I guess I should have said, no external strings.
Sheesh.

that sounds like a great post-You should make this a separate one blackswan-people would love it!

Oh, good grief! Are you serious? My husband found your satanic remark absolutely ridiculous.

Not all Masons are Christians... Jews and Muslims can be members. However, the York Rite does require its members to be Christians. The Scottish Rite just requires a belief in God.

Someone put a lot of good work into this project, but I had the feeling there was a bit of a spin on the results. Nonetheless, a good resource.

Jan

Right on! It's the Liberals and those against Christianity who want to force their beliefs on us.(Obama and his Marxism is a case in point.) We have a system of separation between church and state. Dr. Carson will follow it.

I disagree with what you say, except you did get the idea generally about a deist. Other than that, you sound like a Bible thumper to me.

All valid observations. Nevertheless, what stands out to me is that the overwhelming majority are from decidedly Christian denominations. Yes, there were several such as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington who (unlike others such as John Adams) were what some might call "non-denominational" in current lingo.

I think any man who takes on more than one wife should be made a saint, given a medal, or committed to an asylum. Frankly, being married to one woman, and I'm sure women feel the same about men, is more than enough to test my tolerances and, at times, question my sanity. :)

It was founded by Christians but with an emphasis on natural rights - the rights they believed emanated from the Creator as per the Declaration of Independence. But the emphasis was on creating a secular government that respected the rights of everyone to select their own philosophy or religion without facing persecution from the Federal government. They didn't want another situation like they saw in England with the Church of England or any of the other nations of Europe who supported government-sponsored religion.

Those are the facts. Read the Federalist Papers or the Antifederalist Papers. Read the journals of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, or any of the others. They were spiritual men, but they staunchly held to the belief that belief could not and should not be enforced by government fiat. That belief was ensconced as the First Amendment and the explicit prohibition on a religious test for government service.

You seem to have the opinion that nothing good ever came of those who professed faith. If that's how you want to view 99.99% of this world's occupants, that's up to you. But even a broken watch gets the time right twice a day.

This is a very interesting site, but there are some intrinsic inaccuracies in their reported statistics: For instance, Benjamin Franklin is listed as being "(Deist)" but there is no Deist category in the lists; Alexander Hamilton is listed as originally being "Huguenot" but there is likewise no listing for this in the stats.

The other thing that I did not find (may have missed it) is 'how' they determined the religion of an individual. The only way I would consider legit is by self-declaration - you can attend a service for social or reasons (such as keeping your SO happy).

Good info. Thank you.

Jan

Most of our founding fathers were Christian. That they founded the nation on realism and reason does not negate this.

What's sad is how people who, for personal reasons, are not Christians, but then skew facts to make a supposition such as "Masons are not Christians" (Most masons I know personally would debate that with you hotly, as one does not preclude the other). That you may choose to be Athiest - or Theist - is your decision... but in declaring those you admire to be exactly as you believe is no different than the "born again" crowd espousing "Believe exactly as I do or you shall burn in hell"...

I call this group the "born again atheists" because their message - demeaning and degrading what is on someone else's heart - is damned near parroting the arguments and technique borne by the rabid theists.

When someone comes up off the cuff with "(directed) You cannot be an Objectivist because you are a theist of some sort or the other", you may as well say the opposite is true as well - because you are, indeed, saying that A does not equal A. Be it through pride, or self-righteousness, or even the belief that only your beliefs and thoughts are valid... you are making a supposition that, drawn out to all humanity, does not, no, cannot hold water.

Sorry. If you're an Atheist, that's fine. If someone else is not, fine. Has no bearing on their perception of the truth or their belief in Objectivity - because to a Theist, Objectivity fits in just as well as it does to an Atheist.

I know this will prove wildly unpopular to some here - some will likely even attack me for such a radical view. But it is truth. Just like A+A. Objectivity is not some private club - it's just... there. Like the 3rd law of thermodynamics. --shrug--

like the Dark Ages

its very important to learn from history. I havent really investigated the role of god fearing people in civilizing people in the past. Human nature unfettered by thinking in general has really done a terrible job in the past I have to say, and isnt doing so great today with this socialism stuff.

I am not mormon, but live in las vegas, founded by mormons. They are still persecuted for their polygamist beliefs ( I say a man who takes on multiple wives shouldnt be jailed , but perhaps given a stint in a nut house (kidding)). Warren Jeffs was on the FBI "most wanted" list, primarily for his polygamist beliefs (although they did dig up a lot of other dirt to convict him on).

Fallacy by association? You're only digging your hole deeper here, db.

You don't have to vote for Dr. Carson - there are plenty of candidates. But if you're going to claim to be an Objectivist, your first and foremost priority should be accurate representations of reality. This falls far short of that.

The record is abundantly clear the founding fathers, as distinct from those who came to Plymouth Rock, were NOT Christians. I am surprised to see a person at the Gulch make this commonly Christian misstatement of facts, but I suggest a better review of history. The most famous of the "fathers" were Deist, agnostic, or atheist --- something quite modern for so long a time ago when even bacteria were unknown.

From what/where did the founders say those "natural [inalienable] rights" came? The answer, found in the Declaration of Independence, negates your argument. So who is being "intellectually dishonest" here?

When seeing the term, "not qualified", consider it likely means "no strings attached." This is why so many pundits and political "experts" quickly dismissed Trump's candidacy.

Thank you.

Jan