How Christian were the Founders? The reshaping of American Education.

[BerenTebogo]

You give too little credit to the Spanish Conquistadors

Well, Columbus being a horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE, human being doesn't mitigate either what he did or what others did. He's still up there with the greats. Lemme see if I can dig up some good articles so I don't just give Lief troll fodder.

Spoiler: show

It is true that “converting” them to Christianity was a goal.� Conversion is a dubious goal for any religion, and the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella was notable for initiating the Spanish Inquisition, which was mainly an attack against Jews who had lived fairly peacefully and prosperously for centuries under Moorish rule.� The Jews converted to Christianity in order to continue to live in Spain, at least those who survived the mass murders that dotted Spain over the previous hundred years.

In January of 1492, Grenada, the last city held by the Moors on the Iberian Peninsula, fell to the Spanish armies, ending several centuries of warfare.� The Islamic and Jewish people who had lived there for centuries were given the option of converting to Christianity or being expelled from the country.� The Jews had been kicked out of European countries for centuries, and Spain had been a safe place for them, but no longer.� The Inquisition especially targeted conversos, who were Jews forced to convert to Christianity.� The suspected crime of conversos was continuing to practice their Jewish faith in secret.� For that crime, they could be burned at the stake, and thousands were.

What happened to the Canary Islanders off Africa’s coast was a preview of the Caribbean Islanders’ fate.� A people named the Guanche, who came across the ocean hundreds of years before Jesus was born, had settled the Canary Islands.� It is believed they came from North Africa like the Berbers.� The Guanche were tall and blond, like Vikings.� Castile and Portugal were involved in conquering the Canaries.� Pope Clement VI “awarded” the islands to Castile in 1344.� They were first invaded in 1402, but the final Spanish conquest that destroyed the Guanche happened during the 1490s, directed by Queen Isabella, who began her campaign in 1477.[9 ]� The rationale was the same one used for Spain’s Reconquest: the people they were conquering were not Christians.� The invasion was to “save their souls.”� That is an audacious rationale for thievery and murder.� The process of saving them destroyed them.�

In 1494, the Spaniards invaded the Canaries’ largest island, Tenerife, for the first time.� The Spaniards were defeated decisively by the Guanche, but they mounted another campaign in 1496, and that time were successful, aided by an epidemic disease (obviously introduced by the invaders) that swept through the Guanche, killing large numbers of them.� The Guanche were enslaved, the islands deforested, and the settlers flocked there.� In 1504, The Inquisition came to the Canaries to enforce the new faith and hunt Guanche still practicing their pagan faith in secret, and any Jewish settlers who thought they could escape the long arm of Spain.� As a culture, the Guanche were extinct by 1600, but genetically their remnants were absorbed into the colonial settler populations, which can still be seen in Canary Islanders today.�

Returning to the Spanish court with the six Indian captives who survived the return voyage (most of his captives had already died, and only two would survive a whole year), along with gold nuggets, parrots and other New World paraphernalia, was Columbus’ finest hour.� He was named Admiral of the Ocean Sea, cut in on 10% of the New World loot, and a second voyage was immediately planned.� Before he met with Ferdinand and Isabella, Columbus drafted a memorial regarding future colonization plans for the new lands.� Almost two-thirds of the document was concerned with how to handle the gold.[10 ]� Inserted between paragraphs regarding how to secure the gold was a paragraph about building a church and converting the Indians.� The sovereigns agreed with the document in principle, and the second voyage was planned.� The Spanish names of the sovereigns were Fernando and Isabel, and Columbus’ Spanish name was Cristóbal Colón, but I will use their anglicized names in this essay.

9. McAlister, Lyle. Spain and Portugal in the New World, 1492-1700. p. 63.

10. See Columbus' memorial to the sovereigns of April 1493 in Morison, ed., Journals and Other Documents on the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, pp. 199-202.

Spoiler: show

Cuneo (probably Columbus’ close friend, maybe from childhood) wrote the first recorded account of sexual relations between Europeans and natives.� Cuneo received a “gift” from Columbus.� The gift was one of the captured native women.� In the words of Cuneo:

“While I was in the boat I captured a very beautiful Carib woman the said Lord Admiral gave to me, and with whom, having taken her into my cabin, she being naked according to their custom, I conceived desire to take pleasure.� I wanted to put my desire into execution but she did not want it and treated me with her fingernails in such a manner that I wished I had never begun.� But seeing that (to tell you the end of it all), I took a rope and thrashed her well, for which she raised such unheard of screams that you would not have believed your ears.� Finally we came to an agreement in such manner that I can tell you that she seemed to have been brought up in a school of harlots.”[16 ]�

(16. Cuneo, in Morison, ed., Journals and Other Documents on the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, p. 212. Kirkpatrick Sale writes of the encounter, "One longs to know the young woman's version (of events).")

The fleet left a swath of terror wherever it went, and had not yet arrived at its destination: the fort at La Villa de la Navidad.� On November 28th they arrived at the fort, looking for those 40 men left behind near the friendly village of Guacanagarí.� The reception was different from what they had envisioned.

When Columbus sailed back to Spain, he gave the men at the fort several admonitions, which amounted to behaving themselves around their native hosts and finding the gold.� Apparently, the men at the fort, being creatures of their age, acted normally for fifteenth century Spaniards around naked women and gold.� According to Guacanagarí, they fought with each other the moment Columbus’ ship was out of sight.� Some seized about five women each as their concubines while others marauded across the island in search of villages with gold.� Their infighting climaxed when two Spaniards killed another one, then eleven of them marched across the island to where they thought the gold mines were.� Some had already left the fort for good, striking out on their own in that land of naked women and gold.� Some had already died of illness.� God only knows what predatory excesses accompanied their trek across the island, but their reception in the “mining region” was likely not welcoming, as they encountered Caonabó, the cacique that reigned there.� Caonabó was not a Taino, but from the less gentle Macorix ethnic group.� He did not suffer the predatory Spaniards long.� He had them killed, then marched to Columbus’ fort.� The remaining Spaniards had taken up residence in Guacanagarí’s village with their concubines.� Caonabó had the village burned in a night attack.� Only eleven Spaniards remained, and eight of those died by drowning as they tried escaping.� Guacanagarí tried protecting the Spaniards as his village burned, and was wounded.[17 ]��

17. See Fernando Col�n's The Life of the Admiral Christopher Columbus, Benjamin Keen, translator, pp. 117-121. See also Chanca's letter in Christopher Columbus, The Four Voyages, J.M. Cohen, translator, pp. 144-152).

One of the first articles brought up from googlescholar.

[Jaybar]

slavery is practically written into the constitution, how could they be any better to those wanting same sex marriage

Funny thing about slavery, for it was completely justified by Genesis. Silly Jew books amirite.

[Howard Roark]

Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson both wrote extensively about the disadvantages of slavery from a capitalistic standpoint, lol

in the constitution? no

and write all you want, seems it was pretty ineffective ya?

[Howard Roark]

Funny thing about slavery, for it was completely justified by Genesis. Silly Jew books amirite.

thankfully church and state were so separate

[BerenTebogo]

Where's the committee to teach actual history? Or is that un-american too?

[Rhinox]

slavery is practically written into the constitution, how could they be any better to those wanting same sex marriage

nope

http://medicolegal.tripod.com/slaveryillegal.htm

[ephel]

You seem to really want to believe the majority of the early leaders weren't religious but that is unlikely. Like most politicians, they spoke out both sides of their mouth. And suprise suprise, people in power trying to rewrite history.

In a way maybe you're right, because Christians are told to be no part of the world. So they weren't Christians.

I tried reading the whole article, when did the reshaping of our history start?

[Pirian]

in the constitution? no

and write all you want, seems it was pretty ineffective ya?

There was a reason it took so long to draft the constitution - they had to come to an agreement with EVERYBODY who signed, not just a select few. For the people who really mattered (granted they were all important in some way) it was pretty clear cut.

And it actually wasn't ineffective at all? it helped bring the argument away from a moralist one (one which can't be won) to a fiscal perspective

[Pirian]

You seem to really want to believe the majority of the early leaders weren't religious but that is unlikely. Like most politicians, they spoke out both sides of their mouth. And suprise suprise, people in power trying to rewrite history.

People think they were religious because of public perspective and things that are just completely made up. Their personal writings and publications show their true sides, one of which is very deist (come on, they are from the age where people were steering AWAY from hardcore religion), to almost atheist

[ephel]

Funny thing about slavery, for it was completely justified by Genesis. Silly Jew books amirite.

Slavery has been in every world power and many other civilizations since we can go back in recorded history, even before the bible. Clearly man evolved to use slavery.

[BerenTebogo]

Basically these assholes on the board are doing as much for the progression of our society as this bitch:



is doing for the progression of science.

It partly cracks me up, but also partly terrifies me.

[Plow]

Pretty much nothing we can do about the changes they have already made

helping the campaign against mcleroy would go a long ways, but you'd have to be supporting Ratliff, who has said this:

The answer you are looking for is this. I believe the Bible tells us who created the Earth and why and science tells us when it was created and how. Neither can tell the other’s story.

because he's not going to get pushed out if he doesn't lose to him


here's the whole thing from that quote:

Spoiler: show

If you want to have a real discussion about the issue, then call me or email me, but don’t make assumptions like “Our conclusion is that Ratliff is a closeted creationist, but one who has slick relationships with the state legislature.” without doing some work. It’s easy to lob cheap shots from your blog, but come on, ask a few questions instead of making an assumption.

The answer you are looking for is this. I believe the Bible tells us who created the Earth and why and science tells us when it was created and how. Neither can tell the other’s story.

I do not believe the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old, but in fact millions and millions of years old.

I do believe that God created all things, but I don’t want a school teacher talking to my kids about theology in science class.

My family attends church to reinforce our religious beliefs and we send our kids to science class to reinforce their learning of science.

If you would like to discuss this more, please contact me and please try to refrain from any more blind assumptions.

Rest assured, I will be updating my website with my positions on several issues, not just this one.

Finally, I think this issue has become a MUCH larger issue than it should have been at the SBOE. When Tincy Miller chaired the board and they adopted the science standards, it wasn’t nearly the sideshow distraction that it was last year.

As you can see, he's pretty reasonable and middle ground, which you've stated is worse than the crazies that instill unreasonable policies, so I guess it's up to you to decide how much of your own argument you actually believe.

[Beckwin]

Despite that many of the founding fathers were religious, including some in a conventional sense, they all agreed on a separation of church and state because so many of them/their fore-bearers left England and other parts of Europe to practice freely, without state interference or a dominating state religion. America of the 1770s was a religious plurality, with quite a few conflicting views even among the dogmatic/organized crowd.

[Plow]

Basically these assholes on the board are doing as much for the progression of our society as this bitch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<obje...mbed></object>

is doing for the progression of science.

It partly cracks me up, but also partly terrifies me.

it's odd because the way that the state legislature is basically telling the sboe to shove it and doing everything they can to eliminate their influence impresses and scares me in exactly the same way

[ephel]

People think they were religious because of public perspective and things that are just completely made up. Their personal writings and publications show their true sides, one of which is very deist (come on, they are from the age where people were steering AWAY from hardcore religion), to almost atheist

They were in the same group of people fleeing from religious persecution just to make their own type of religious persecution. It's one thing to say they weren't hardcore religious(and for the record i could care less if they were Christians), but your really saying all the founding fathers not religious at all? Looks like a new project for me to do some research

[Beckwin]

and it's important to never, ever fucking forget that our fabled Founding Fathers were fantastically fucking wrong about some things. These constant appeals to 1770s/80s ideas, now unfortunately being wave all over the damn place again by the Teabaggers, too often forget that in it's initial state, our storied republic condoned slavery and limited voting to propertied white males.

They all owned slaves and Jefferson fathered illegitimate children, George Washington executed soldiers who demonstrated for unpaid wages (all the while doling out land parcels to wealthy lenders), etc.

[Pirian]

They were in the same group of people fleeing from religious persecution just to make their own type of religious persecution. It's one thing to say they weren't hardcore religious(and for the record i could care less if they were Christians), but your really saying all the founding fathers not religious at all? Looks like a new project for me to do some research

Read the post above the one you quoted. I know I put it in 2 posts but that's just out of bad habit. Thomas Jefferson believed RELIGION was what was wrong with people. Don't confuse religion with BELIEFS though. He thought people ought to believe whatever they want, without persecution, but that religion divided people and outright halted the progress of mankind as a whole.

They all owned slaves

Mr. Franklin didn't

[BerenTebogo]

it's odd because the way that the state legislature is basically telling the sboe to shove it and doing everything they can to eliminate their influence impresses and scares me in exactly the same way

I don't understand how you can even argue for the SBOE side. It's already taught in almost every school in America that the pilgrim migration from Europe was due to them seeking religious freedom. They were persecuted for their religious beliefs and hope to find refuge in the new world. This is all common knowledge.

Hell, what's his face, the asshole who founded Rhode Island got here, said "you guys are idiots" and went off to form his own religious colony. It's impossible to argue that this country was founded on anything but religion. These are facts.

Subjectively analyzing via snippets of quotes from certain founding fathers to determine whether or not this government was founded for Christianity or not is abso-fucking-lutely insane. You're giving opinions about possible opinions that may or may not even have been true, all while ignoring the shit they actually SAID.

Whether the government was founded pro-Christianity or against is something that at this time cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in any facet of actual history. Opinions for or against are null, the proof weighs on both sides and cancels out.

But at the end of the day does it really matter? The history taught in public schools is so far from being factually accurate that it might as well be a Disney story. This motion won't change things one way or another, hell if it passes it's just another fiction on top of an insurmountable pile of bullshit anyways, but honestly...supporting it? Get the fuck out of here.

[Rhinox]

They were in the same group of people fleeing from religious persecution just to make their own type of religious persecution. It's one thing to say they weren't hardcore religious(and for the record i could care less if they were Christians), but your really saying all the founding fathers not religious at all? Looks like a new project for me to do some research

wat

Theres been many books including this one http://www.christianbook.com/christi...52316/pd/52319

that states the opinion

many of the American Founding Fathers (and especially Washington) believed that, as leaders of the nation, they should remain silent on questions of doctrine and denomination, to avoid creating unnecessary divisiveness within the nation; instead they should promote the virtues taught by religion in general.

[Pirian]

All that stuff

The Puritans went to the Netherlands first because they could be religiously free there, but then left because it was too crowded.

The Puritans also were pretty tolerant about other religions in that they traded with everybody and set the standards for capitalism in the new world. Now, I say they were tolerant because they believed only they would get into heaven because they were the New Israelite's chosen by God. Other people could do what they want because only the Puritans were getting into heaven and everyone else was going to hell, and that was that. They were a very closed society religiously in that they did not allow converts, but they believed they could do basically whatever they wanted as long as they asked for forgiveness from God after the day was over.

It wasn't until the Pilgrim's came along that we saw people really become intolerant of other religious beliefs