One of my favorite podcasts is the University Channel Podcast from Princeton Univ. Here are some of the interesting speeches which you can listen to while you travel or whatever – get that ipod out.
American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation – Jon Meacham, managing editor of Newsweek and author, chronicles America’s ongoing struggle between politics and
religion from George Washington to Ronald Reagan. He examines the role
religion has played in many of the major events in our nation’s history
such as the Declaration of Independence, the Civil War and Martin
Luther King, Jr.’s call for civil rights. Meacham’s latest book looks
at how our founding fathers’ views on faith have shaped religion’s
place in American public life (read my post on it)
- Lessons from the Lincoln Administration for the War on Terror – Michael Stokes Paulsen, University of Minnesota Law School
- The Market Approach to Understanding Religion –
Sociologist Rodney Stark says an economic model is the best way to understand the rise and fall of religions. - Subsidized Religion – Sociologist and Pulitzer Prize-nominated author Rodney Stark, who debunks the notion that Christianity has held back scientific progress in his new book, delivered the second in a series of four lectures about why religions succeed or fail.
- Christian Establishments and the Neglect of Faith – Fourth and final lecture in a series by sociologist Rodney Stark, on Why Religions Succeed or Fail (could not get the third lecture)
- Training Christians To Be Politicians – Michael Farris, president of Patrick Henry College in Leesburg, Virginia
- Personal Ethics and Public Decision-Making – Panelists: Nancy Kassebaum Baker, United States Senator from Kansas (1979-1997). Alice M. Rivlin, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies Program and Director, Greater Washington Research Program, The Brookings Institution; The Honorable Steve Tobocman, Michigan House of Representatives (MPP/JD ’97).
- One Nation Under God: Religion, Nation, and the Drive for Statehood in the Post-Soviet World – Christopher Marsh, Associate professor of political science, Baylor University
- God’s Politics –
Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners Magazine and author of "God’s Politics" addresses Harvard’s Institute of Politics Forum. - Rehabilitating Eugenics – Christine Rosen, fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Author of Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement.
Must eugenics be a dirty word? As long as the state is not coercing
people to accept eugenics, is there any harm in pursuing it?
The Conservative Movement: Its Past, Present and Future (streaming only :) – A 3-day conference hosted by the James Madison Program in American
Ideals and Institutions and the Center for the Study of Democratic
Politics at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School.- Human Rights & Islam & the West (stream video only) – Human Rights advocate Shirin Ebadi. In Farsi with translation
- From Islamism to Muslim Democracy – A panel discussion at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
- Confessions of a Muslim Dissident: Why I Fight for Women, Jews, Gays, and Allah – Irshad Manji addresses the ideas in her international best-seller, "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith"
Seeker, I listened to the entire podcast of Jon Meacham. It was excellent. He basically says that there is a public religion, which is not just Protestant but pluralistic. He says that we were NOT founded as a Christian Nation but he also says that we are not an anti-religious society. The difference between you and Meacham is that he does not see secularism as anti-religion but rather pro-religion because secularism "deregulated" (Meacham's word) state control of religion.
Here's one you guys should check out: http://richarddawkins.net/home
I liked meacham's talk. In fact, I am not anti-secular, but I am in the way that you and militant atheists portray it, because you would disallow anti-abortion or pro-family legislation on the grounds that you think it is religious.
You use your secular approach as an excuse to eliminate conservative values you don't like, and you push religion to the margins. But it has not historically been at the margins, and you like to mischaracterize the founders as deists or non-religious. Meacham does not go to such extremes – he acknowledges the role played by faith in our country's founding. I don't totally agree with him, but what you post is so one-sided.
I'm sure you could say the same for me, BUT I POSTED MEACHAM'S TALK, as well as a post on "The Myth of the Christian Nation." I have also admitted that many, like Franklin, may have been "functional deists." However, I have not heard ONE iota from you validating the Christian faith of many of the founders, their quotes to that end, and many of their quotes underlining the role of Christian thought in our formation.
Religion SHOULD be pushed to the margins – or at least to the private sphere – for it is inimical to freedom of thought and action.
You like to mischaracterize the founders as deists or non-religious.
Listen to Meacham again. He clearly states the founders were deists. I know that probably didn't register with you since your mind is clogged with evangelical dogma, but it's there.
However, I have not heard ONE iota from you validating the Christian faith of many of the founders, their quotes to that end, and many of their quotes underlining the role of Christian thought in our formation.
Some were secular Christians in their private life. In their public life, the founders were secular Deists. In all cases, they were secularists. I got that from listening to the Jon Meacham podcast. Irregardless, you have your "iota" though something tells me that won't be enough for you.
Religion SHOULD be pushed to the margins – or at least to the private sphere – for it is inimical to freedom of thought and action.
Personally, I would amend "religion" to "extremist religion" like creationists, terrorists, etc. Moderate religion should not be lumped in with the crazies.
Listen to Meacham again. He clearly states the founders were deists.
Nope, I heard him.
In all cases, they were secularists.
Now I *know* you are willingly blind and devoted to secular revisionism without concern for the data.
Moderate religion should not be lumped in with the crazies.
Neither should conservative and devoted people be lumped in with the crazies (which liberals often do). Secularists don't mind "moderate" religionists because their religion is inert and harmless – i.e. it is more of a social comfort than a beacon of truth. I think Jesus would call it "salt that has lost it's saltiness, worthy only to be thrown out and trampled underfoot."
Secularists don't mind "moderate" religionists because their religion is inert and harmless – i.e. it is more of a social comfort than a beacon of truth. I think Jesus would call it "salt that has lost it's saltiness, worthy only to be thrown out and trampled underfoot."
Good people listen to FCL's Christian message; "Jesus is love." Good people should not listen to yours; "here are the facts of my religion – are you an idiot or not?" You make a mockery of the real Christian message that Jesus taught which is LOVE.
By your own admission, you are a Christian nationalist, superstitious creationist who believes in witchcraft and you are a bigot concerning gay people. This "salty" brand of Christianity is also known as "fundamentalism."
Good people listen to FCL's Christian message; "Jesus is love."
Actually, that is not the whole message. The scriptures teach that "grace AND truth met in Jesus Christ." And John the Apostle said "This is the message, God is light." Light is not just love, but purity and truth.
While I may be guilty of calling people idiots, it is because I grow tired of misinformation, illogic masquerading as reason, and historical revisionism of anti-christian (read "anti-christ") people who are "lying against the truth." I could use more patience, that's for sure.
But this is why I actually appreciate Louis so much – he does not buy the illogic of FCL's poor exegesis of scripture. Louis seems more intellectually honest about things, even if he disagrees with them.
To say things like "all of the founders were secularists" is just as idiotic as saying they were all born-again Christians (which I am NOT saying). It's seeing through rose-colored glasses.
But this is why I actually appreciate Louis so much – he does not buy the illogic of FCL's poor exegesis of scripture.
I don't think Louis buys into scripture and religion at all. I do in some ways but Louis and FCL can clarify this if they want.
He may not believe scripture, but he's not fooling himself with poor hermeneutics to twist them to say what he wants.