The *point* is that their consensus – and therefore the foundation of America – was that religion was a private matter up to each individual and emphatically not something to be mandated, enforced, or indeed commingled in any way whatsoever with the state.

While I agree with ARI’s view on the founding ideas of the United States, I don’t think that a list of quotations settles the matter. After all, the religionists have their own lists of quotations that supposedly show that the United States was intended to be a “Christian nation.”

This disparity is a consequence of the fact that the American founders were very mixed in their premises: reason and religion, egoism and altruism, and so on. It is necessary to look at which ideas they put into practice, and where, in order to make an argument about the ideological nature of the Constitution.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=6177

Round about 1776, such “nominal Christians” were called Deists. Most of the Founders were such. At the time, it was the furthest towards atheism that was permitted among polite society. It was often attacked by contemporary Christians as a sort of crypto-atheism… and they were right.

The idea that America was founded by believers in talking snakes, stands exposed (again) for the lie it is.

Men of reason have an “ax to grind” against ALL made-up BS. Christianity is but one instance thereof. So is religion in general, as are quasi-religious belief systems such as Leftism.

For the self-professing Christian who does believe in those things, he or she is referred to or thought of as “crazy,” “nutty” or is considered to be irrational or unreasonable.

This is correct, and proper.

Why?

I’d just like to add that almost everyone is stuck in the “left-right box” Mr. May mentioned. As such, the conservatives have fractured into two camps. One, perhaps best personified by David Frum, says the solution is to embrace “moderation” and thereby win–winning being the prerequisite of doing anything to stop the left. The other, perhaps best personified by Rush Limbaugh, says there’s nothing wrong with conservatism–that we need only find the next Ronald Reagan and thereby win, winning being the prerequisite of doing anything to stop the left.

Both groups want desperately to win, but neither wants to undo the New Deal. They both want merely to slow down our descent into statism. The first believes statism is inevitable and merely wants to keep it from becoming unlimited by having the Republicans win an election every once in a while, while the second believes statism might be slowed down–even stopped!–if only…if only we denounced left-liberals strongly enough (with no alternative to replace the welfare state) and proclaimed our “conservatism” and love for Ronald Reagan loudly enough!

Here and here are two warnings I made last year about what the conservative debate would be like this year. It looks like events have proven me correct, although what (if anything) comes out of it is anyone’s guess. Going by their explicit fundamental principles, the conservatives should be turning to religion right now. And ultimately, there is every reason to think they (or, at least, most of them) will. But for now, they’re celebrating about the tea parties and denouncing big government. Will it continue? In any case…

To the extent Johnson was ever on the “right,” outside of the issue of anti-Jihad, he was a Frumian centrist who feared “extremism” (never precisely defined) as much as he feared the Jihad. Ayn Rand’s “Extremism, or The Art of Smearing” might have kept him from going down this path, though I doubt it.

New Clarion posters Chuck and–once again, very presciently, Jim May–along with commenter Madmax saw something like this coming back in May. I can’t say I’m surprised.

Unacceptable misquote.

It seems to me that some Non Christians would only tolerate or show respect to Christians who are not really Christian at all.

If one claims to be a Christian but then proceeds to deny the hallmarks of the faith (the literal resurrection of Jesus, the inerrancy of the Bible and so forth), what one would end up with is essentially an atheist pretending to be a Christian.

And it is precisely that variety of (nominal) Christian most non-theists and non-Christian would accept.

A true, genuine Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, believes the Bible is inerrant, and who accepts the super natural aspects of the Bible (e.g. the “talking snake” stuff Jim was referring to).

For the self-professing Christian who does believe in those things, he or she is referred to or thought of as “crazy,” “nutty” or is considered to be irrational or unreasonable.

Christians and Christianity are not “anti reason,’ and /or “irrational.” Check out a branch of Christian thought called “apologetics.”

As our nation was founded by people who believe in “talking snakes,” I think the nation turned out fairly well.

Only someone with an ax to grind against Christianity would deny that the American founding fathers were either Christians themselves, held Judeo-Christian values and a Judeo-Christian world view, and were positively influenced by the Bible, or had a respect for it and/or its teachings.

As recent polls and surveys have shown, many Americans are still theists, and out of those, many are still Christians. So you’re essentially trying to portray millions of Americans as being “crazy.”

This nation’s rejection of Judeo-Christian values in favor of secularism (rejection of moral absolutes for one example) is one reason this nation has gone downhill in the past few decades.

Above all, he’s deeply vested in the notion of “extremism” as the root of all evil (extreme what? Blank out).

He’s far more active in comments on his blog than he was in the old days, which is an index to some sort of change in himself. In 2004 he rarely commented at all.

It’s disappointing to see — he ought to be sharp enough to see outside that little left-right box he’s stuck in… but he’s not.

I’m not worried about it; there are plenty of wafflers in the world. CJ’s just intransigent about it.

CloudyDay: Believing in talking snakes may very well be “mainstream”, but that does not alter the irrational nature of such beliefs. On the contrary: it establishes that crazy has gone mainstream.. and by necessary implication, reason is considered “crazy” because it’s on the fringe.

It does not bode well for a culture or a nation when that happens.

The problem is that normal Christians on the “religious right” (or of whatever political persuasion) are considered by Charles Johnson, and many militant atheists, to be “nuts.”

Among characteristics one can expect to find in a genuine Christian is someone who shares his or her faith with others (and this might include public expression of the Christian faith); one who reads and believes the Bible; considers the Bible inerrant; and who believes in the Super Natural (this would include, but is not limited to, a belief in the literal and physical resurrection of Jesus).

All of those traits are all perfectly *mainstream* and *normal*, but to someone who is very bitter about Christians and Christianity, anything beyond a private or lukewarm expression of one’s Christian faith is unfairly and inaccurately deemed “nutty.”

Did Ayn Rand say that? I would be very disappointed to learn that’s true. That statement is not in any way verifiable, and is highly questionable on its face.