How about a "Gideons" type org to put "The Age of Reason" in hotels, etc.

The Gideons are a group of pro-Bible people who put Bibles in every hotel room in the world. They also pass out Bibles and New Testaments at various functions.

United States Founding Father Thomas Paine wrote a scathing critique of religion in general and of Christianity and the Bible in particular. This book, titled "The Age of Reason" is very powerful, very effective, and is considered a historical text. It is also in the public domain.

Flooding our society with copies of this book could help turn the tide away from the Theocracy the Christian right is trying to establish. If copies were made available to school children - as both a freedom of speech/press and as a historical education project, it might spurn a generation of freethinkers. Interest among students would only be heightened if parental groups opposed the book.

This book does double duty. It exposes the Bible and it's flaws and contradictions AND it debunks the notion that our founding fathers were "Christians".

*************

From "The Age of Reason" (1795)

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new thing at that time to believe a man to have been celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with hundreds; the story therefore had nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, or mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews, who had kept strictly to the belief of one God, and no more, and who had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited the story.

It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian Church, sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand. The statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus. The deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints. The Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for everything. The church became as crowded with the one, as the pantheon had been with the other; and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.

The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine (online)
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/index.shtml

Flooding our society with copies of this book could help turn the tide away from the Theocracy the Christian right is trying to establish.

More likely it will galvanize the movement, just like the threat of banning religion by communists created the religious right.

We need to stop fighting this Christian revivalist thing and turn it to our advantage instead. Liberalism is not incompatible with religion.

From the Encyclopædia Britannica

"liberalism

political philosophy emphasizing the value of individual liberty and the role of the state in protecting the rights of its citizens.

Liberalism does not lend itself to easy definition. A major difficulty is that, with some exceptions, liberals have shunned dogma, preferring generally a pragmatic to a doctrinaire approach to social problems."

Therefore, most dogmatic religions are naturally opposed to liberalism.

Never forget that Martin Luther King and many of the other civil rights movement leaders were devout religious leaders.

Far from shunning dogma, we suffer from a multiplicity of inconsistent dogmas. One of the strengths of the ascendent conservativism is that its adherents select from a "menu" of apparently non-contradictory positions to arrive at their own individual dogmatic stance, presenting a seemingly unified front.

Liberals, on the other hand... we are in constant internal conflict. Do we restrict firearms ownership for the probable public good, or preserve the most liberating interpretation of the 2nd amendment? Do we support increased involvment of the federal government in local affairs, or increased involvment of local government in federal affairs? Do we support Social Security as a successful public insurance program, or oppose FICA's regressive tax burden? Do we support private property ownership rights, or embrace the ideal of worker-owned means of production? Do we support civil rights for everyone, or only for those who purport to support civil rights for everyone? The answer offered by the overall body of Liberals to these questions has typically been "all of the above."

Insofar as we have no consistent dogma, additional dogmatic liberals will only reinforce this overall inconsistency. Where the current crop of neo-conservatives achieve strength through lockstep unification of a multifaceted single vision, we oppose ourselves on every front.

I setting this up to be another deleted message.. :-)

I really don't think that MLK was liberal all-around. (This raises the question of what is an all-around liberal).

For examples, what would he have thought about the rights of gays and lesbians? (I'm asking, since I really don't know) Would he have taken the position of so many black churches during the last election??

Bye the way, to me, liberalism is clearly relate to moral relativism, something I don't think MLK would approve of..

Regards..

To be sure, he was from an earlier time in which gay rights weren't even a platform issue, anymore than voting rights for blacks were at issue in the pre-civil war south. Does this mean MLK would have opposed marriage rights for homosexuals if it came up today? We'll never know. I wish he were around to tell us about it.

It is worth noting that his last cause, prior to his death, was a workers' rights march in Memphis. Yep, he died the day before he was scheduled to march with the Memphis sanitation workers' union. As a civil rights leader, he was a serious nuisance to entrenched power structures; but when he expanded his activism to link civil rights with economic justice, he became truly dangerous. By connecting the Vietnam war with economic imperialism, King signed his death warrant.

> Bye the way, to me, liberalism is clearly relate to moral relativism,

Some liberals are moral relativists, some are not. Some conservatives are inclined to moral relativism and situational ethics; no ideology has a monopoly on contextualism and hypocrisy.

And I know I might have been a bit offensive, or at least my post might have been construed as a denigration of MLK. I was trying to illustrate a point and that is that the condition of "liberal" is, very much, relative. Most religious people adhere to a set of absolute moral values and, sooner or later, they are bound to find themselves confronted between those moral values and their alternatives. And usually those alternatives imply a schism with their traditional religion. There are plenty of examples of this. The case of gay rights is obvious. Not so obvious is the case of nonbelievers' rights, something that affects me a lot more closely.

So, to be called a liberal one must at least be sufficiently open minded to accept the possibility that ones values might be wrong. This is truly difficult in a religious/dogmatic environment.

Cheers and I'm enjoying this discussion..

Liberalism does not preclude values. The knowledge that one may possibly be shown to be wrong is not a deterrant to current belief in their rightness.

There are many religious people who believe that their dogma is better expressed by a liberal society, and are liberals because of their religious views rather than in spite of them. Read Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence and tell me again that MLK was not a true liberal, fully religious yet fully capable of recognizing potential for error, whether for himself or for his political allies or for his nation.

When we actively alienate the religious, we are lashing out against the likes of MLK and Mohandas Gandhi and Cesar Chavez and the Dahlai Lama and Oscar Romero. We deprive our various movements of their wisdom, their charisma, their energy, and the liberal core of their dogma, and we are all the poorer for it.

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." -- MLK, Beyond Vietnam

I feel that people aren't really liberal until they shed the tyranny of god and the dictatorship of belief.

I don't think we will agree on this, but let me tell you that I truly respect your position.

Cheers...

>More likely it will galvanize the movement, just like the threat of banning religion by communists created the religious right.

The difference is that when communists banned religion there was a sense of totalitarian government oppression. Religion was FORBIDDEN.

If The Age of Reason were flooded into circulation, the religious right would try to BAN it. The Age of Reason would be forbidden.

And the curiosity that is created by banning or suppressing a book would get some people to read it, and having read it, many would never believe the claims of religions again. It is a very well written, well argued, well documented case against revealed religion in general (pt. 1) and the infallibility of the Bible in particular (pt 2).

And I'll tell you - you would have a lot easier time, especially in the face of the hypocrisy people point out here, encouraging these 33% to affect change on the other two-thirds than getting people to give up their religion.

You mean invented threat I assume?

See my other posts.

This bunch doesn't fight fair, remember?

...of "The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine " available to all children ages 5 to 17. Not! Your link above I believe is a much better means of distributing such a work. That's why the internet has become the most powerful tool of truth and reason. Even in colleges around the country, the works of Thomas Paine and other revolutionary figures have been suppressed and discouraged from the educational curriculum. It was over 200 years ago that Paine wrote that piece and I'll bet a large percent of the population have never read it or have any idea of what it stands for. The truth will set us free.

Something like 20% of white evangelical Christians voted against Bush* this election (I don't have a stat for white and non-white, but I heard it was 33%). Employing the tactic of attacking the religion itself to try to prevent a religious government could have the effect of giving it a bigger mandate.

Just to tell all what the fr. enlightment was all about, and add modern evidence to the scene.
Also to summarize evidence on founding fathers being deists.. and how ideas today must stand on own two feet, not on endorssement by fellows two centuries back. Doesnt matter at all what the f fathers believed. Not at all. totally irrelevant.

Preface might also add that fr enlightment led to Science, and add a brief summary of the benefits of science.. antibiotics, bug spray, central electric heat..et.

Corrections;
minor typos// spur a generation, not spurn... /// gideons not in every hotel room.. i wager not in Pakistan's border region hotels. LOL. and all similar islamic regions, hindu regions, on and on.
But all in all superb idea!

The more radical and easily offended segments of our society anyway.

I think we should just rent billboards with incidiary bible quotes most people aren't familiar with.. like:

1 Kings, Chapter 11:3
And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
GOD LOVES POLYGAMISTS!

something like that...

<snip>

THE MESSAGE OF THE GEORGIA GUIDESTONES

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10.Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.

<link> http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm

More background here:

http://www.rense.com/general16/georgiaguidestones.htm

The U.S. alone has almost 300 million. Who gets to choose what nations simply wither and die? I think to get to that number, we'd need to kill off, oh about 6 billion people.

...world back in in mid 1700's? I'm wondering if Malthus had it right back then when he predicted a total world population collapse when we reached the 1.5 billion mark. He seemed to think that the world food supply would only sustain somewhere between 500 million and 1 billion people in total. Here is something that suggests Malthus was way off base:

<snip>
Malthusian Mythology and Chinese Reality: The Population History of One Quarter of Humanity, 1700-2000
James Lee
Wang Feng
Shorenstein Reports on Contemporary East Asia
Number 19
May 1998


<link> http://ieas.berkeley.edu/shorenstein/1998.05.html