Another July 14th has come and we are reminded take pause to remember of the horrific differences between the French and American Revolutions. One major difference between the two was that in the case of the American Revolution, Christianity (and more specifically, Calvinism) was central to the beliefs of it's leaders. France on the other hand, attempted to drive out any religious influences from the republic by replacing Christianity with the Cult of Reason.
Thousands were slaughtered in the ensuing tyranny. Much of it at the hands of the oddly named Committee for Public Safety. As one author aptly put it, "Now, it must be kept in mind that the French Revolution was not a purely atheist enterprise; only two of the members of the Committee for Public Safety, d'Herbois and Billaud-Varenne, were confirmed atheists. It is also true that the massacres may not have been a genocide proper, but rather the vicious aftermath of a civil war triggered by religious oppression and persecution by the Revolutionary French regime. But both the Committee and the Revolution were avowedly anti-clerical, and there is no question that the Revolutionary slaughter of 170,000 Vendéeans was primarily driven by anti-religious sentiment. So, the war in Vendée not only demonstrates the falsehood of the "religion causes war" theme, but also underlines the tendency of anti-religious regimes to commit large-scale atrocities." Link
Charitable giving all but disappeared after the fall of the Ancien Regime and to this day France is still ranked among the lowest in charitible contributions among industrialized nations.
French historian and politician Alexis de Tocqueville had this to say about post-revolutionary America...
"Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention .... In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united. ”
De Tocqueville further wrote:
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other .... They brought with them into the New World a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion."
De Tocqueville further wrote:
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other .... They brought with them into the New World a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion."
It is important to keep such facts in mind as we live in an age where historical revisionism is prevelant. I would only add that I find it interesting that the French press is divided concerning the participation of African forces in this years Bastille day parade. Contrast this to the press corps here in the US that unquestioningly accepts having an African usurper in the seat of executive power while according to a recent poll, less than 4 in 10 Americans believe what is most recent version of Obama's nativity story. Link
11 comments:
Very interesting article andn post!
Conservapedia links... check
Links to WND... check
Link to Forbes that states...
On the one hand, France, for instance, has less income disparity and less poverty than the U.S. So if people are motivated to give by seeing need around them, it may simply be that the French give less because they see less need... check
-----
I would only add that I find it interesting that the French press is divided concerning the participation of African forces in this years Bastille day parade.
I watched the video and am unsure why you find it interesting or why you connect it to...
the press corps here in the US that unquestioningly accepts having an African usurper in the seat of executive power...
There isn't an African usurper in the seat of executive power. Yes, I know he has dark skin and an Unanglosaxon name. Get over it.
Conservapedia links... check
Links to WND... check
Attack the Messenger falacy, check.
There isn't an African usurper in the seat of executive power
And if I was suspected of not being born where I stated I was, I would then release the long form certificate and remove any doubt, not hire lawyers and pay them millions. But that's just me.
I know he has dark skin and an Unanglosaxon name. Get over it
If racism is implied by this statement, then why do blacks skew disproportionately high in the number of columnists that I link to (and always have since this blog first began) on the right side of this page?
Perhaps you should get the message out to over 60% of Americans who are (apparently) misinformed and that they should "get over it".
Obama is the least vetted president ever. Hands down the winner.
JD said:
"And if I was suspected of not being born where I stated I was, I would then release the long form certificate and remove any doubt, not hire lawyers and pay them millions. But that's just me."
So, where were you born?
JD said:
"If racism is implied by this statement, then why do blacks skew disproportionately high in the number of columnists that I link to (and always have since this blog first began) on the right side of this page?"
AKA the "I can't be racist I got black friends" argument.
Anyway, I don't think you are racist as much as you are authoritarian.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
But the "Sage of Mombassa", etc stuff doesn't help.
By the way, the only other person I've seen spell Mombasa that way was "The Real JC". Are you "The Real JC"?
JD:
"Perhaps you should get the message out to over 60% of Americans who are (apparently) misinformed and that they should "get over it"."
Why?
JD:
"Obama is the least vetted president ever. Hands down the winner."
Jeez, you know that there's done dozens of presidents, right?
I disagree that Obama is "least vetted president ever", I believe his credentials have been examined far more than most.
Some rampant secularists don't like this, but Christianity was definitely an influence in the founding of Australia as a nation. For example, Alfred Deakin, our second Prime Minister and one of the writers of our Constitution, spent much time in prayer when he was working on this document.
So, where were you born?
In the mainland of United States which is quite easily demonstrable if I were running for public office.
I can't be racist I got black friends
I didnt/wouldnt state that. It just so happens that every one of the columnists that I link to on the right is accomplished in their own right and I scan their articles every week. I've queted Thomas Sowell ALONE in this forum about as much as D. James Kennedy and that's alot. I would have not problem at all having a conservative black president, and due to recent redistricting, I might have the opportunity to actually vote for Col. Allen West next time around.
the "Sage of Mombassa", etc stuff doesn't help
Which implies there are claims of African birth not only in the media but from his family as well, not racism. The release of one simple document would go a long way toward settling the matter and his steadfast resusal to do so is very, very odd to say the least.
I believe his credentials have been examined far more than most
Why hasnt he released records from public school, any college that he attended, baptism certificates, passport records or college thesis papers at any level? And those are just off the top of my head.
If you are trying to say that 60% of Americans are Birthers, you are the one that is misinformed. Birthers are a fringe minority
No. I stated that over 60% do not believe the current version of events being proffered by Obama concerning the circunstances of his birth. Read the cited story which has a link to a recent poll conducted by CBS News/Vanity Fair.
Christianity was definitely an influence in the founding of Australia as a nation
And I would wager that others were guided by their Christian faith at that important time in History as well.
It seems that Happy Atheist forum has picked up on a recent thread here concerning similar subject matter that you cite Ross and they created a discussion board about it. Here's the link.
In all the revisionist history that we see from the right wing religious fundamentalists, all of their hand waving and pirouetting around the real issues, their claims that the USA was founded on the Ten Commandments, and finally the supposed dedication of the founders to fundamentalist Christian principles, it seems that the lip service they payed to Christianity through the default position and common customs of the time of the time came to an abrupt end with the one and only founding document, The Constitution, which has no mention whatsoever of any God(s.)
To continue to try to infer that the founders were not inspired by the Enlightenment is insanity. They could see the mounting pressures and negative effects of differing Christian sects vying for control of government and they put a stop to it.
All religions are perfectly free to worship as they please, but they are not satisfied with that. They want Control. The founders saw that coming.
If it weren't for the first amendment the French revolution would look like kindergarten stuff.
If it weren't for the first amendment the French revolution would look like kindergarten stuff
Complete and utter nonsense. Youve really gone over to the Dark Side now where facts and reason are meaningless.
To substantiate this claim, please list the most deadly sectarian slaughters to which..
1st) The Anglicans
2nd) The Congregationalists, and
3rd) The Anabaptists
were ever a party to in colonial America well before the First Amendment. Do the numbers begin to approach the 170,000 slaughtered in Vendee alone?
I came across this article today. It nicely summarises the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of Australia's prime ministers.
http://tinyurl.com/262h6po
I'm so amazed by the partiality in this article.
Before writing an article like this you should read and read appropriate books!!!!
"the Revolutionary slaughter of 170,000 Vendéeans was primarily driven by anti-religious sentiment: first of all there were not only Vendeens (note for the writer) but Chouans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chouan) and guess what they were fought not because of their religion but because they were ultra royalist and trying to get the king back to the trone. And if you doubt of how french were dealing with religion during the revolution check what's at the top of the "Declaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen"
Ignorant!!!!
Is it your belief that 13 Bishops refused to close area churches despite the Committee for Public Safety ordering so?
"The Vendean rising occurred when France's revolutionary government began to restrict Catholic worship. On 24 August 1790 the decisive blow came with the unfortunate King Louis XVI forced to give royal assent to the civil constitution of the clergy, by which the Church of France was turned from being Catholic into a mere national establishment, defying the authority of the Pope. The spark of insurrection was instantly lit, although more than two years passed before it burst into flames." Link
Furthermore, I couldnt care less what they wrote in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. If one reads the constitution of the former USSR, they seemed like the fairest society ever conceived which was quite different than the reality on the ground.
Conard!
Post a Comment