Christian "confidence" is still prejudice. You are certainly free to express it, but I'm also free to call it like I see it!

Submitted by zzazzeefrazzee (United States), Nov 15, 2006 at 22:53

>There is a certain flavor to your writing that strikes me. You express disapproval of strong Christian confidence in Christian doctrine. You seem to prefer that Christians keep it down so as not to offend......

NO! and I'm sorry that you find it necessary to misconstrue my statements. What you find to me to be "confidence" I find is prejudice. you obviously cannot accept that anyone other than a christian is a normal human being. I think I stated that a true believer is admirable in ANY RELIGION AS LONG AS HE ACCEPTS OTHER RELIGIONS, no need to deconstruct that!! I think our founders were more inclusive than you imply. Quite happily, I can tell you that the founders of our great nation did not share in your piety, or absolutist views.

Ben Franklin, thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine (author of the important pamphlet "Common Sense") were DEISTS, not Christians. Please get your facts straight especially before you. Of the ten commandments of Mosaic Law, only three are part of our legal code. Stealing, Murder, and False witness. Others are noble sentiments, but not part of our code. The idea that "thou shalt not worship any other god before me" was odious to our founders, who detested religious absolutism. They had well enough of the religious violence and sectarianism, and knew full well for this country to be successful, it had to rise above it. Sectarian discrimination is alive and well.

Religious absolutism is alive and well. Pietistic and sanctimonious arrogance is also alive and well. None of these traits are what made our country, nor are they what makes it great today. Rather it is quite the reverse. Nore are they unique to Islam. I doubt you could tolerate members of another religion other than your own, as our founders did? Can we agree to disagree? Probably not, but that's hardly my fault, now is it?

>There is a connection in your thinking between "church and state" , if you will, or Ceasar and Religion, that is in conflict with the Freedom that is a hallmark of American tradition that permits>dissention without punishment. Repressive regimes use coersion of thought and opinion to enforce>submission.

And you point is? There certainly is an element of my thinking, but I think it is far more inline with what our founders desired than what you express. Please re-read Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association for starters. How about this quote from Washington?

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." (George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726.)

> >Anything "different" is a threat since it can't be controlled. I assert that aspects of Liberty as>envisioned by our Founders proceeded from The Bible, and in particular, can be characterized by a Scripture from the letter to the Galatians; "..

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty..." i respectfully disagree and think that this article aptly served my point: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen

>To stay on topic, let me finish by saying, that LORD is not allah....... Yes, and if so, the "Lord" of Christianity is not YHVH either!!

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".