I haven't see it, but here's a link where you can watch it online:

http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/

Thank you chansen .....

Hugs

Rita

Well Rita i did watch the series, (thanks to Chansen posting the link). I found it very disturbing and sometimes (rarely) inspiring.

The story of the Pueblo Indians I found interesting. How they were so accepting of the Spaniards and their Roman Catholicism but  in turn the Spaniards were not as accepting of the Pueblos combining both religion. I'm sure this was the story for many Indian tribes and not just the Pueblos. It reminded me of friends of mine that go to Mexico for Samaritans purse and tell me that the people of a certain village have embraced catholicism but have incorporated it with their idols and their traditional faith. Of course these friends are evangelizing  that their evangelical faith should replace both. So it still goes on even today.

From the many twists and turns of what the Bible is thought to be saying and how easily ones interpretation can create a totally different perspective on the religious and political climate of the day. The acceptance of slavery in the south and the rejection of it in the north, both supported through the words in the Bible.

The impact of Thomas Jefferson and his thinking on the constitution, I found remarkable.

And later the influence that evangelists such as Jerry Falwell, etc.. with the Moral majority had on presidents (Regan and Bush) when it was realized that they needed to tap into this crowd that at first didn't believe they need bother to vote. When the evangelists realize they have power with their vote it begins to silence all who disagree with their B.S. (and Jeffersons constitution seems to fly out the window) Later we see Regan trying to distance himself from the influence and Bush playing the God card to the hilt. Now we have Obama and the democrats who realize they must play the advocate for all people"s faith after the downfall of their previous candidate, that disregarded the infuence of religion and lost a whole segments of the populations vote. I guess the democrats have figured out to be inclusive of all faiths will ensure the most votes. Although now he seems to be suffering a backlash from conservative america that insists that Americas God is the God of the Bible.

Two Hundred (three?) years of a very winding and bumpy road that is constantly changing directions on the whim of either the majority or the most vocal. Preachers tapping into the voids created by other religions and politicians tapping into the current climate of beliefs in order to get into office....whether they agree or not. Seems we are being played. But then again, when there are so many voices to soothe and opinions to embrace, one can understand the dilemma of politics and the dance that every politician must dance. There is no solution other than to keep the peace within ones own country while dealing with maintaining relations with the international communities complex systems also. Is it any wonder that change is so hard to come by when we insist on repeating ourselves on a continous cyclical basis by pandering to the swinging moods of the people. Which might explain why slavery, finally had to be fought with a war.

I'm shaking my head. It was a time capsule of information that makes me realize that it's important to look back often on history.

Waterfall .... thank you for such an insightful post.......

The series almost made me sick with grief.......

Hopefully there will be more of us that take notice and stand up to the abuse of religion and ...how shall I say this ...religious power.....

May I ask what are your working definitions of liberty and freedom?

Hugs

Rita

: I am really questioning society's understanding and application of the concept of freedom and liberty. As Christians ....what do these words mean to you?"

...................

To me, personally, freedom is about being unencumbered... it's about sorting need from convenience or comfort, about moving on, about discovery, emotions that are transparent; socially@politically, it's about about non-threatening space for ideas, for insights and aspirations.... and protecting that for everyone, from everyone if necessary... it is about ridding a society of fear, dictat and bigotry....

I think we have some distance to go if freedom is really on the agenda ... and, I do not think I could stand watching God in America, even if we had the technology. I am aware  of some of what it has achieved, from witch trials to ethnocide, to mass hysteria and rapture-madness...

Wow, that's a loaded question. I may have to take more time to dwell on that one, but just off the top of my head.

Liberty and Freedom:

Respecting the rights of any individual but does not impose these rights on the individual freedom of another. To respect that the community at large must function within a framework that allows for those freedoms but  also acknowledges that our main commonality is that we are human and deserve to have our basic needs met within a working framework that encourages us to take care of one another.

Hi Waterfall: “Rights” is, to me a very tricky concept. I agree that every person should have access to healthy, safe shelter; to healthy, safe food; to clean water; to meaningful, fairly rewarded employment; to equitable health care, to educational opportunities; to freedoms of speech, religion, thought, movement, assembly and action that does not harm others, and (especially) freedoms from threat, fear, violence; all of it regardless of race, culture, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age or infirmity. I do not believe that wealth or status should be allowed to over-ride these priorities.

 These are goals that a "decent society" should pursue.

But the concept of a “right” is fraught. 

A “right” can only be assured in a near-perfect society, and a near-perfect society can exist only with the enthusiastic commitment and selfless contribution of every member.  Every individual would have to be prepared to subordinate his or her interests to the needs of others: a form of voluntary socialism. We’d all have to be happy to drop what we were doing at any moment to look after another in need. 

To the extent that Christianity is about society rather than the spirit within, this is the sort of polity it seems to propose. Communism was an attempt to create a social utopia along these lines. It could have been wonderful!

Our society, on the other hand, is screamingly individualistic, very protective of property and steered by its "economy".

 I’d LOVE to see a society that was committed to and evaluated according to the condition of its worst-off citizen. That might be more congenial for everyone than a widely pursued assertion of “rights” but I don’t give too many chances of coming into existence.

FREEDOM is, I think, very subjective. It is a state of mind and spirit. We very easily enslave ourselves to all sorts of things we think we want. If someone's a slave to his/her stuff, why would he/she be bothered about freedom to think or speak? Freedom of acquisition would probably be more appealing. We have enormous capacities and opportunities to free ourselves.

Rights and responsibilities

Having complete freedom and liberty is, in  fact, impossible. At best, you would end up with chaos, poverty, destruction, and greed - roughly what we have now.

The onlyy people I have ever met who were completely free were successful criminals and CEOs.

"Completely" ... "free"????

Graeme, I'd say both are about as ensnared as you can get: greed, fear, self-image, the expectations and demands of others...

Bank CEOs who give themselves bonusses after running their banks into the ground are not ensnared. We are. I have had criminal acquaintances who lived very well, indeed. And with virtually nothing to fear - excxept a jealous rival.

 Graeme, they're ensnared: greed's a cruel and insidious master... 

gee, Mike, you know how I hate to disagree with you. Greed ensnares the poor. The richy love it. Some of the happiest people I've ever known have been rich and greedy. If you're rich, your greed ensnares all those who aren't. If you're poor, though, it is real problem.

...isn't it interesting how concepts like freedom, liberty, happiness etc seem to have their foundation laid on a bedrock of money?

......

Thank you for pointing that out ....... quite a sobering thought....

Hugs

Rita

 Desperation ensnares the poor, not greed. I've experienced a fairly wide dispersion of happiness, and i don't think it correlates especially with wealth, especially once essential needs are met. As a journalist, I've met and interviewed several billionaires and a few serious criminals, including a character called Kashogi. One billionaire, non criminal, was a Swiss banker who subsequently sent me brass fitted wooden humidor of 100 Cuban cigars as a Christmas present, told me wealth had brought him a lot of unhappiness but he had become ensnared by "responsibilities" he could not even legally walk away from. His former wife who had become an aid worker in South America somewhere was, he hold me, far happier than he was and had set limits on the amount of money she'd accept from him for the work she was doing... but, I know, everyone is unique.

Freedom and happiness are intertwined for me and I don't know about money, never having had much of it by Western standards. But I do feel free and I am very very, deeply happy.

MikePaterson ..... I am relieved to hear that my hypothosis regarding a bedrock of money may not be entirely correct......

Hugs

Rita

I hear what you're saying Mike, but in some way don't you think that you have to establish some sort of basis for a country to function on or at least strive for? Otherwise the criminals could argue that they are "right" or we could argue that the poor are lazy, etc....Personal freedom and assuring cohesiveness of a country does sometimes have to stomp on and declare some thinking does not contribute to the good of others.

The criminals do argue they are right. Read Bush's autobiography.