them because they will do what we do for a whole lot less money. End of story. Then it has to be run back through American editors to good ENGLISH. Not good INDIAN, FRENCH, SPANISH, et al. Not a real good argument. And I don't know how our children speaking Spanish or French is going to help them unless they plan to move to Spain, Mexico, or France. Last time I checked, speaking Spanish or French did not pay the bills either.
I go to school right now and it is free -
The money comes from our Georgia lottery proceeds. It is called the HOPE scholarship. If you graduate high school with a B or above you get the scholarship. If you were graduated before the program was enacted there is a HOPE grant that will pay for either a certificate or a diploma from a technical school/2 year college and once you complete 45 hours with at least a B average you can then be eligible for the HOPE scholarship which can be used at any university.
I right now am attending school to get a degree in accounting and it is not costing me a penny out of my own pocket.
I have to say that I did see a lot of high school age...sm
kids standing behind him at his rally yesterday.
when he was in elementary school
His teacher asked everyone what they wanted to be when they grew up and he said that he wanted to be the president of the United States. He was the only one who said that because he was in an elementary school in Indonesia at the time. Then he was president of the Harvard Law Review and he like that, so there you go, he volunteered. Better him than me. I would not want to be apologizing to Nancy Regan right now.
Because just like the school systems...
you would start having churches or religious groups saying that they weren't getting as much money as some other church or group and then accusing the governement of trying to back a particular religion. That's the whole reason behind the government staying out of religion. Those that came here from England didn't like the fact that there was a Church of England and if you didn't belong to it, you were jailed or killed.
They don't have to hear it in school.....
By all means, put them in a Christian PRIVATE school. Yea it costs a little bit, but it will teach them to be close-minded just like you. You would be proud of them and their accomplishments!
There ya have it.....the school of thought that put
nm
Didn't we all go to school
with someone just like JTBB? You know the one, slumped in her seat, talking under her breath, smirking and laughing, rolling her eyes and generally distrupting all serioius business. I think gum cracking was involved as well.
Theories have to stay out of school?
I certainly agree religion needs to stay out of our schools except when clearly labeled for everyone to know, such as a comparative religion class or even the history of a particular religion. But no theories in school? Think about what you're saying. Or did you have a particular theory in mind, say the theory of evolution? Why is that such a hard one for some people? There's more scientific evidence to support evolution than there ever was to support the idea that this rabbi a couple thousand years ago was the physical son of God. And anyway, evolution doesn't disprove creation. You can believe there was an intelligent force behind it all and still believe that evolution was the way it was carried out. Seems like some people want to be able to name that intelligent force, and say what it wants and thinks and force those beliefs on others, though.
Law school 101. Not indicted does not mean not guilty.
I think everyone knows that he had prescriptions from more than a couple of docs.
No one on your side of the fence has answered my question posed above. If MJF had aired an ad against stem cell research, would you have had the same reaction? Would Rush have had the same reaction? I think not. I think you would have applauded him for his courage and his willingness to do such a thing especially in light of the seriousness of his disease. Another question, what do you think about Nancy Reagan and her son Ron being pro stem cell research openly?
Were you the bully in high school too?
nm
Went all the way, school, college degree
nm
OMG! (lol!) In the public school system,
Thanks for a good laugh!
High School Politics
So I've kinda realized something lately. The presidential election is very similar to a high school election this time around:
~In high school, you usually have a couple of candidates, but it usually narrows down to two. Usually you have one candidate who will promise the stars and the moon in the form of soda machines, more "senior lunches", more time off, etc. Now we all know full and well that a high school class president can't get these things, but he will say he can. Usually the candidate that can promise the most is the one that wins.
~Don't forget, in high school it's also a popularity contest!
~Oh yeah, and if it's two guys, most of the girls don't care what they say, they just vote on the cutest one.
~90% of the voters never even hear what the candidates have to say. They usually just vote off of what everyone else says or who is their buddy.
~In the end, nothing changes at the school. Still the same amount of vending machines with crappy food, still only get one senior lunch per month, and if anything, you lose a few days off.
Now tell me this doesn't sound at all like what is going on right now?
Did ya ever think it could be a school field trip?
Most high school kids don't get a chance to see a presidential until they are of voting age.
I don't put any faith in anything MSNBC writes or talks about. They are are for the O.
It is mandatory for graduation in our school
You can go to school as a legal resident
& don't have to become a citizen. Being adopted by someone doesn't imply that you automatically have that person's citizenship.
I lived in a country that doesn't recognize dual citizenship. I could have gotten a residence visa (work visa would have been possible, but more difficult), but I worked legally and went to school without either of these things. I married a Dutch national and did not give up my U.S. citizenship, but if I had (I was 19 at the time) I could have requested that my U.S. citizenship be reinstated when I turned 21.
The only school for the deaf in our state
is being closed. That's how much the governor cares. He also wants to turn 500 school districts in 100. Don't know how that would be possible. Yet, he will hand out money to professional sports arenas and others that does not benefit the citizens of the state.
So glad this is his last term and cannot be re-elected. Hopefully, there will be more qualified candidates (but doubt) running for governor next election.
P.S. Know his name is Barney Frank. I just like Barney Fife better.
Shouldn't someone who taught school
for 20 years know it's 'twice as well to be thought half as good"? And besides, that slogan was stolen from the feminist movement. A woman has to work twice as hard and do twice as well to be thought half as good as a man."
No points for originality. Minus 1 point for grammar.
I actually went to a private CHRISTIAN school.....
Throughout high school. I'm not saying I would never put my children there, but at this point they have a good school and I am happy with it. BTW, at their school they actually pray still, say the blessing, pledge the flag, etc. Not sure how they get away with it, but yea they do it.
My son is being told in high school
in a lot of his classes that there will not be SS anymore in the near future. SS will be gone.
o.k., inside the catholic school....nm
nm
Yeah, there is the school of thought that says
''Just don't do it in the street an scare the horses.''
I don't particularly care about who's doing what with whom either, except I do think that the sneaking and the lying are still indicative of basic character. There's this whole alpha-male thing where guys with a little power (businessmen, politicians, doctors, cops, lawyers, soldiers, etc.) seem to be irresistable to some women, especially the guys who would attract little female attention without the trappings of power. I think they actually begin to believe they are mega-hunks and act accordingly.
And I suspect half of it will end when you return to school --
as you claim you will be doing soon (I hope). 
Infantile? High school behavior?
So it's only okay when you do it?
bone up - he also attended Catholic school
so do you think he is the antichrist now?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/
My son came home with something from school sociology class saying (sm)
that there is not a law on the books that people in Ohio cannot vote more than once but that they don't encourage it.
I heard he graduated from ballet school
Evanston School of Ballet.
I started school this summer - can't take it anymore!!! nm
x
The school yard bully/"I was here first" approach
is pretty juvenile, don't you think? Besides, it does not hold water. I hate to break this to you, but the Philistines showed up in the region around the same time that the Hebrews did, around the 12th century BC. The history of civilization did not ensue with the Biblical Hebrews and Palestinian presence predates your Moslem invasion era reference. In fact, since the habitation of the region predates recorded history by nearly a million years, there is no way you can gain any traction with that ridiculously juvenile line of thinking. There is no such thing as paleolithic, neolithic or chalcolithic squatters. So, you see, my view of history is not as short-sighted as yours, which does not go back quite far enough, unless you have some special license to begin it "whenever it suits your purpose."
In any case, that is why no viable debate can be had outside the context of modern (i.e., nationalist/political) times. Like I said before, please leave God out of the ungodly. The fact remains that the geographic regions populated by Philistines/Palestinians have stayed relatively intact under all sorts of invasions and occupations, including the Persians, Hellenistic, Hasmonean, Roman, Byzantine, Arab Caliphates, including Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid rule, the Crusades, Mamluk, Egyptian and Ottoman eras....all the way up until the Brits got their hands on it in 1917 and even beyond that for a few decades, until the Partition Plan was instituted. This represents approximately 3147 years of continuous residence. Your finder's keepers thingy applies to both the Hebrew Biblical era as well as modern day fascist Israel. Palestine does not belong to you. Never has. Never will.
Who failed to honor cease fire preconditions by failing to lift the blockade, braniac? Do not try to pretend we are talking about the red rivers of blood from (how few is it now?) the 9 (?) Israeli fatalities. Israel sits on top of generations of their very own road kill.
School vouchers would even the playing field.
Obviously, you've never had a child in the public school system in a large city.
Vouchers would serve to level the playing field for those of us whose children's schools have gone down the tube thanks to the influx of "at risk youth" (probably the most overused term in existence).
When a public school gets a FAILING grade on their 'no child left behind' (another bogus waste of taxpayer money) progress scores, those kids are allowed to transfer to another school.
Then guess what happens. The school all those inner-city kids are bussed to gets a FAILING grade the next year. So, it's a big fat wad of BS that 'at risk' youths are 'at risk' because they don't have ACCESS to a decent education. From my personal experience, and those of hundreds of thousands of other moms around the country, they simply drag the good school down to their level.
My daughter used to go to an A-rated public high school. Then the 'ghetto school' (the name the STUDENTS called it, so don't rip on me about it) failed for its fourth year and all these 'students' were shoved into the A-school. I guess someone thought they weren't getting their fair shake, and all that was needed was to put them in the 'good' school.
I'm sure you know what happened. That first year, there were countless disruptions for weapons on campus, drug activity skyrocketed, the campus became a 'lock-down' school where all kids' backpacks were searched, teen pregnancies went through the roof (on purpose, which makes me sick) and the students' grades plummeted. The A-school subsequently received Fs each consecutive year.
The kids who ruined their own school didn't give half a drip about learning anything. They slacked off in the back of the class, mouthed off to the teachers, and made it impossible for anyone to learn anything, as the teachers became wardens rather than instructors to deal with the disrespectful little delinquents.
My daughter is now home-schooled. Yet I still have to pay income tax and county 'school tax' for the little monsters who invaded it and ran it into the ground.
And it has nothing to do with color, before you get all high and mighty on me. My daughter's school was a pretty even mix of Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic before AND after the forced bussing. It's about the 'culture' of the kids that came in. To them, hip-hop culture is the only way to live. Gangstas and ho's - that's the ultimate career goal in their minds.
So let's not pretend that vouchers are undesirable. That's a fat, steaming pile of B.S.
Throwing money year after year after year at kids that simply aren't interested in learning is what really drags down the system.
School vouchers would even the playing field.
Obviously, you've never had a child in the public school system in a large city.
Vouchers would serve to level the playing field for those of us whose children's schools have gone down the tube thanks to the influx of "at risk youth" (probably the most overused term in existence).
When a public school gets a FAILING grade on their 'no child left behind' (another bogus waste of taxpayer money) progress scores, those kids are allowed to transfer to another school.
Then guess what happens. The school all those inner-city kids are bussed to gets a FAILING grade the next year. So, it's a big fat wad of BS that 'at risk' youths are 'at risk' because they don't have ACCESS to a decent education. From my personal experience, and those of hundreds of thousands of other moms around the country, they simply drag the good school down to their level.
My daughter used to go to an A-rated public high school. Then the 'ghetto school' (the name the STUDENTS called it, so don't rip on me about it) failed for its fourth year and all these 'students' were shoved into the A-school. I guess someone thought they weren't getting their fair shake, and all that was needed was to put them in the 'good' school.
I'm sure you know what happened. That first year, there were countless disruptions for weapons on campus, drug activity skyrocketed, the campus became a 'lock-down' school where all kids' backpacks were searched, teen pregnancies went through the roof (on purpose, which makes me sick) and the students' grades plummeted. The A-school subsequently received Fs each consecutive year.
The kids who ruined their own school didn't give half a drip about learning anything. They slacked off in the back of the class, mouthed off to the teachers, and made it impossible for anyone to learn anything, as the teachers became wardens rather than instructors to deal with the disrespectful little delinquents.
My daughter is now home-schooled. Yet I still have to pay income tax and county 'school tax' for the little monsters who invaded it and ran it into the ground.
And it has nothing to do with color, before you get all high and mighty on me. My daughter's school was a pretty even mix of Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic before AND after the forced bussing. It's about the 'culture' of the kids that came in. To them, hip-hop culture is the only way to live. Gangstas and ho's - that's the ultimate career goal in their minds.
So let's not pretend that vouchers are undesirable. That's a fat, steaming pile of B.S.
Throwing money year after year after year at kids that simply aren't interested in learning is what really drags down the system.
If those were my children, I would send them to private school too -
Can you imagine the nightmare of keeping those children safe now in a public school? The interruptions to scheduling and life the other children would have to go through every day to be able to go to school with the president's children?
I don't blame him one bit for putting his children in a private school! And yes, I know they were in private school before too and if he can afford it himself, then that is okay too. Don't subsidize private school for people with my money though...
The boyfriend never graduated high school.
nm
The catholic school offered several choices of
--
Forced bible reading in public school
The Bible is without question the most recognizable and known literary works in the history of literature. It has been read time and time again by people of all races, nationalities and religions all over the world for hundreds and hundreds of years. It is the most prominent, dominating pieces of writing in cultures around the globe.
Yet apparently, it is exempt from that pesky little law of the separation of Church and State in the United States of America.
In Boca Raton, Florida, at West Boca Raton High School, the book of Genesis is on the required reading list for all incoming 11th graders to the school. It is not suggested or recommended, but is mandatory.
The school claims that no laws have been broken, as state law permits studies of the Bible as long as it is studied for its literature purposes, rather than as history. And this is the loophole which is allowing the school to force its students to read from the Bible, as it is seen as preparation for literary reading in the school year to come.
Wait a second … Students are being forced to read the Bible, because the school thinks it is pertinent to their reading in their particular grade level? And no one sees the problem with this?
Separation of Church and State was established to prevent religious beliefs and practices from interfering with activities within the government. And last time I checked, public schools fall under the category that is protected from religious teachings. While the Bible may have many great stories, and the style of writing and language may be absolutely fascination, why must students be required to read it? It is clearly the most blatant symbol and teaching tool for religion, despite its values as literary work.
Students should be recommended to read the Bible if the school feels so strongly in its “practical” use as literature teachings. Or have the teachers explain the important stories and style of writing, suggesting that the students follow along if they wish. But to down right require students to read it is a slap in the face to everyone who has valued the importance of keeping religion out of the government.
Would the school ever consider requiring the reading of the Koran? Or what about the book of Mormon? Of course these literary works would never be considered, mainly because of the overwhelming influence Christianity has on today’s society.
What could students possibly get from reading the book of Genesis that they couldn’t get from any other great work of literature? I managed to breeze through my 11th grade English class without ever having to pick up a bible, and I seem to be doing okay as far as literature knowledge goes right now.
Also, what will happen to the students who refuse to partake in the required reading? They school already stated that their will be quizzes and tests on the material (the book of Genesis), so does that mean if a student feels it is wrong to be forced to read the bible and doesn’t do it, he is out of luck come test time? If so, wouldn’t you think that those students wouldn’t care less of their grade by that point? If that was the case, then the school’s ploy to teach students the writing of the Bible would be a lost cause.
Requiring students to read books to better understand the English language and literature as a whole is a normal part of school. Teachers are supposed to assign work … that is their job. But to force religious teachings and preaching onto students isn’t the work of teachers or a school board … it is the work of pastors/ministers/priests.
And until West Boca Raton High School becomes a private school, requiring teachers to take the place of spiritual leaders is a crime.
We at the Noyse are furious and disappointed that this is taking place. While we value and respect the religious beliefs of everyone, we do not feel it appropriate to force religion or religious teachings upon anyone.
So we are taking action. We are doing this for all the unheard voices of the upcoming 11th grade class, who will read the book of Genesis because they have to and are unable to say no … or unable to be heard when they do say no. We are doing this for all the students who are bound to fail their tests because they refused to read the Bible as instructed. We are doing this for everyone who believes in the first amendment: The freedom of speech, the freedom of press and the freedom of religion. We are doing this for everyone who is frustrated with the State misinterpreting and reshaping the beliefs of the Separations of Church and State. And we are doing this for everyone who thinks this is down right wrong.
We are prepared to go to war over this issue. We are not afraid to make noyse, and are anticipating being heard only after we hear a lot in return. We are going to fight, and will not back down, slow down or shut up until this issue is brought into question by those with the authority to remedy the problem.
First off, we have started a petition, that we encourage everyone to sign if they wish to help us in this battle. You can view the petition here. Please, sign it and pass it along to everyone you know. The more voices who speak up, the louder we will be.
Also, we will be sending a letter to West Boca Raton High School, as well as the school district, stating our grievances, intentions and expectations. We will give them an opportunity to respond to our mission if they so choose to do so. We will inform them that while we may be a small army, we are not easy-influenced or easily intimidated, and will not go away quietly.
We will also be sending out press releases to all local media outlets (news stations, newspapers, etc.) in the Boca Raton area, exclaiming our business and informing them that a battle will be waged and to prepare for us to make some noyse. Also, everyone and anyone reading The Noyse who wishes to stand on the battle lines with us will be encouraged to contact their local media outlets as well and inform of them our mission.
Students heading into the 11th grade will be notified of our intentions and informed that they can either submit to the requirements, or stand up and make noyse along with us.
And finally, the government of Florida will be notified of the problem we see in this situation, and asked to reevaluate it as a whole. We will not beg, not plead, but insist that action be taken to prevent the students at West Boca Raton High School to be required to read the bible.
The plot was to first kill 88 black children in a school...
then to behead 14 other non-white children and then make an attempt, that they did not expect to be fruitful, to kill Obama. These were skin heads and I think that the greater point was that they were trying to kill children. I am clearly conservative and I think the whole thing is disgusting, but certainly not McCain's or Palin's fault. I am sure they find it dispicable, as well!
You should retake grade school American History.
You don't seem to remember the basic foundation of this country, and the incredible amount of faith the Founding Fathers placed in God.
From the Declaration of Independence:
"That they are endowed by their Creator..."
"With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence..."
"...the separate and equal status to which Nature and Nature's God entitle them..."
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions."
For goodness sakes, CHURCH SERVICES were held in the House of Representatives on Sundays.
Just an FYI.
Obama acknowledged attending a Muslim school... sm
during his first 4 years of education in Indonesia. While it was not a "madrassa" it was a Muslim school nonetheless.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/
He attended only 4 years in this Catholic School in Jakarta,
1st to 5th grade, age 7-11 years, from 1968 till 1972.
Can you beat my research?
Wow! You'd better go back to school. The Federal Reserve System is definitely
Perhaps you're thinking of Freddie Mac or Sallie Mae...or the Post Office, maybe?
He learned Islamic teachings "inside" the school..
--
That looked like a juvenile high school posting
nm
Certified graduate of the *How to Insult like a kindergartener* school of insults. SM
Jon Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
HNN History News Network Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.
12-20-04 An Interview with Jon Butler ... Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?
By Rick Shenkman
Mr. Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences at Yale University, is the author of Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People(Harvard University Press, 1990). This interview was conducted by HNN editor Rick Shenkman for The Learning Channel series, Myth America, which aired several years ago.
You hear it all the time from the right wing. The United States was founded as a Christian country. What do you make of that?
Well, first of all, it wasn't. The United States wasn't founded as a Christian country. Religion played very little role in the American Revolution and it played very little role in the making of the Constitution. That's largely because the Founding Fathers were on the whole deists who had a very abstract conception of God, whose view of God was not a God who acted in the world today and manipulated events in a way that actually changed the course of human history. Their view of religion was really a view that stressed ethics and morals rather than a direct divine intervention.
And when you use the term deists, define that. What does that mean?
A deist means someone who believes in the existence of God or a God, the God who sets the world into being, lays down moral and ethical principals and then charges men and women with living lives according to those principals but does not intervene in the world on a daily basis.
Let's go through some of them. George Washington?
George Washington was a man for whom if you were to look at his writings, you would be very hard pressed to find any deep, personal involvement with religion. Washington thought religion was important for the culture and he thought religion was important for soldiers largely because he hoped it would instill good discipline, though he was often bitterly disappointed by the discipline that it did or didn't instill.
And he thought that society needed religion. But he was not a pious man himself. That is, he wasn't someone who was given to daily Bible reading. He wasn't someone who was evangelical. He simply was a believer. It's fair, perfectly fair, to describe Washington as a believer but not as someone whose daily behavior, whose political life, whose principals are so deeply infected by religion that you would have felt it if you were talking to him.
Thomas Jefferson?
Well, Jefferson's interesting because recently evangelicals, some evangelicals, have tried to make Jefferson out as an evangelical. Jefferson actually was deeply interested in the question of religion and morals and it's why Jefferson, particularly in his later years, developed a notebook of Jesus' sayings that he found morally and ethically interesting. It's now long since been published and is sometimes called, The Jefferson Bible. But Jefferson had real trouble with the Divinity of Christ and he had real trouble with the description of various events mentioned in both the New and the Old Testament so that he was an enlightened skeptic who was profoundly interested in the figure of Christ as a human being and as an ethical teacher. But he was not religious in any modern meaning of that word or any eighteenth century meaning of that word. He wasn't a regular church goer and he never affiliated himself with a religious denomination--unlike Washington who actually did. He was an Episcopalian. Jefferson, however, was interested in morals and ethics and thought that morals and ethics were important but that's different than saying religion is important because morals and ethics can come from many sources other than religion and Jefferson knew that and understood that.
Where does he stand on Christ exactly?
Jefferson rejected the divinity of Christ, but he believed that Christ was a deeply interesting and profoundly important moral or ethical teacher and it was in Christ's moral and ethical teachings that Jefferson was particularly interested. And so that's what attracted him to the figure of Christ was the moral and ethical teachings as described in the New Testament. But he was not an evangelical and he was not a deeply pious individual.
Let's move on to Benjamin Franklin.
Benjamin Franklin was even less religious than Washington and Jefferson. Franklin was an egotist. Franklin was someone who believed far more in himself than he could possibly have believed have believed in the divinity of Christ, which he didn't. He believed in such things as the transmigration of souls. That is that human, that humans came into being in another existence and he may have had occult beliefs. He was a Mason who was deeply interested in Masonic secrets and there are some signs that Franklin believed in the mysteries of Occultism though he never really wrote much about it and never really said much about it. Franklin is another writer whom you can read all you want to read in the many published volumes of Franklin's writings and read very little about religion.
Where did the conservatives come up with this idea that the Founding Fathers were so religious?
Well, when they discuss the Founding Fathers or when individuals who are interested in stressing the role of religion in the period of the American Revolution discuss this subject, they often stress several characteristics. One is that it is absolutely true that many of the second level and third levels in the American Revolution were themselves church members and some of them were deeply involved in religion themselves.
It's also true that most Protestant clergymen at the time of the American Revolution, especially toward the end of the Revolution, very eagerly backed the Revolution. So there's a great deal of formal religious support for the American Revolution and that makes it appear as though this is a Christian nation or that religion had something to do with the coming of the Revolution, the texture of the Revolution, the making of the Revolution.
But I think that many historians will argue and I think quite correctly that the Revolution was a political event. It was centered in an understanding of what politics is and by that we mean secular politics, holding power. Who has authority? Why should they have authority? It wasn't centered in religious events. It wasn't centered in miracles. It wasn't centered in church disputes. There was some difficulty with the Anglican church but it was relatively minor and as an example all one needs to do is look at the Declaration of Independence. Neither in Jefferson's beautifully written opening statement in the Declaration nor in the long list of grievances against George the Third does religion figure in any important way anywhere.And the Declaration of Independence accurately summarizes the motivations of those who were back the American Revolution.
Some of the conservatives will say, well, but it does make a reference to nature's God and isn't that a bow to religion?
It is a bow to religion but it's hardly a bow to evangelicalism. Nature's God was the deist's God. Nature's God, When evangelicals discuss religion they mean to speak of the God of the Old and the New Testament not the God of nature. The God of nature is an almost secular God and in a certain way that actually makes the point that that's a deistical understanding of religion not a specifically Christian understanding of religion. To talk about nature's God is not to talk about the God of Christ.
John Patrick Diggins has advanced the argument that not only were the Founding Fathers not particularly religious but in fact they were deeply suspicious of religion because of the role that they saw religion played in old Europe, where they saw it not as cohesive but as divisive. Do you agree?
The answer is yes and the reason is very simple. The principal Founding Fathers--Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin--were in fact deeply suspicious of a European pattern of governmental involvement in religion. They were deeply concerned about an involvement in religion because they saw government as corrupting religion. Ministers who were paid by the state and paid by the government didn't pay any attention to their parishes. They didn't care about their parishioners. They could have, they sold their parishes. They sold their jobs and brought in a hireling to do it and they wandered off to live somewhere else and they didn't need to pay attention to their parishioners because the parishioners weren't paying them. The state was paying them.
In addition, it corrupts the state. That is, it brings into government elements of politics and elements of religion that are less than desirable. The most important being coercion. When government is involved with religion in a positive way, the history that these men saw was a history of coercion and a history of coercion meant a history of physical coercion and it meant ultimately warfare. Most of the wars from 1300 to 1800 had been religious wars and the wars that these men knew about in particular were the wars of religion that were fought over the Reformation in which Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other, stuffed Bibles into the slit stomachs of dead soldiers so that they would eat, literally eat, their words, eat the words of an alien Bible and die with those words in their stomachs. This was the world of government involvement with religion that these men knew and a world they wanted to reject.
To create the United States meant to create a new nation free from those old attachments and that's what they created in 1776 and that's what they perfected in 1789 with the coming of the federal government. And thus it's not an accident that the First Amendment deals with religion. It doesn't just deal with Christianity. It deals with religion with a small r meaning all things religious.
What about the conservatives' belief that we need to go back to the religion of the Founding Fathers?
If we went back to the religion of the Founding Fathers we would go back to deism. If we picked up modern religion, it's not the religion of the Founding Fathers. Indeed, we are probably more religious than the society that created the American Revolution. There are a number of ways to think about that. Sixty percent of Americans belong to churches today , 20 percent belonged in 1776. And if we count slaves, for example, it probably reduces the figure to 10 percent of the society that belonged to any kind of religious organization.
Modern Americans probably know more about religious doctrine in general, Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, than most Americans did in 1776. I would argue that America in the 1990s is a far more deeply religious society, whose politics is more driven by religion, than it was in 1776. So those who want to go back would be going back to a much more profoundly secular society.
What do you make of the politicians who take the opposite point of view. It must make you go crazy.
It doesn't make me go crazy. It makes me feel sad because it's inaccurate. It's not a historically accurate view of American society. It's a very useful view because many modern men and women are driven by a jeremiad, that is jeremiad lamenting the conditions in the wilderness. We tend to feel bad when we hear that we are not as religious as our fathers or our grandfathers or our great grandfathers and that spurs many of us on to greater religious activity. Unfortunately in this case the jeremiad simply isn't true. And I don't think that those who insist it is true would really want to go back to the kind of society that existed on thee eve of the American Revolution.
Americans do become religious in the nineteenth century, don't they? That's what you say in your book.
The American Revolution created the basis for new uses of religion in a new society and that was conveyed in the lesson taught by the First Amendment. If government was no longer going to be supporting religion how was religion going to support itself? It would have to support itself by its own means. Through its own measures. It would have to generate its measures. And this is what every one of the churches began to do. As soon as religion dropped out of the state and the state dropped out of religion, the churches began fending for themselves. And they discovered that in fending for themselves that their contributions were going up, they were producing more newspapers, more tracts, they were beginning to circulate those tracts, they created a national religious economy long before there was a secular economy. You could trade more actively in religious goods than you could in other kinds in the United States in 1805, 1810.
What happened in the United States is that the churches actually benefited from this separation of church and state that was dictated by the First Amendment. In addition to which America became kind of a spiritual hothouse in the nineteenth century. Not only did the quantity off religion go up but so did the proliferation of doctrine. There became new religions--the Mormons, the spiritualists--all created in the United States. New religious groups that no one had ever heard of before, that had never existed anywhere else in western society than in the United States.
|
