I read an article here about how a city erected a veteran memorial that had a cross in it. That city is now being sued.
I read another article here about a small town football team that wanted to wear the names of servicemen killed in action on its jerseys. They were denied by the school board.
I am fed up with all of the shit stirring. I don’t, for one second, think that Jefferson would object to a soldier praying in front of a cross. I don’t think any of the founding fathers would. In the center of the dome of the Capitol building in DC there is a painting of George Washington’s assentation into heaven. If it was ok in 1865, why is the same concept not ok now? Did the constitution change? Now I know that we have changed how we think, and that many of the ideas that were fine then are not now, but I am not talking about slavery, or women’s rights or any of the other hot button issues. I am talking about simply acknowledging what we as a nation are. We are, by and large, a nation of people that believe in a higher power. By putting a soldier kneeling in front of a cross, that city is in no way saying you must worship in a certain way or even that you must worship at all. They are simply saying “We remember.”
The football team has taken the time to learn about the men and women whose names they were going to wear. Those names were selected from not only the most current casualties but from all casualties. I have no doubt that if that team had decided to wear the names of 9/11 victims or the names of fallen civil rights activists, the school board would have been all for it. For some reason we have reached the point where it’s no longer politically correct to support veterans. I for one applaud the initiative of the coaches and players involved. All these young people are trying to do is say “We Remember.” They are doing so in a very respectful way. Are we so screwed up as a nation that if these same young people wanted to run down that same football field waving a burning flag it would be allowed, but to wear the names of the fallen is somehow taboo?
God Help us all.
“Are we so screwed up as a nation”? Short answer, yes, we are.
Under the guise of playing “what if”, the school board denied this simple act of remembrance.
Oh, that poor old 1st Amendment.
You PC peeples abuse it as an excuse to be rude, lewd and crude. You hide behind it when you play soldier and get all butthurt when Real Soldier People don’t like it, and say so right to your face.
The poor thing has been trampled, kicked in the shins, smacked in the head, and screamed at so many times, it’s a wonder it sticks around.
You can befoul a national memorial with a vulgar, obscene gesture but when you post it online because you think it’s funny, your only defense is the 1st Amendment and then you whine if you lose your job because other such 1st Amendment things you’ve done suddenly show up.
You stomp and yell about freedom of religion, but if someone exercises it, you get your shorts in a wad over it and go kick that poor old 1st Amendment right in the nuts.
You crummy little whiners want the freedoms given you by that wonderfully and brilliantly constructed piece of law for yourselves, but you get all wigged out if other people want those things, too, ’cause you’re mentally and emotionally a 5 year old snotty little brat who thinks everything is for YOU, and no one else gets any of it.
Wrong.
It’s for all of us. And I’m tired of your political correctness, because it’s the biggest phony scam ever foisted on this country, EVER. And all of you need to spend some time on the time-out chair.
The majority of the people, complaining about the placing of religious symbols in public spaces, are absolutely clueless about the historical context of “Separation of Church and State.”
It was the Roman Catholic Church that came up with that concept during the medieval period. The basic idea was that the government, in the form of the barbarian kings and their representatives, did not interfere with church affairs. Likewise, the church did not interfere with government affairs.
So, if a school decides on its own, independent of religious dictations from the churches, to hold morning prayer, they are not violating separation of church and state. If a town decides on its own, independent of religious dictations from the churches, to erect a memorial with a cross, they are not violating separation of church and state.
This was the understanding that our founders had, they had issues with the Church of England exerting influence and say within the colonial government. This was on top of the legal requirement for the colonials to pay taxes to the Church of England, regardless of their religious denomination.
This led to the amendment involving religion.
Liberals like to reference Thomas Jefferson in their “separation of church and state” arguments, but fail to realize that Thomas Jefferson attended Sunday mass in one of the chambers of Congress due to lack of availability of churches in the new capitol city.
Our founding fathers were not atheists, they simply held a form of belief that was not consistent with mainstream Christianity. When it came to Jesus’s teachings, they were hard-core. Through their actions, they demonstrated themselves to be more Orthodox when it came to practicing Christianity compared to American Christians today.
In fact, many were adamant that the new generations get properly indoctrinated and religious topics, if the new Republic was the last.
The Declaration of Independence is damning against these Politically Correct enforcers:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” – Declaration Of Independence
“Consent of the governed”…
Governed, a religious population that lived by “God’s law.” This specific statement, in the decoration of independence, highlights one of the reasons to why we are subject/entitled to due process of the law if we stand to lose a significant amount of property, liberty, or our life.
The idea is that God gave us life and freedom, and, through a combination of those two, property earned by our utilizing our God-given talents. Only God could take those away. The way they did that was through a jury system, which was requested by saying, “I request trial by God and country,” during the colonial period.
There’s a lot more to that goes into this, but the bottom line is that the overzealous PC crowd is acting on ignorance, and fail to realize the wisdom/brilliance of the generation that secured our independence.
The PC crowd thinks that they could remake our society to the utopia blueprint that they have by removing references to religion from our government. However, their cluelessness about our history, and about human nature, sets the results of their plans up for failure.
If you remove the constant, moral representation of divinity from the government, you replace it with the ever-changing whims of humanity. The founding fathers did not trust the later. When you get to that point, freedom and democracy ends up transitioning to something else.
Also, this is not just an assault on religion, but an assault against anything seen as “conservative.” Any organization that holds a standard that contradicts the values of those PC crowds is subject to vilification, scorn, rejection, etc.
Last decade, I posted on the Protest Warrior forms. They had college and high school students posting there as well. The amount of in-your-face communism/socialism/liberalism coming from the teachers was deafening. I’m not surprised by the decision made with regards to having fallen service member names being displayed.
Let me assist with some editing for you:
The majority of the people are absolutely clueless.
Thank you and well said.
Great Post. Well written and thoughtful. I agree with many of the point you make.
Here are a few points to ponder. I do not know what you mean by “moral representation of divinity”. I assume you are referring to the ideal that morality comes from a divine source. If so, the very notion of the premise is false and provably so.
Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom states in part, “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief.”
I am very much a supporter of Jefferson. I will not allow my body or goods to be taken by the government for the purpose of supporting any religious belief. In more contemporary terms, I will not support funds being taken from me by forcible taxation to be spent on religious idolatry.
He also pens in the same document, “That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.”
Let us read that again. Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions. What Jefferson’s document did was disestablish the Church of England and create a deterrent from any other religious group from establishing itself within our government.
You use expressions like “assault on religion” to describe the very acts that are defending Jefferson’s own words. A defense against religious aggression into our government, its lands, and buildings is not an attack. It is a defense of the very constitution that separates us from tyranny.
Jefferson did indeed use the writings of the New Testament in the construct of our civil law. He first removed any reference to divinity from them, removed any supernatural belief, and only kept was moral truth he could derive. He published a book with the result.
Our founding fathers were not Atheists that is true, the fact that they were not Christians is equally true. Jefferson was widely believed to be Atheist, particularly by his opponents. That claim is published about him for decades during his life. Thomas Payne was as anti-religious as a person can get.
Thomas ‘Paine’ is the correct spelling.
I do completely agree that the far left liberal agenda is a threat to freedom, not just freedom to worship as we choose or not at all, but a threat to the very foundations that protect us from tyranny.
The misconception is that most of us that do not believe in a God are Liberal.
Dave Hardin: Great Post. Well written and thoughtful. I agree with many of the point you make.
I didn’t write this post, I used speech to text dictation software to generate the previous, and current, posts.
Dave Hardin: Here are a few points to ponder.
They would be points to ponder had you addressed what I actually stated, and not what you thought I stated or argued. I’m a history buff, and I’ve also taken a detailed course in college focusing on the Founding Fathers.
Dave Hardin: I do not know what you mean by “moral representation of divinity”.
Had you read my last post, with the intention of understanding what I was actually saying, you would’ve understood what I meant.
Dave Hardin: I assume you are referring to the ideal that morality comes from a divine source. [STRAWMAN]
First, what I argued was that our rights came from God. What I meant by moral representation of divinity from government had everything to do with the concept that our rights came from God. Please go back and review the part of my post talking about where our founders saw our rights coming from.
Most of the other themes that I argued supported this specific theme.
Dave Hardin: If so, the very notion of the premise is false and provably so.
Only if I argued what you assume I argued.I didn’t. I’m not arguing what you are assuming. This alone has set you off on the wrong course of action with regards to how to reply to my post. By logical extension, your entire premise is false as it relates to what you’re trying to reply to. I’m going to prove that through the rest of my reply.
Dave Hardin: Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom states in part, “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief.” [STRAWMAN] will
Hence what I stated in the previous post:
“This was the understanding that our founders had, they had issues with the Church of England exerting influence and say within the colonial government. This was on top of the legal requirement for the colonials to pay taxes to the Church of England, regardless of their religious denomination.” — thebesig
Nowhere, in my post, did I argue otherwise. No responsible reader can infer your assumptions, about what I said, from what I actually posted.
Our concept of democracy did not start with the Founding Fathers. They inherited it from the British. The British didn’t start it either, they inherited it from preceding groups, and from various other groups.
With the evolution of Christian philosophy, not canon law, not strict adherence to Christian mass, but Christian-based philosophy, the events leading to the Magna Carta were bound to happen. The events after the Magna Carta were also bound to happen.
This didn’t just develop in the United Kingdom, but it developed in the colonies that the European powers established.
For example, the concept of equal treatment under the law. Spanish friars argued that concept, at the Spanish colonies, based on the Christian philosophy that we were all equally God’s children. Prior to that, you couldn’t expect equal treatment as we understood it. Also, when they did this, criticizing the government was a good way to get serious punishment.
These Christian friars started a couple of trends that we practice today and take for granted.
One common term that was thrown around throughout the centuries leading up to the colonization of the Americas, and afterwards, was natural law, law of nature, God’s law, etc. As they used it during this period, they meant more than what was just laid out in the Bible. All of those terminologies were eventually collectively referred to as “God’s law.”
I mentioned due process of the law in my previous post. That’s a derivative of the concept that mere humans cannot take away what God was supposed to have given. This philosophy, that evolved from Christian philosophy, permeates our cultural mindset even today.
Back in ancient times, the government would’ve had every right to confiscate your property without due process if they deemed it necessary.
Heck, an atheist living in the US could draw up a “moral conduct manifesto,” and I’d be able to point to items in there that derived from Christian philosophical thought.
One of the spinoffs of this Christian philosophy is the very thought process that went into the creation of our Constitution. No, I’m not arguing that the Founding Fathers sat down with the Bible and start hammering away based solely on Scripture. However, what they saw as a right way to do things evolved from Christian thought.
Now, onto what I meant. Our founders were history buffs. They understood human nature. They understood that pure human whim could create a morality that doesn’t jive with what most of us think is moral.
For example, we frown on pedophilia, rape, torture, forced conversions to religions, etc. However, go over to areas controlled by ISIS and you’ll find a lot of people that will argue that this is “right,” and “moral.” We frown on incest, but there are parts of the world where it is not frowned upon.
Look at the things that have happened in the United States over the past six decades. What we considered as morally right has changed. Before, people leeching off society would’ve been frowned upon. Although people still frown upon that today, there are enough people that consider it acceptable to the point of fighting to prevent reforming welfare or any other handout program.
Hmmm, I wonder where this came from in our society? Our Bible is littered with examples where hard work is rewarded and laziness/substandard performance is “penalized.” However, we do not need to quote Scripture, as the philosophy that we embrace, in Western civilization, that frowns on those leeching in society, evolved from Christian philosophy.
Christianity as a whole, and the philosophy based on Christianity, provides a constant. Our founders understood that human will, on what’s considered right or wrong, changes over time. They argued how that would eventually destroy society. That’s one of the many reasons they opposed a true democracy, and opted for a Republic with its checks and balances.
Dave Hardin: I am very much a supporter of Jefferson. I will not allow my body or goods to be taken by the government for the purpose of supporting any religious belief. In more contemporary terms, I will not support funds being taken from me by forcible taxation to be spent on religious idolatry.
Which I argued using this statement:
“This was the understanding that our founders had, they had issues with the Church of England exerting influence and say within the colonial government. This was on top of the legal requirement for the colonials to pay taxes to the Church of England, regardless of their religious denomination.” — thebesig
Keywords, “they had issues.” Which led to the statement that I made:
“This led to the amendment involving religion.” — thebesig
Oh yeah, surprise, the major fact that you could have that opinion, regarding the government, is something you could thank Christian monks and Christian friars for.
Dave Hardin: He also pens in the same document, “That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.” [STRAWMAN]
Again, nowhere was I arguing that religion should dictate what happens with regards to government. In fact, if you read my post with the intention of understanding what I was saying, you would’ve understood what I was getting at with this statement:
“So, if a school decides on its own, independent of religious dictations from the churches, to hold morning prayer, they are not violating separation of church and state. If a town decides on its own, independent of religious dictations from the churches, to erect a memorial with a cross, they are not violating separation of church and state.” – thebesig
Your scenario argues otherwise, it would suggest a religious influence in the decision to take from taxpayers to pay for religious idolatry. That’s opposite to what I’m arguing.
Dave Hardin: Let us read that again.
You need to read what I said with the intention of understanding what I’ve said, before you say anything about reading something again. As I’ve already pointed out, had you understood what I said, and demonstrated such understanding in your post, you probably would not have left the post for me to fact check.
Dave Hardin: Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions. [STRAWMAN]
Nowhere, in my post, did I argue that our civil rights depended on our religious opinions. However, it is fact that the evolution of Christian philosophical thought contributed greatly to our current concept of democracy and rights.
For example, why is it that during most, if not all, trials until recently, you put your hand on the Bible and swore to tell the truth during a court proceeding? Part of the reason for that is that during the Founding Fathers time, and before that, having a jury was a way to represent God in court. It was not the only reason for a jury, but it was one of the important ones. In fact, if you wanted a jury trial during the founder’s times, you requested trial by God and country.
Lying to another man was not considered as serious as lying to God, especially in a situation where his presence is represented by the common population.
Other options that people had was being tried by canon law. I bolded those two words, as your entire premise, the underlying themes of your reply to me, assumed that I was approaching this from a canon law approach, as well as from a Scripture approach. I wasn’t.
Please go back and read my original post to understand what I’m saying.
Here’s another one, the major fact that we could reference separation of church and state was made possible by Christian monks that advanced such concept in the medieval period.
Dave Hardin: What Jefferson’s document did was disestablish the Church of England and create a deterrent from any other religious group from establishing itself within our government.
Which I argued using this statement:
“This was the understanding that our founders had, they had issues with the Church of England exerting influence and say within the colonial government. This was on top of the legal requirement for the colonials to pay taxes to the Church of England, regardless of their religious denomination.” — thebesig
Keywords, “they had issues.” Which led to the statement that I made:
“This led to the amendment involving religion.” — thebesig
Dave Hardin: You use expressions like “assault on religion” to describe the very acts that are defending Jefferson’s own words. A defense against religious aggression into our government, its lands, and buildings is not an attack. It is a defense of the very constitution that separates us from tyranny.
First, context is everything, again what I said:
“Also, this is not just an assault on religion, but an assault against anything seen as ‘conservative.’ Any organization that holds a standard that contradicts the values of those PC crowds is subject to vilification, scorn, rejection, etc.” — thebesig
Do you see the bolded statement in my quoted statement? Those are the keywords in that paragraph. It was obvious that I was shifting gears from speaking about what I was originally speaking about in my post, to addressing something different that’s going on.
Stay with me now, focus!
Second, here’s something else that I said:
“So, if a school decides on its own, independent of religious dictations from the churches, to hold morning prayer, they are not violating separation of church and state. If a town decides on its own, independent of religious dictations from the churches, to erect a memorial with a cross, they are not violating separation of church and state.” — thebesig
Let’s not forget the fact that Thomas Jefferson attended Sunday mass in one of the halls of Congress while they were waiting for an official church to be constructed to serve that purpose.
Perhaps you could go back in time and accuse him of assaulting our government with religion, and then slap him with his own words. Nowhere did Thomas Jefferson argue that the government couldn’t make a decision involving prayer, religious symbols, or anything of that nature.
Look at the United States Supreme Court building, chances are you’ll see religious figures displayed as part of its design. If your assumptions were true, none of our government buildings would have any religious symbols on them.
Heck, even the Medal of Honor has a Roman goddess displayed on it. Perhaps you could go to Congress, and the president, and demand that they stop assaulting our government with religion.
Then tell the US Supreme Court to quit participating in a religious assault on our government. See above comment.
The cold hard reality is that what I described here is not a defense of a religious assault on our government. If you read my statement, you would understand that if the government decides to do it, it is within their right that falls under the proper interpretation of separation of church and state.
Again, our founding fathers did not invent the concept of separation of church and state. Christian monks did during the medieval period, centuries before Thomas Jefferson and his compatriots were half twinkles in their dad’s nuts and mothers’ counterparts.
Dave Harden: Jefferson did indeed use the writings of the New Testament in the construct of our civil law.
Which is a concept that I was not using in my previous post, or on this current post.
Dave Harden: He first removed any reference to divinity from them,
Not the divinity that I was referencing in my previous post, or this one. Keep in mind that there are two major parts to our Bible.
Dave Harden: removed any supernatural belief, and only kept was moral truth he could derive.
Nowhere did he did a similar thing to the Old Testament. Why? He only had issues with it related to Jesus. He had no issues with it as it related to God and the old Testament.
He did the actual “cut and paste” to revise the New Testament.
Dave Harden: He published a book with the result.
I was going to mention that in my last post; however, since you misinterpreted my post, and failed to understand what I said, I’m glad I didn’t.
Dave Harden: Our founding fathers were not Atheists that is true,
Agreed.
Dave Harden: the fact that they were not Christians is equally true.
Not true. If they were not Christians, they would’ve stopped attending the respective denominations. That wasn’t the case. Most attended their respective denominations, but did not take part in communion.
The difference is that they took a scientific approach to viewing the New Testament as apposed to their fellow church goers.
As you mentioned, they did not agree to the “hocus pocus” part of the New Testament, but accepted Jesus’ teachings. A basic requirement, to be a Christian, is to accept Jesus’ teachings.
Dave Harden: Jefferson was widely believed to be Atheist, particularly by his opponents. That claim is published about him for decades during his life.
You’ve posted here long enough to know that the keywords in your statement proves one of your main arguments wrong.
This site has opponents that believe that we are all terrorists, bullies, etc. This site also has opponents that believe that we are actively trying to get veterans to commit suicide. Does their assumption about us make that “fact”? No, it doesn’t, and you know that.
Keep in mind the religious background of many the people that were around during the Founding Fathers’ time. The charge of being an atheist back in those days was far more damaging back then. Of course his opponents would want to label him as an “atheist.” It’s like our opponents wanting to believe that we are terrorists and bullies. Posters on this site know of at least a couple of opponents that have written such on their blogs.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” — Declaration Of Independence
Trivia, who wrote the Decoration of Independence? Hint, the answer is the guy that was described as being on “atheist” by his opponents.
Nope, doesn’t look like an atheist to me.
Dave Harden: Thomas Payne was as anti-religious as a person can get.
He wouldn’t have gone in defense of Deism had he been “anti-religious.” He was no more “anti-religious” than a member of one Christian religion despising other Christian religions. He even argued that everyone was a “Deist” if they believe in God.
76. “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.”
Thomas Jefferson — Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
77. “… I am not afraid of priests. They have tried upon me all their various batteries of pious whining, hypocritical canting, lying and slandering. I have contemplated their order from the Magi of the East to the Saints of the West and I have found no difference of character, but of more or less caution, in proportion to their information or ignorance on whom their interested duperies were to be played off. Their sway in New England is indeed formidable. No mind beyond mediocrity dares there to develop itself.”
Thomas Jefferson — letter to Horatio Spofford, 1816
78. “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Thomas Jefferson
79. “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”
Thomas Jefferson — letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT “The Complete Jefferson” by Saul K. Padover, pp 518-519
80. “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.”
Thomas Jefferson — “Notes on Virginia”
81. “On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.” Thomas Jefferson — to Carey, 1816
82. “Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a common censor over each other. Is uniformity attainable Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.”
Thomas Jefferson — Notes on Virginia.
83 “Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church … made of Christendom a slaughter-house.”
Thomas Jefferson — to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822
84. “There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.”
Thomas Jefferson
85. “I looked around for God’s judgments, but saw no signs of them.”
Ben Franklin
86. “Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies.”
Thomas Paine
87. “It is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the New Testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised thereon, against which I contend. The story, taking it as it is told, is blasphemously obscene.
Thomas Paine
88. “Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
George Washington
Being a history buff and all, you probably know all of that. Fact check it and get back to me.
I mean, you are the only history buff around these parts. It’s not like I write about the topic……or have I. Have a nice time living in that deluded little world of yours. I will defend the Constitution from people like you.
A little more to add here: At the time the constitution was written, most, if not all the colonies did have a state religion. The Founding Fathers were intent on recognizing that none were to be official in the new federal government. That said, the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, are rights given by the Creator and cannot be taken away by man. There was a great debate to even include these rights in the Constitution. Thankfully, those rights were included although the federal government has been trying, and in some cases succeeding in chipping away at those rights ever since.
I congratulate you on your speech, since what we are reading is the transcript of that endeavor. I also congratulate you for taking a detailed course in college focusing on our founding fathers. I will assume you did not actually transport the course from any point to another but rather attended a course at the collegiate level. Me, I deal with the day to day limitations of attaining my GED.
I struggled through your rather verbose meandering of thought with the intention of being objective. I must admit that I was unable to maintain any objectivity. I will again make an assumption that you babble into speech dictation because you are unable to master the keyboard due to some limitation. How that pertains to the discussion I am at a loss to explain, but thank you for pointing out your limitation. As you may well have already guessed, I too have my own difficulties with the keyboard.
I tried to ignore the tone of condescension that was transcribed from your voice to the written word but it is nearly impossible for me to achieve. It appears you like to create Strawman arguments by using the logical fallacy of a Strawman argument to do so. I have no idea what you are going on about with most of your responding transcription posted from the words you are speaking to the text dictation software.
Since I am obviously inept at being able to read what you say with the intention of understanding what you’ve said, and demonstrate an understanding in my posts, I will probably leave you with a post that requires you to fact check it.
Try to dumb down your vocabulary for those of us that missed that amazing college course that elevated your perspective as a history buff beyond your mere earthly horizons. I will attempt a succinct demonstration.
There probably is not God, I cant prove that but I didn’t make the claim that there was one. Up to those who make the claim to prove it.
Since I have no evidence that convinces me there is a God, a God did not give me shit, nada, nuttin, not a God Damn thing. He, she, it or whatever, did not grant me freedom from the Heavens.
I have attended Sunday Mass for many different reasons. Jefferson and I have that in common, neither one of us are Christians. In later years, Jefferson refused to serve as a godparent for infants being baptized, because he did not believe in the dogma of the Trinity. Despite testimony of Jefferson’s church attendance, there is no evidence that he was ever confirmed or was a communicant, the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to that position.
Your statement about what led to the amendment involving religion is nonsense. Religion was seen as caustic to freedom.
Since you like to fact check things that I post here are a few for you to look up:
1. “While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”
The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.
2. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.
George Washington — letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792
3. “The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.”
John Adams
4. “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God That they are not to be violated but with His wrath Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”
Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237
5. The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation, wrote Washington. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens.
George Washington in a letter to Touro Synagogue (1790)
6. “Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God … What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.”
Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.
7. We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.
Founding FatherJohn Adams — letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785
8. “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”
James Madison — Letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774
9. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.
Thomas Jefferson — in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814
10. “The human understanding is a revelation from its maker, which can never be disputed or doubted. There can be no scepticism, Pyrrhonism, or incredulity or infidelity here. No prophecies, no miracles are necessary to prove this celestical communication. This revelation has made it certain that two and one make three, and that one is not three nor can three be one. We can never be so certain of any prophecy, or the fulfilment of any prophecy, or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle, as we are from the revelation of nature, that is, nature’s God, that two and two are equal to four.”
Adam’s Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 14 September 1813
12. History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
Thomas Jefferson — in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813
13. “No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in its advances towards rational Christianity. When we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, raised to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus; when, in short, we shall have unlearned everything which has been taught since His day, and get back to the pure and simple doctrines He inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily His disciples; and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from His lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian. I know that the case you cite, of Dr. Drake, has been a common one. The religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconceivable, as to shock reasonable thinkers, to revolt them against the whole, and drive them rashly to pronounce its Founder an imposter. Had there never been a commentator, there never would have been an infidel.”
Jefferson’s Letter to Timothy Pickering, 21 Feb 1821
14. “It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet the one is not three, and the three are not one: to divide mankind by a single letter into [“consubstantialists and like-substantialists”]. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. We should all then, like the quakers, live without an order of priests, moralise for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe; for I suppose belief to be the assent of the mind to an intelligible proposition.”
Jefferson’s Letter to John Adams, August 22, 1813
15. The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.
Founding Father James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, Essays In Addition to Americas Real Religion
16. And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
James Madison — letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
17. Every new and successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance.
James Madison — letter, 1822
18. “Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years”
John Adams
19. “Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion”
John Adams — letter to Thomas Jefferson
20. When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, its a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
Benjamin Franklin — letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780
21. “It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov’t from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others.”
James Madison, “James Madison on Religious Liberty”, edited by Robert S. Alley, ISBN 0-8975-298-X. pp. 237-238.
22. “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.”
Jefferson’s letter to John Adams, April 11 1823
23. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forebearance, love, and charity towards each other.
George Mason — Virginia Bill of Rights, 1776
24. “God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world.”
John Adams
25. A man of abilities and character, of any sect whatever, may be admitted to any office or public trust under the United States. I am a friend to a variety of sects, because they keep one another in order. How many different sects are we composed of throughout the United States How many different sects will be in congress We cannot enumerate the sects that may be in congress. And there are so many now in the United States that they will prevent the establishment of any one sect in prejudice to the rest, and will forever oppose all attempts to infringe religious liberty. If such an attempt be made, will not the alarm be sounded throughout America If congress be as wicked as we are foretold they will, they would not run the risk of exciting the resentment of all, or most of the religious sects in America.
Edmund Randolph — address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 10, 1788
26. I never liked the Hierarchy of the Church an equality in the teacher of Religion, and a dependence on the people, are republican sentiments but if the Clergy combine, they will have their influence on Government
Rufus King, Rufus King: American Federalist, pp. 56-57
27. A general toleration of Religion appears to me the best means of peopling our country The free exercise of religion hath stocked the Northern part of the continent with inhabitants; and altho Europe hath in great measure adopted a more moderate policy, yet the profession of Protestantism is extremely inconvenient in many places there. A Calvinist, a Lutheran, or Quaker, who hath felt these inconveniences in Europe, sails not to Virginia, where they are felt perhaps in a (greater degree).
Patrick Henry, observing that immigrants flock to places where there is no established religion, Religious Tolerance, 1766
28. “As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed”
John Adams — letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
29. “What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”
James Madison — “A Memorial and Remonstrance”, 1785
30. “The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes.”
John Adams — letter to John Taylor
31. “The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles”
John Adams
32. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams
33. Congress has no power to make any religious establishments.
Roger Sherman, Congress, August 19, 1789
34. The American states have gone far in assisting the progress of truth; but they have stopped short of perfection. They ought to have given every honest citizen an equal right to enjoy his religion and an equal title to all civil emoluments, without obliging him to tell his religion. Every interference of the civil power in regulating opinion, is an impious attempt to take the business of the Deity out of his own hands; and every preference given to any religious denomination, is so far slavery and bigotry.
Noah Webster calling for no religious tests to serve in public office, Sketches of American Policy, 1785
35. “The office of reformer of the superstitions of a nation is ever dangerous. Jesus had to walk on the perilous confines of reason and religion; and a step to right or left might place Him within the grasp of the priests of the superstition, a bloodthirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the Being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel. They were constantly laying snares, too, to entangle Him in the web of the law. He was justifiable, therefore, in avoiding these by evasions, by sophisms, by misconstructions and misapplications of scraps of the prophets, and in defending Himself with these their own weapons, as sufficient, ad homines, at least. That Jesus did not mean to impose Himself on mankind as the Son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in the lore.”
Thomas Jefferson’s letter to William Short, August 4, 1820
36. “. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”
John Adams
37. God has appointed two kinds of government in the world, which are distinct in their nature, and ought never to be confounded together; one of which is called civil, the other ecclesiastical government.
Isaac Backus — An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, 1773
38. If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.
George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789
39. “The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs.”
Thomas Jefferson — Letter to James Smith, December 8, 1822
40. The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America 1787-1788
41. Manufacturers, who listening to the powerful invitations of a better price for their fabrics, or their labor, of greater cheapness of provisions and raw materials, of an exemption from the chief part of the taxes burdens and restraints, which they endure in the old world, of greater personal independence and consequence, under the operation of a more equal government, and of what is far more precious than mere religious tolerationa perfect equality of religious privileges; would probably flock from Europe to the United States to pursue their own trades or professions, if they were once made sensible of the advantages they would enjoy, and were inspired with an assurance of encouragement and employment, will, with difficulty, be induced to transplant themselves, with a view to becoming cultivators of the land.
Alexander Hamilton: Report on the Subject of Manufacturers December 5, 1791
42. Knowledge and liberty are so prevalent in this country, that I do not believe that the United States would ever be disposed to establish one religious sect, and lay all others under legal disabilities. But as we know not what may take place hereafter, and any such test would be exceedingly injurious to the rights of free citizens, I cannot think it altogether superfluous to have added a clause, which secures us from the possibility of such oppression.
Oliver Wolcott, Connecticut Ratifying Convention, 9 January 1788
43. We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a mans religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.
George Washington — letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793
44. “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”
John Adams
45. Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
46. The legislature of the United States shall pass no law on the subject of religion.
Charles Pinckney, Constitutional Convention, 1787
47. No religious doctrine shall be established by law.
Elbridge Gerry, Annals of Congress 1:729-731
48. Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.
Founding Father John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-88)
49. Some very worthy persons, who have not had great advantages for information, have objected against that clause in the constitution which provides, that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. They have been afraid that this clause is unfavorable to religion. But my countrymen, the sole purpose and effect of it is to exclude persecution, and to secure to you the important right of religious
liberty. We are almost the only people in the world, who have a full enjoyment of this important right of human nature. In our country every man has a right to worship God in that way which is most agreeable to his conscience. If he be a good and peaceable person he is liable to no penalties or incapacities on account of his religious sentiments; or in other words, he is not subject to persecution. But in other parts of the world, it has been, and still is, far different. Systems of religious error have been adopted, in times of ignorance. It has been the interest of tyrannical kings, popes, and prelates, to maintain these errors. When the clouds of ignorance began to vanish, and the people grew more enlightened, there was no other way to keep them in error, but to prohibit their altering their religious opinions by severe persecuting laws. In this way persecution became general throughout Europe.
Oliver Ellsworth, Philip B Kurland and Ralph Lerner (eds.), The Founders Constitution, University of Chicago Press, 1987, Vol. 4, p.638
50. “Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
James Madison, Ibid, 1785
51. Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.
Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1791
52. It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin. Let us, then, look to the great cause, and endeavor to preserve it in full force. Let us by all wise and constitutional measures promote intelligence among the people as the best means of preserving our liberties.
James Monroe — First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1817
53. It is contrary to the principles of reason and justice that any should be compelled to contribute to the maintenance of a church with which their consciences will not permit them to join, and from which they can derive no benefit; for remedy whereof, and that equal liberty as well religious as civil, may be universally extended to all the good people of this commonwealth.
George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776
54. Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.
James Madison; Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments
55. The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams
56. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
Founding Father Thomas Jefferson — letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802
57. “I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved– the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”
John Adams — letter to Thomas Jefferson
58. “Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.”
James Madison
59. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.
Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
60. In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced, and both by precept and example inculcated on mankind.
Samuel Adams — The Rights of the Colonists (1771)
61. Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every persons life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the wall of separation between church and state, therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. We have solved the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
Thomas Jefferson — in a speech to the Virginia Baptists, 1808
62. “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
James Madison — 1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches
63.I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.
Founding Father Thomas Jefferson — letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799
64. “I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not strictly speaking, whether I am one or not.”
Ethan Allen, Revolutionary War Hero — preface, Reason the Only Oracle of Man
65. “Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.”
Thomas Paine
66. “Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.
Thomas Paine
67. “What is it the New Testament teaches us To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith.”
Thomas Paine
68. “We do not admit the authority of the church with respect to its pretended infallibility, its manufactured miracles, its setting itself up to forgive sins. It was by propagating that belief and supporting it with fire that she kept up her temporal power.”
Thomas Paine
69. “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. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.”
Thomas Paine
70. “The story of Jesus Christ appearing after he was dead is the story of an apparition, such as timid imaginations can always create in vision, and credulity believe. Stories of this kind had been told of the assassination of Julius Caesar.”
Thomas Paine
71. “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.”
Thomas Paine
72. “The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.”
Thomas Paine
73. “I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works … I mean real good works … not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing … or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity.”
Benjamin Franklin — Works, Vol. VII, p. 75
74. “Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”
Benjamin Franklin — in Poor Richard’s Almanac
75. “We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication .”
Thomas Jefferson
Will you two go get a room already?
Dave Hardin: 76. “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.” Thomas Jefferson — Virginia Act for Religious Freedom [STRAWMAN + RED HERRING]
Again, context is everything:
“Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.” — Thomas Jefferson (Virginia Historical Society)
Which actually supports what I argued:
“This was the understanding that our founders had, they had issues with the Church of England exerting influence and say within the colonial government. This was on top of the need, legal requirement, for the colonials to pay taxes to the Church of England, regardless of their religious denomination.
“This led to the amendment involving religion.” – thebesig
Dave Hardin: 77. “… I am not afraid of priests. They have tried upon me all their various batteries of pious whining, hypocritical canting, lying and slandering. I have contemplated their order from the Magi of the East to the Saints of the West and I have found no difference of character, but of more or less caution, in proportion to their information or ignorance on whom their interested duperies were to be played off. Their sway in New England is indeed formidable. No mind beyond mediocrity dares there to develop itself.”
Thomas Jefferson — letter to Horatio Spofford, 1816 [STRAWMAN + RED HERRING]
First, that came from his essay titled, “Essay on New England Religious Intolerance.”
Here is a quote of what he actually said, taken in context, with the portion left out from your quote bolded:
“You judge truly that I am not afraid of the priests. they have tried upon me all their various batteries, of pious whining, hypocritical canting, lying & slandering, without being able to give me one moment of pain. I have contemplated their order from the Magi of the East to the Saints of the West, and I have found no difference of character, but of more or less caution, in proportion to the information or ignorance of those on whom their interested duperies were to be plaid off. their sway in New England is indeed formidable. no mind beyond mediocrity dares there to develope itself. if it does, they excite against it the public opinion which they command, & by little, but incessant and teazing persecutions, drive it from among them. their present great emigrations to the Western country are real flights from persecution, religious & political. but the abandonment of the country by those who wish to enjoy freedom of opinion leaves the despotism over the residue more intense, more oppressive.” — Thomas Jefferson
Notice what I have emphasized in bold above. Specifically, the second bolded statement. He acknowledges religious persecution. Nowhere in that quote, or his entire essay, does he condemn religion, or argue against it. He’s simply arguing against the lack of religious tolerance being displayed in a specific area of the United States.
His generating this essay made him no different from anybody from any religion today expressing the same thing against similar efforts by other religions. This does not make him an “atheist.” This quote does not argue against the main themes of my previous posts, and this one.
Dave Hardin: 78. “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” – Thomas Jefferson
Let’s take that in context:
“The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. … Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.” — Thomas Jefferson (Jefferson’s religious beliefs, The Jeffersonian Monticello)
Do you see the bolded statement?
Since you have problems understanding what he was talking about, let me break that down for you.
The first two sentences ties in the fact that we are accountable to God. In the next sentence, he accurately states that the powers of government are limited. The moment those powers get to the point to where they injure others, those powers are over reaching. It continues on with him arguing for the freedom to express his opinion regarding religion. He was basically saying that other people have a right to disagree with him, and not be suppressed for that disagreement.
He concludes that specific paragraph by arguing in favor of reason and free inquiry. He states these as the effective agents against error. You know, like what I’m doing to your misconceptions.
Dave Hardin: 79. “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”
Thomas Jefferson — letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT “The Complete Jefferson” by Saul K. Padover, pp 518-519 [STRAWMAN + RED HERRING]
Check out what he said afterwards:
“I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.” — Thomas Jefferson to the same letter
Nope, no atheist here.
That entire quote supports my argument, and does nothing to prove it wrong. This is applicable to every single quote that you used in an attempt to prove me “wrong,” quotation marks used strongly.
If you carefully read what he said, he was arguing about how people had the right to exercise religion, and that the government can’t restrict that. He follows that up by emphasizing how religion can’t tell the government what to do. This falls along the lines of what I stated in previous posts.
Dave Hardin: 80. “What has been the effect of coercion To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.”
Thomas Jefferson — “Notes on Virginia” [STRAWMAN + RED HERRING]
The full quote:
“Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.” – Thomas Jefferson
He was arguing against religious persecution, and against holding people’s religious opinions against them in cases of disagreement. He was not arguing against religion as a whole.
If you paid attention to what you read, and what you study, as well as put things in context of everything else that Thomas Jefferson said, you’d understand that he was not trying to argue against religion in totality. He was expressing knowledge that is common knowledge among the founders. Even today, we can look at instances where crimes against humanity were done in the name of Christianity.
But, that doesn’t dismiss the fact that Thomas Jefferson laid out the basic belief, part of the philosophy that created the United States Constitution. It’s the recognition that God is the source of our rights, as well as a source of many of the core philosophies underlying our laws. That’s reflected in the imagery displayed on many of our federal government buildings.
The fact that the use religious figures from other religions does not dismiss the fact that our founders strongly believed that our rights came from God.
Dave Hardin: 81. “On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.” Thomas Jefferson — to Carey, 1816 [STRAWMAN + RED HERRING]
Pay close attention to the first payment in that quote. In that statement, Thomas Jefferson acknowledged two things that came out of religion, the dogmas as well is a moral principles. He was acknowledging that religion was something was like a rose bush, with all its thorns and roses.
This is not a condemnation of religion, nor is it his rejecting religion. Again, you have to look at this in the context of everything else he said and done. If the man was an atheist, or did not care about religion, he would not have “cut and pasted” a new revision for the New Testament.
Yes, people have begun violence in the name of religion. But, that does not dismiss the fact that religion also provided its goods. As with the other quotes, this does not argue against the themes of my previous posts.
Dave Hardin: 82. “Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a common censor over each other. Is uniformity attainable Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.” Thomas Jefferson — Notes on Virginia. [STRAWMAN + RED HERRING + REPEAT POINT]
Pay attention to the first two sentences in that quote. Taken in context to everything else he had argued during this time, he’s talking about “checks and balances.” How is it a “check and balance”? In the case of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson understood the differences in opinions, a strategic level, could lead to war, and was associated with war. In this case, war driven by religion.
In the colonies, and later did in the United States, in order to make a Republic, that has multiple religions and sects, work in harmony, the first two sentences in that quote have to apply. Again, the remainder of that paragraph argues why he made those first two sentences. They accurately pointed out that the different religions had to come to terms with their differences instead of continuing on in strife with each other.
Thomas Jefferson, and his criticism of religion, was doing so against religious persecution. He wasn’t doing it as an argument against religion as a whole. This doesn’t dismiss the fact that the philosophy that evolved Christian philosophy contributed to our version of democracy.
Dave Hardin: 83 “Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church … made of Christendom a slaughter-house.” Thomas Jefferson — to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822
Yet, when you see it as part of a bigger statement, you get a different picture:
You asked my opinion on the items of doctrine in your catechism. I have never permitted myself to meditate a specified Creed. These formulas have been the bane and ruin of the Christian church, its own fatal invention, which, through so many ages, made of Christian dumped a slaughterhouse, and at this day divided into castes of an extinguisher boat hatred to one another.” – Thomas Jefferson and contacts
What is he saying here?
What he is actually doing is disagreeing with the idea that a single Christian denomination would have the truth as opposed to the other Christian denominations. It is this assumption, within each religious denomination, that he is criticizing. This is what he’s calling “the bane and ruin” of Christendom.
No argument here. I’ve used that exact same argument against the Bible thumper’s that I’ve argued against. As with your other quotes, this does not detract from my argument, nor does it support your argument.
This is consistent with his argument against religious prosecution. Nowhere does it argue against the themes of my argument on this thread.
Holding that the belief does not make him on “atheist,” or against Christianity, anymore the my using it in an argument makes me one, or makes me someone that opposes religion. It doesn’t. I can still hold that stance, against the Bible thumper’s, and still hold the position that I’m holding here.
Nowhere in my argument and my arguing that we follow Scripture, nor am I arguing that our country, and laws, came from Canon laws or Scripture.
Dave Hardin: 84. “There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.” Thomas Jefferson
First, he did not say that. Congratulations, you fell for an urban legend. Like the urban legend lemming, you jumped right in and followed through simply because that quote massaged your ego. Who’s living in a delusional world now?
Dennis Howard Chevalier? Is this you?
If he felt that Christianity was a superstition, why would he even acknowledge it, or its beliefs, when he talks about things like our rights coming from our Creator? Why would even revise the New Testament if he felt that Christianity was a superstition? His revision consisted of physical “copy and paste” of different parts of the New Testament.
That is a derivative, a misinterpretation, of a quote that you already placed here:
“Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.” – Thomas Jefferson
Dave Hardin: 85. “I looked around for God’s judgments, but saw no signs of them.”
Ben Franklin
Again, context is everything. It’s amazing how different the picture would be if you quoted everything along with it:
“The most memorable was a trip to the continent in the summer of 1761. Because Britain was still at war with France, they traveled instead to Holland and Flanders. Franklin noted with pleasure that the observance of religion there was not a strict as in America, especially when it came to observing Sundays as the Sabbath. ‘In the afternoon, both high and low went to the play or the opera, where there was plenty of singing, whittling and dancing,’ he reported to a Connecticut friend. ‘I looked around for God’s judgments but saw no signs of them.’ He concluded, with a touch of amusement, that this provided evidence that the Lord did not care so much about preventing pleasure on the Sabbath as the strict Puritans would have people believe.” Benjamin Franklin: An American Life, by Walter Isaacson, pp 200.
What he is essentially saying there is that God did not punish these folk for not abiding by the puritanical version of observing the Sabbath. He was not professing to be an atheist, nor was he acting independent of Christian philosophy. He simply pointing out that God took no action against these “Sabbath infractions.”
Dave Hardin: 86. “Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies.” – Thomas Paine [STRAWMAN + RED HERRING]
Notice, as you read that, that he talks about God, and does not attempt to discredit God’s existence? You can’t even take this as proof that this guy was an “atheist”, nor that he was divorced from religion:
“It honors reason as the choicest gift of God to man, and the faculty by which he is enabled to contemplate the power, wisdom and goodness of the Creator displayed in the creation; and reposing itself on His protection, both here and hereafter, it avoids all presumptuous beliefs, and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to revelation.” — Thomas Paine
Dave Hardin: 87. “It is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the New Testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised thereon, against which I contend. The story, taking it as it is told, is blasphemously obscene. – Thomas Paine
The fable of Jesus Christ, as opposed to the real Jesus Christ. He didn’t believe that Jesus was a divine as portrayed in the Bible, but he did believe that Jesus was just a human, no different from the other religious leaders of his time. He accurately stated that the Romans created his divine image, made him some that he wasn’t, but he did not deny Jesus’s existence, or his preaching.
“He may believe that such a person as is called Jesus (for Christ was not his name) was born and grew to be a man, because it is no more than a natural and probable case. But who is to prove he is the son of God, that he was begotten by the Holy Ghost? Of these things there can be no proof; and that which admits not of proof, and is against the laws of probability and the order of nature, which God Himself has established, is not an object for belief. God has not given man reason to embarrass him, but to prevent his being imposed upon.” — Thomas Paine
Dave Hardin: 88. “Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
George Washington
Once again, you fell victim to a revised, urban legend, version of what was actually said.
Here is his actual quote, his actual words, in context:
“I regret exceedingly that the disputes between the Protestants and Roman Catholics should be carried to the serious and alarming heigth mentioned in your letters. Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause: And I was not without hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy of age would have put an effectual stop to contentions of this Kind.” – George Washington letter to Edward Newenham, 22 June 1792
Nowhere in there was he criticizing religion as a whole, nor was he condemning it. He was addressing a letter that was talking about friction between the Protestants and Roman Catholics. He continued on and expressed disappointment that in his modern period, people cannot go beyond that.
The founding fathers lived through a period labeled as an “enlightenment period.” Part of the spinoff of that included looking at the Bible with a modern mindset, as opposed to mindset in place when the different parts of the Bible was written. A lot of what you reference is the founding fathers doing that; however, that is not them dismissing religion, nor proving it wrong.
Dave Hardin: Being a history buff and all, you probably know all of that.
Yes, I knew about the actual quotes. They, along with other quotes related to religion, contributed to my understanding of the amendment involving religion better. I also know that there were phony quotes being passed around by atheists/anti-religious people in order to bolster their anti-Christian views. You captured some of these, please see explanation above.
Dave Hardin: Fact check it and get back to me.
My fact checking your disagreement with me is almost as guaranteed as death and taxes. That goes without saying. And yes, as you can see, I did fact check your arguments, as well as your intent with those quotes, and explain what they actually meant.
Dave Hardin: I mean, you are the only history buff around these parts.
I never made that claim.
Your lack of knowledge of the history, the founding fathers’ writings, the circumstances and philosophy surrounding the actions and arguments of the founding fathers, painfully shows in your posts.
None of those quotes proved me “wrong”, nor did they bolster your argument. Again, I emphasized the philosophy that evolved from Christian philosophy. I emphasize, in my last reply, the nowhere was I talking about Canon nor Scripture with regards to the themes of my argument.
Notwithstanding the difference of opinions of the different Christian religions, the fact of the matter is that the philosophy that came from the church contributed greatly to the events that led to the Magna Carta, and later to the evolution that led to the writing of our Constitution.
Nowhere did you argue against that argument, nowhere have you attempted to prove that argument wrong.
Like Dennis Howard Chevalier, you adapted a strawman fallacy. Here, let me break this down for you.
I advance the actual argument that I’m making, argument “X.”
You reply with a distorted, alternate, argument addressing something I did not argue, argument “Y.”
You argue that “Y” is “wrong,” therefore, I’m “wrong.”
You built a strawman that represented what you thought, or hoped, I was arguing. You attacked the strawman. Nowhere did you address my actual argument, argument “X.”
Perhaps if you follow the advice of one of the founders that you like to quote, you’d count to 10, or 100, before you decide to reply to my post. I could tell, but the way you conduct yourself here, that you are replying driven purely by emotion. You tend to see everything from a standpoint of atheists versus non-atheists.
That is what your arguments are driven from, an attempt to force-feed us your atheistic based philosophies, becoming guilty of the very thing that the founders that you quoted criticized.
If you read my posts with a level head, and without seeing things from the perspective of being an atheist, you’d find that we do not actually have an argument. Again, you’ve failed to address my argument, instead, you argued against a strawman constructed within atheistic worldview.
And since you argue driven purely by emotion, biased by your atheism, you’re adapting similar strategies and tactics that I see in Dennis Howard Chevalier’s, and the Dutch Rudder Gangs Blogs.
“When angry, count 10. before you speak; if very angry, 100.” — Thomas Jefferson
Dave Hardin: It’s not like I write about the topic……or have I.
If you had written about it, there’s a good chance that you did so in the same sense that Dennis Howard Chevalier wrote about his topics on his “evidence” blog.
Dave Hardin: Have a nice time living in that deluded little world of yours.
Says the guy that quoted both fictitious and modified founding father quotes. See my replies above. If I didn’t know your age, or the fact that you are a Beirut Veteran, I would’ve been tempted to follow my response to you up with a reminder that when I ask for an egg white McMuffin, make sure it comes with egg whites.
Dave Hardin: I will defend the Constitution from people like you.
Your lack of knowledge of how our Constitution came about, to include the philosophy and existence to the time of the founding fathers, makes you as dangerous to the Constitution as those not job militiamen who think that they will overthrow the government one day.
I’m not a threat to the Constitution. The fact of the matter is that the philosophy that led to the creation of the Constitution derived from Christian philosophy. In fact, what the founders referred to as “God’s law,” which included natural law, common-law, and the like, formed the lifeblood of the philosophy that went into creating the Constitution.
You, as an atheist, see a problem with that. You can’t even begin to talk about “defending the Constitution,” when you don’t understand how the Constitution came into being. You’re interpreting it from your standpoint, from a 20th and 21st century opinion, as opposed to the common-law 18th-century philosophy that existed back then.
“For I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” — Thomas Jefferson, the Jefferson Monticello
Religious persecution is one form of tyranny. Don’t mistake that as arguments against what I’ve argued here. All the quotes from him, that you included on your reply, fits under this last quoted statement.
Dave Hardin: I congratulate you on your speech, since what we are reading is the transcript of that endeavor. I also congratulate you for taking a detailed course in college focusing on our founding fathers. I will assume you did not actually transport the course from any point to another but rather attended a course at the collegiate level.
I took the information, learned in the course, and incorporated it my greater knowledge about American history. I utilize that information to further research’s similar and other information. I didn’t take it in isolation, then “pump and dump” at the end of the term. It was a base of research that I continue to do to the present time.
In fact, all these quotes that you presented, or, rather, the majority of the quotes that you presented, our very similar to what I studied in the course. The textbook that we used was chock-full with the writings of the founding fathers.
Your assumption, that I did not transported it from one point to another, that I just took it as a course and did nothing else, is an error. But then again, so is every other argument you’ve made on this thread.
Dave Hardin: Me, I deal with the day to day limitations of attaining my GED.
I don’t hold, a person’s highest degree, against him/her. What I do hold against him/her is there failure, inability, to read and understand simple English. Even though I’m about to matriculate for my doctoral studies, I use simple English when posting on social media as well as sites like these.
I know for fact that fifth-graders could understand the posts that I generate. I’ve actually had one read my an article that I posted before, he understood what I said. The English I used in that article was no different from the English I’m using here.
Dave Hardin: I struggled through your rather verbose meandering of thought with the intention of being objective. I must admit that I was unable to maintain any objectivity.
It’s kind of hard to struggle through a post, that you disagree with, without trying to focus on what you’d say before you understand what you’re trying to address. However, I disagree with your comment that you “struggled” to go through my post.
Recently, I dictated a post that was also long, you compliment that post. The wording that I used in my replies to you here, as in the level of English, was no different from what I used in the other post.
The difference I’m seeing here is that you reading something that you disagree with. What changed is your perception. I guarantee you that if I were to make an argument that you agreed with, while doing the exact same thing that I’m doing this thread, you wouldn’t be talking about “struggling”, nor would you have problems understanding what I’m saying.
So yes, if we were in agreement, you will not be complaining about struggling. You “struggled,” because you’re too busy disagreeing with what I was saying instead of bothering to understand what I was arguing.
Dave Hardin: I will again make an assumption that you babble into speech dictation because you are unable to master the keyboard due to some limitation.
Your assumptions are wrong. I’m a rapid typist. I do not need to look at the keyboard when I type. In fact, if you were to listen to me type, it would sound like rapidly popping popcorn. I’ve been told, by people that have heard me typing, that keyboards have speed limits and that I should abide by them.
I mastered the keyboard back in the 1980s.
I prefer the convenience of dictating commands to access items on the desktop, as well as the greater speed I could generate “written” communication compared to typing.
Dave Hardin: How that pertains to the discussion I am at a loss to explain,
It had everything to do to show you that you did not know what you’re talking about. It was to show the audience that you were wrong.
Dave Hardin: but thank you for pointing out your limitation.
I was not pointing out my limitation, I was simply pointing out that you made a statement that was erroneous. That set the trend of me showing how you were erroneous elsewhere in your posts.
Dave Hardin: As you may well have already guessed, I too have my own difficulties with the keyboard.
I don’t hold someone’s ability to utilize the keyboard against him/her. However, I will hold their difficulty, in understanding English written so that a fifth grader could understand, against them.
Dave Hardin: I tried to ignore the tone of condescension that was transcribed from your voice to the written word but it is nearly impossible for me to achieve. [Projecting your traits to the opposition]
Dennis Howard Chevalier? Is that you? Also I’ll show you a couple examples of condescension:
“If so, the very notion of the premise is false and provably so.” — Dave Hardin
“Let us read that again.” — Dave Hardin
It’s amazing, that over the decade that I’ve been arguing like this on the Internet, the opposition tends to accuse me of being “condescending,” when those who agree with me have not thrown that charge at me.
What you couldn’t stand was seeing a reasoned argument proving you wrong. THAT’s what you’re interpreting as “condescending,” quotation marks used strongly.
Dave Hardin It appears you like to create Strawman arguments by using the logical fallacy of a Strawman argument to do so. [Projecting own traits onto the opposition]
Wrong, you’re the one who is using a strawman argument. The theme of your arguments insist that our founding fathers were “not” Christians. Another theme of the argument has issues with the concept that our founders saw God is our source of rights.
Yet, your responses do not address the “God is the source of our rights”, angle. You advance a different argument. You are countering an argument that I’m not even making. Why? You disagree with the concepts that I am presenting. You put on your atheistic cap, then approach everything from your own world view.
You have yet to address my main arguments, you have yet to even address my supporting arguments. You are insisting on advancing a strawman argument.
Dave Hardin: I have no idea what you are going on about with most of your responding transcription posted from the words you are speaking to the text dictation software.
From the way that you’re responding, I could tell that you don’t. I have an idea, it’s obvious that when you see something proving you wrong logically, your blood boils. But a time you are replying to me, your blood is “bubbling,” steam is blown out of years, and you are busting aneurysms, figuratively speaking.
So, I recommend that instead of immediately replying to these posts, step away from the computer. Go for a walk. Breathe some fresh air. When you’re done, return to your computer and re read my replies. If you find anger boiling in you again, repeat the above exercise, but longer.
You’ll find that if you read my post again, after these exercises, you will tend to be less emotional and more reasonable. Again, if you’re cool, calm, and collected, you’ll find that you are arguing against something that I’m not even arguing.
Dave Hardin: Since I am obviously inept at being able to read what you say with the intention of understanding what you’ve said, and demonstrate an understanding in my posts, I will probably leave you with a post that requires you to fact check it.
You have the capability to understand my posts with the intention of understanding what I’m saying. If you stop acting like a child, if you stop pulling a tantrum when you don’t get your way, vis-à-vis’s seeing your argument destroyed logically, when reading my rebuttals to you, you’d find that you would understand what I’m saying.
Dave Hardin: Try to dumb down your vocabulary for those of us that missed that amazing college course that elevated your perspective as a history buff beyond your mere earthly horizons. I will attempt a succinct demonstration.
Says the guy that uses big words in his posts.
The point that your arrogance is missing is that I have a vantage point that you don’t have with this specific argument. The college course was not done in isolation, but the knowledge gained was carried over into my further research in history matters.
You’ve demonstrated, in replies, that you’re pretty good at parroting quotes you think support your argument. It’s plainly obvious that you have not done research, additional research, beyond the quotes that you’re selecting. I’m doing that for you in my replies.
In fact, the coach that you select show that you are getting desperate in this exchange. You will see that with the remainder of my reply. You are looking at this, with so much emotion in you, that many of the quotes that you provide helps my argument and destroys yours.
Again, you’ve understood a long post that I generated, multiple long posts that I generated, generated with the same type of English. You didn’t have a problem with my posts back then, when we were going against the same opposition.
Now, when we are in the opposite sides of the argument, you’re having all of these “problems” that the opposition normally has. This isn’t the first time that I’ve experience this phenomenon, where people who have previously congratulated me in my arguments turn around and criticize similar arguments, like what you’re doing here, when we find ourselves in opposition.
Dave Hardin: There probably is not God, I cant prove that but I didn’t make the claim that there was one. Up to those who make the claim to prove it.
This is not an argument about whether God exists or not. This is not an argument about whether we should prove he exists, or prove he doesn’t. Whether he does or not is irrelevant to this argument when argument of the fact that Christian philosophy led to our version of democracy.
Whether he exists or not does not dismiss the fact that our founding fathers argued that our rights came from him. It does not dismiss the facts our founding fathers pointed out that humans are accountable to a higher source.
Dave Hardin: Since I have no evidence that convinces me there is a God, a God did not give me shit, nada, nuttin, not a God Damn thing. He, she, it or whatever, did not grant me freedom from the Heavens.
This specific opinion is irrelevant to the main arguments on this thread. When asked if she would vote for an atheist presidential candidate, an atheist replied, “No.” Her justification, she would not vote for somebody who did not hold himself/herself accountable to a higher source.
Do I personally believe that the miracles in the Bible happened? No I don’t. I read the Bible cover to cover with a modern mindset. The belief that I came up with, based on their reading, will probably get me excommunicated from the Vatican. My belief system is more in line with what the founding fathers believed in.
But, that’s not going to stop me from arguing the facts as understood by the founding fathers.
Dave Hardin: I have attended Sunday Mass for many different reasons.
So have I.
Dave Hardin: Jefferson and I have that in common,
No, if you read his quotes in full context, and not cherry picked as you’ve been doing it here, you’d realize that you guys have nothing in common. You hint at being an atheist. Thomas Jefferson did not give up his belief in God, nor did he give up his belief in Jesus’s teachings.
Dave Hardin: neither one of us are Christians. In later years, Jefferson refused to serve as a godparent for infants being baptized, because he did not believe in the dogma of the Trinity.
Wrong again, as usual, with regards to Thomas Jefferson. Not believing in the Trinity does not make one a “non-Christian.” The core concept, the makes one a Christian, is the belief in Jesus’s teachings. Thomas Jefferson did not have any issues with Jesus’s teachings. In fact, he did in fact attend church on numerous occasions, even late into his life.
Again, you do not have much in common with Thomas Jefferson.
Dave Hardin: Despite testimony of Jefferson’s church attendance, there is no evidence that he was ever confirmed or was a communicant, the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to that position.
What I said in a previous reply:
“Not true. If they were not Christians, they would’ve stopped attending the respective denominations. That wasn’t the case. Most attended their respective denominations, but did not take part in communion.” — thebesig
Not taking communion, does not make one someone that’s “not” a Christian. Again, accepting the teachings of Jesus makes one a Christian. Thomas Jefferson did the latter.
Dave Hardin: Your statement about what led to the amendment involving religion is nonsense. Religion was seen as caustic to freedom. [STRAWMAN]</b.
Wrong, my statement about the amendment involving religion is dead accurate. The concept behind the separation of church and state began during the medieval period, when Christian monks created a concept.
Back then, Bavarian kings were influencing what happened within the church. Both the local diocese, and the Vatican, protested that. They insisted that the church be able to make decisions on its own affairs, while the Kings made decisions on their own affairs.
Separation of church and state, advanced centuries before the founding fathers were born.
During the colonial period, the Church of England held strong influence among the colonial governments. In addition to that, the colonials had to pay a tax to the Church of England no matter what religious denomination they were.
This violated the concept of separation of church and state.
The amendment involving religion captures what I argued. It recognizes people's right to practice religion, but prohibits the government from taking backing/supporting an official religion.
Your interpretation about religion's role is pure BS, based on ignorance and on misconception of what the founding fathers were arguing. If you read the quotes of the founding fathers, related to religion, in a more complete context, they were arguing against religious persecution, against the corruption of the interpretation of the Bible, as well as against a single religion insisting that they are right when the other religions are wrong.
However, I argued that it was Christian philosophy that would eventually evolve into the philosophy that would create the Constitution. This is independent of canon law, and Scripture. As often as I've mentioned this, even you should be able to get it.
Nowhere in my arguments that I specify that religion, or Scripture, or canon law, led to the development of our Constitution and our current form of government.
You need to do two things before you tell someone that what they said is "nonsense," quotation marks used strongly. One, you need to understand what they are saying. Two, you need to actually advance an argument proving them "wrong."
You failed to meet either criteria.
Dave Hardin: Since you like to fact check things that I post here are a few for you to look up:
Apparently, since you like to baffle the audience with BS, to make up for your lack of facts, you’re in need a fact checking.
Dave Hardin: 1. “While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.” The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.
That’s George Washington emphasizing the need to attend to our religious responsibilities.
Dave Hardin: 2. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society. George Washington — letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792
Missing from that quote is a statement about his disappointment about the strife between the Roman Catholics and Protestants that Edward Newenham talked about in the previous letter. George Washington was not criticizing religion as a whole, but was emphasizing that the different denominations should be cooperating with each other.
Dave Hardin: 3. “The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.” John Adams
He was clearly separating what the Bible preached, versus what was practiced by Christianity. Nowhere in there is he condemning, or dismissing, what was written in the New Testament.
I personally utilize that tactic in disagreement with what the Pope said. I’ve also utilize the same tactic, referring to what’s written in the Bible, in my argument against Bible thumpers.
Dave Hardin: 4. “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God That they are not to be violated but with His wrath Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”
Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237
This is an argument in favor of our rights coming from God. Their concept, that we humans are held accountable to a higher entity, was an ingredient the founders wanted in our version of democracy. They understood what could happen when you remove that higher entity, and replaced it with humans and their ever-changing whim of what’s right and wrong.
Dave Hardin: 5. The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation, wrote Washington. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens. George Washington in a letter to Touro Synagogue (1790)
Natural law, natural rights, and God’s law, were interrelated concepts during the time of our founding fathers. Natural, as in from nature, as in from God who “created” nature, and by extension these rights.
Dave Hardin: 6. “Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God … What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.”
Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.
This is a founding father suggesting the result of what could happen if the Bible itself where the law. Our founders understood that God was a source of natural law, itself a source of common law and statute law. They also understood that the intent, as specified in the Bible, was corrupted. We were arguing against the corrupted interpretation of the Bible. That does not make them anti-Christians, the makes them responsible Christians.
Dave Hardin: 7. We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.
Founding FatherJohn Adams — letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785
Not a condemnation of religion, just a condemnation of the strife between some of the different religions. Taken as a whole, Christian philosophy made it easy for us to concept the idea of equal liberty, property, equal chances, etc.
Dave Hardin: 8. “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” James Madison — Letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774
He’s talking about both, strict interpretation of Scripture, as well as the different denominations insisting that their interpretation is correct at the expense of the others. Remove those differences, and work toward a common goal while respecting each other’s religious differences, is a thrust of this and other statements made.
Dave Hardin: 9. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.
Thomas Jefferson — in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814
This is not a condemnation of religion, but a condemnation of people in power, with the church, who forget their religious roots and allow themselves to be corrupted by power. This happened in the Spanish colonies later during Spanish rule. Even in the Bible, Jesus criticized the Pharisees that had taken on these characteristics.
What he said in the same text/speech:
“I join in your reprobation of our merchants, priests and lawyers for their adherence to England & monarchy in preference to their own country and it’s constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson
In the entire text, you’d find that the theme was not against religion, but against specific professions that did not align themselves with their countrymen. In the same text, he states this:
“They have in the mother country been generally the firmest supporters of the free principles of their constitution. but there too they have changed.” – Thomas Jefferson
Dave Hardin: 10. “The human understanding is a revelation from its maker, which can never be disputed or doubted. There can be no scepticism, Pyrrhonism, or incredulity or infidelity here. No prophecies, no miracles are necessary to prove this celestical communication. This revelation has made it certain that two and one make three, and that one is not three nor can three be one. We can never be so certain of any prophecy, or the fulfilment of any prophecy, or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle, as we are from the revelation of nature, that is, nature’s God, that two and two are equal to four.” Adam’s Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 14 September 1813
If you pay attention to what that is saying, you’ll notice that Adam is essentially saying that God exists as evident by the fact that he communicates truths to us, no proof is required, because it’s as obvious as 2+ 1 = 3. Also notice how he ties God to nature. This is what I explained earlier in this post.
Dave Hardin: 12. History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. Thomas Jefferson — in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813
What he said before that:
“The livraison of your astronomical observations, and the 6th and 7th on the subject of New Spain, with the corresponding atlasses, are duly received, as had been the preceding cahiers. For these treasures of a learning so interesting to us, accept my sincere thanks. I think it most fortunate that your travels in those countries were so timed as to make them known to the world in the moment they were about to become actors on its stage. That they will throw off their European dependence I have no doubt; but in what kind of government their revolution will end I am not so certain.” — Thomas Jefferson
During the later parts of Spanish rule in the Spanish colonies, Roman Catholic priests became more coercive and corrupted with power. Thomas Jefferson was arguing against religious prosecution, religious oppression, and theocracy.
Dave Hardin: 13. “No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in its advances towards rational Christianity. When we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, raised to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus; when, in short, we shall have unlearned everything which has been taught since His day, and get back to the pure and simple doctrines He inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily His disciples; and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from His lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian. I know that the case you cite, of Dr. Drake, has been a common one. The religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconceivable, as to shock reasonable thinkers, to revolt them against the whole, and drive them rashly to pronounce its Founder an imposter. Had there never been a commentator, there never would have been an infidel.” Jefferson’s Letter to Timothy Pickering, 21 Feb 1821
Dave Hardin, thank you for providing me with the founding father quote that prove your statement, that you have much in common with Thomas Jefferson, painfully wrong.
so far, in this latest series of replies, you’ve proven to be my best ally in my argument against you.
Do you see the part of your quote that I bolded? As I’ve repeatedly stated, all that’s needed to be a Christian is to accept the teachings of Jesus. Thomas Jefferson is clearly making the distinction between the pure teachings of Jesus, and his teachings as corrupted by certain people of the cloth.
If you read the Bible, specifically the New Testament, you’d find that Jesus did the exact same thing in relation to the abuse of position of power that the Pharisees perpetrated. The above quote, that you provided, is the strongest one proving you wrong, and me right.
“Jefferson and I have that in common, neither one of us are Christians.” – Dave Hardin 🙄 BWAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAA! Thanks for booting yourself in the head with that one.
Dave Hardin: 14. “It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet the one is not three, and the three are not one: to divide mankind by a single letter into [“consubstantialists and like-substantialists”]. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. We should all then, like the quakers, live without an order of priests, moralise for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe; for I suppose belief to be the assent of the mind to an intelligible proposition.” Jefferson’s Letter to John Adams, August 22, 1813
If you read the Bible, nowhere in there does it say that you have to attend church services every Sunday. In fact, Jesus specifies exactly how you are to worship. All that’s needed is a simple prayer to God in in your own privacy. The second part is given with groups of other people to discuss the Scripture.
Thomas Jefferson had a better idea about how Christianity should be practiced. What Thomas Jefferson is doing here, in the quote that you provided, is criticizing the corruption of it by people who were considered people of the cloth.
Again, I don’t see any similarities between him, based on that statement, and you.
Dave Hardin: 15. The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State. Founding Father James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, Essays In Addition to Americas Real Religion
Again, this is a concept that was invented by the Christians, arguing the same principle, in response to barbarian Kings forcing decisions made within the church. Nowhere in the statement does it prove wrong the fact that the philosophy that evolved from Christian philosophy helped to bring about our version of democracy.
Dave Hardin: 16. And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. James Madison — letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
Again, see my commentary about the issues that the founding fathers had with the Church of England, as well as the fact that it was a Christian church that created the concept of separation of church and state. In your attempt to dismiss my argument, this very specific quote is possible because of what I argued. Separation of church and state evolved from Christian philosophy, and your quote showed that it was applied by our founding fathers.
Hence, proving my argument right, and yours wrong.
Dave Hardin: 17. Every new and successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance. James Madison — letter, 1822
Again, see my commentary about the issues that the founding fathers had with the Church of England, as well as the fact that it was a Christian church that created the concept of separation of church and state. In your attempt to dismiss my argument, this very specific quote is possible because of what I argued. Separation of church and state evolved from Christian philosophy, and your quote showed that it was applied by our founding fathers.
Hence, proving my argument right, and yours wrong.
Dave Hardin:18. “Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years” John Adams
This is not a condemnation of Jesus, or Christianity, but a condemnation of the corruption of such in the hands of religious leaders corrupted by power.
Dave Hardin: 19. “Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion” John Adams — letter to Thomas Jefferson
He said this from the standpoint of the Roman Catholic Church being a competing Christian denomination. He was not condemning Christianity as a whole, nor was he dismissing it. This was a pro-protestant statement, in terms of which religion can provide a freer, or for that matter, a free form of government.
Dave Hardin: 20. When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, its a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
Benjamin Franklin — letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780
What he said immediately before that:
“If Christian preachers had continued to teach as Christ and his apostles that, without salaries, and asked the Quakers now do, I imagine tests would never have existed: for I think they were invented not so much to secure religion itself as the emoluments of it.” — Benjamin Franklin
This builds on what I said, it was separating the corruption of religion from the core principles as taught by Jesus.
It’s a good thing that you did not claim to have a lot in common with Benjamin Franklin.
Dave Hardin: 21. “It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov’t from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others.”
James Madison, “James Madison on Religious Liberty”, edited by Robert S. Alley, ISBN 0-8975-298-X. pp. 237-238.
He is essentially arguing what I’ve argued on this thread, the concept of separation from church and state. Again, the concept invented/created by the Christian church centuries before the founding fathers utilized it. Very similar concepts.
He was arguing as much in support for government noninterference with religion as he was for religion noninterference would government.
Dave Hardin: 22. “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.” Jefferson’s letter to John Adams, April 11 1823
Too long, didn’t read? He’s essentially stating that it will eventually be accepted that Jesus was human, not the divine being portrayed by Christianity. Believing that Jesus was a human still makes one a Christian. Again, to be a Christian, all that’s required is that you accept the teachings of Jesus.
The founders have argued repeatedly, and the quotes that you provided, in favor of Jesus as a human as well as in favor of his teaching. Your own quotes clearly prove that the founding fathers, the majority of them, were Christians.
I do enjoy your company as an ally against you.
this is yet another one of your quotes showing how much of a Christian Thomas Jefferson was, and how he DOES NOT have much in common with you.
*Stands up, slightly looks up, thrusts nose in the air, and in a parody Dave Hardin voice: “I’m Dave Hardin, I have a lot in common with Thomas Jefferson!*
BWAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAA!
Dave Hardin: 23. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forebearance, love, and charity towards each other. George Mason — Virginia Bill of Rights, 1776
DOOOAH! 😯 enough said, don’t mind me though, just eating popcorn as I enjoy watching you kick your own arse.
Dave Hardin: 24. “God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world.”John Adams
Blasphemy, as in people’s misinterpretation of the Bible versus what the Bible actually talks about. Not a condemnation of Christianity, it’s a condemnation of those who would claim they know what the Bible means without even reading or understanding the part of the Bible to talk about.
Dave Hardin: 25. A man of abilities and character, of any sect whatever, may be admitted to any office or public trust under the United States. I am a friend to a variety of sects, because they keep one another in order. How many different sects are we composed of throughout the United States How many different sects will be in congress We cannot enumerate the sects that may be in congress. And there are so many now in the United States that they will prevent the establishment of any one sect in prejudice to the rest, and will forever oppose all attempts to infringe religious liberty. If such an attempt be made, will not the alarm be sounded throughout America If congress be as wicked as we are foretold they will, they would not run the risk of exciting the resentment of all, or most of the religious sects in America.
Edmund Randolph — address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 10, 1788
26. I never liked the Hierarchy of the Church an equality in the teacher of Religion, and a dependence on the people, are republican sentiments but if the Clergy combine, they will have their influence on Government Rufus King, Rufus King: American Federalist, pp. 56-57
*Crunch crunch crunch goes the popcorn*
Watching you provide me with quotes, to support my argument and destroy yours, is like watching you bend your upper body down at the same time you rapidly bring your knees up to meet your face repeatedly. I’m enjoying the show.
Notice, how that argument states that the different religions keeps each other in check. The Major fact that we had different religions keeping each other in check would play a major role against establishing a single religion as the official religion.
Even with their argument about “separation of church and state”, the government leverages the existence of different religions to maintain one of its amendments.
Dave Hardin: 27. A general toleration of Religion appears to me the best means of peopling our country The free exercise of religion hath stocked the Northern part of the continent with inhabitants; and altho Europe hath in great measure adopted a more moderate policy, yet the profession of Protestantism is extremely inconvenient in many places there. A Calvinist, a Lutheran, or Quaker, who hath felt these inconveniences in Europe, sails not to Virginia, where they are felt perhaps in a (greater degree). Patrick Henry, observing that immigrants flock to places where there is no established religion, Religious Tolerance, 1766
This is not an argument against religion, but an argument in favor of religious tolerance. Then, leveraging that tolerance. If you pay attention to my argument, I’m not I arguing that we should have an established religion. In fact, I’ve argued against it when my mention of separation of church and state.
Dave Hardin: 28. “As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed” John Adams — letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
Once again, he’s making a distinction between the pure teachings of Jesus as mentioned in the Bible, and the corruption of those teachings by people who purport to know what’s mentioned in the Bible. That’s not a condemnation of Christianity, but accurately pointing out where he could find pure Christianity.
Dave Hardin: 29. “What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”
James Madison — “A Memorial and Remonstrance”, 1785
What he said at the end of the same paragraph:
“Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.” – James Madison
Philosophy that they held thanks to the Christians to developed it during the medieval period.
Dave Hardin: 30. “The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes.” John Adams — letter to John Taylor
Surprise surprise, in Western civilization’s case, the Roman Catholic Church’s actions led to the development of the first universities, as well as the first hospitals. They did, in fact, save Western civilization from extermination in the hands of massive waves of immigration from the North. This very fact would set us on the course where Christian philosophy will end up leading to the development of the Magna Carta and later the US Constitution.
Again, he is not condemning religion, but the strict interpretation protected by those who refused to consider different opinions. Nowhere in there is he will condemning pure Christianity as preached in the New Testament.
Dave Hardin: 31. “The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles” John Adams
John Adams was making a clear case of our laws being based on God’s law, natural law, etc. This is consistent with my argument in my original post. Our founding fathers rightfully believed that our rights, as well as laws, ultimately came from God.
What this is condemning, in the same statement, is the corruption of Christianity in the hands of those who purport knowledge of the Bible, but don’t.
Dave Hardin: 32. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. Thomas Jefferson to John Adams
This is an argument against the misinterpretation of the Bible, not against Christianity or against what the Bible actually talks about.
Dave Hardin: 33. Congress has no power to make any religious establishments. Roger Sherman, Congress, August 19, 1789
Go back and read my comments above about separation of church and state.
Dave Hardin: 34. The American states have gone far in assisting the progress of truth; but they have stopped short of perfection. They ought to have given every honest citizen an equal right to enjoy his religion and an equal title to all civil emoluments, without obliging him to tell his religion. Every interference of the civil power in regulating opinion, is an impious attempt to take the business of the Deity out of his own hands; and every preference given to any religious denomination, is so far slavery and bigotry.
Noah Webster calling for no religious tests to serve in public office, Sketches of American Policy, 1785
See above comments about separation of church and state. This author explains this from both the perspective of the government interfering with religious practice, and the perspective of religious sect interfering with the government. Thanks to the Christian monks that came up with this philosophy during the medieval period, Noah Webster could make this argument.
This is what I’m talking about with regards to Christian philosophy leading to our concept of democracy.
Dave Hardin: 35. “The office of reformer of the superstitions of a nation is ever dangerous. Jesus had to walk on the perilous confines of reason and religion; and a step to right or left might place Him within the grasp of the priests of the superstition, a bloodthirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the Being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel. They were constantly laying snares, too, to entangle Him in the web of the law. He was justifiable, therefore, in avoiding these by evasions, by sophisms, by misconstructions and misapplications of scraps of the prophets, and in defending Himself with these their own weapons, as sufficient, ad homines, at least. That Jesus did not mean to impose Himself on mankind as the Son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in the lore.”
Thomas Jefferson’s letter to William Short, August 4, 1820
Do you see that? He was speaking as a Christian. So much for your, “Jefferson and I have that in common, neither one of us are Christians.”
Speak for yourself. Thomas Jefferson did not accept the mysticism surrounding Jesus. Thomas Jefferson did, in fact, saw Jesus as a human, and he also accepted Jesus’s teachings. The fact is reflected in his books.
Again, the basic requirement to be a Christian is to accept Jesus’s teachings. Something that Thomas Jefferson did. This makes him a Christian, where you admit that you’re not. Nope, nothing in common here.
Dave Hardin: 36. “. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.” John Adams
Arguing against miracle and mystery is not arguing against Christian philosophy. Keep in mind that a mention of “natural” is hinting at “natural law” and, by logical extension, “God of nature.” The will of the people, operating under natural law, are “putting into motion” God’s Law.
Dave Hardin: 37. God has appointed two kinds of government in the world, which are distinct in their nature, and ought never to be confounded together; one of which is called civil, the other ecclesiastical government. Isaac Backus — An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, 1773
Hence, God as a source of our rights and laws. A concept that I’ve argued on this thread. Again, he could argue church and state separation, a philosophy advanced by the Christian church centuries before our founding fathers existed.
This reminds me of the saying, providing the other person with the rounds he needs to shoot you down with. With these quotes, you’re handing me with belt after belt of ammunition to destroy your arguments with.
Dave Hardin: 38. If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789
Spiritual tyranny, religious persecution, are two separate topics from pure Christianity. Keep in mind that they are slamming the previous, not Christianity. In one of the other quote that you provided me here, George Washington implores his troops to exercise the practice of religion.
Dave Hardin: 39. “The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs.” Thomas Jefferson — Letter to James Smith, December 8, 1822
This is what he actually said to James Smith, in context:
“No historical fact is better established than that the doctrine of one god, pure and uncompounded was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was among the efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the antients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity of the supreme being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a god like another Cerberus with one body and three heads had it’s birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. And a strong proof of the solidity of the primitive faith is it’s restoration as soon as a nation arises which vindicates to itself the freedom of religious opinion, and it’s eternal divorce from the civil authority. The pure and simply unity of the creator of the universe is now all but ascendant in the Eastern states; it is dawning in the West, and advancing towards the South; and I confidently expect that the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United states.” — Thomas Jefferson
If you carefully read that quote, you would see that Thomas Jefferson does not reject Christianity, nor God. In fact, he speaks positively about Christianity’s pure beginnings. Vis-à-vis, Christian practice as obtained from the Bible, New Testament. As usual, he criticizes the corruption of Christian doctrine, not Christianity itself.
Many of these quotes that you’ve provided me, from Thomas Jefferson and others, present a completely different argument than what you are presenting. Hardly something you could describe as both of you guys having a commonality involving “not” being Christians. You may not be one, but Thomas Jefferson was a Christian.
Dave Hardin: 40. The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America 1787-1788
Key phrase, “principles of nature.” Again, mentioning nature, in this sense, talks about natural law. Both tie into “the God of nature.” Yes, he was arguing here about a government based on Christian principles. Not Christian Scripture, not canon law, but Christian principles derived from Christian philosophy.
Another key phrase, “reason and the senses.” This is another concept that falls within Christian philosophy. This is one of the things that the church practiced that led to the development of the university system, as well as the modern scientific process.
Again, the founding fathers found themselves in the “age of reason.” The practices of the Christian church, involving the expansion of knowledge, ultimately led to the development that would bring Europe to the upper medieval period, to the Renaissance, the enlightened period, and to the modern scientific period.
He was arguing against the “hocus-pocus” part of the deal. He was arguing the concept that I argued earlier in this thread. The idea that God is the source of our rights, and by extension our laws.
This is him making the case that I made on this thread, without directly stating it. Christian philosophy led to the philosophy that will result in our Constitution and our system of government in our version of democracy.
Dave Hardin: 41. Manufacturers, who listening to the powerful invitations of a better price for their fabrics, or their labor, of greater cheapness of provisions and raw materials, of an exemption from the chief part of the taxes burdens and restraints, which they endure in the old world, of greater personal independence and consequence, under the operation of a more equal government, and of what is far more precious than mere religious tolerationa perfect equality of religious privileges; would probably flock from Europe to the United States to pursue their own trades or professions, if they were once made sensible of the advantages they would enjoy, and were inspired with an assurance of encouragement and employment, will, with difficulty, be induced to transplant themselves, with a view to becoming cultivators of the land.
Alexander Hamilton: Report on the Subject of Manufacturers December 5, 1791
Using religious toleration to increase immigration from areas of the world, specifically Europe, seeing religious prosecution. That’s him making the case of creating the conditions in the United States that would encourage additional Christians to come over.
For people who allegedly were “not” Christians, they sure as hell were Christian centric when it came to their thought processes.
Dave Hardin: 42. Knowledge and liberty are so prevalent in this country, that I do not believe that the United States would ever be disposed to establish one religious sect, and lay all others under legal disabilities. But as we know not what may take place hereafter, and any such test would be exceedingly injurious to the rights of free citizens, I cannot think it altogether superfluous to have added a clause, which secures us from the possibility of such oppression. Oliver Wolcott, Connecticut Ratifying Convention, 9 January 1788
Yes, selecting a single church from a specific denomination, at the expense of the others, would be a form of religious persecution. This is an argument to protect the rights of all Christians, not one condemning Christianity.
Dave Hardin: 43. We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a mans religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States. George Washington — letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793
It appears that this individual is cheering the protection of religious rights of the different religious sects. By the way, if you scroll up, you would find that one of your quotes indicate that George Washington implored his troops to engage in the practice of religion.
Dave Hardin: 44. “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.” John Adams
Taken in complete context, the meaning changes:
“Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!” But in this exclamatic I should have been as fanatical as (Parson) Bryant or (Pedagogue) Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.” – John Adams
Now, let me direct your attention to the bolded statement at the end. Now, read the whole thing including what you cherry picked. The meaning changes drastically, doesn’t it? What he really meant disagrees with what you implied he meant.
Dave Hardin: 45. Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
If you read the entire passage that came from, he explained the history of what he meant in common law. Common-law, per the passage that you got that from, was the law that was in existence prior to the Magna Carta. In that same text, he argued that Christianity came after common-law was replaced with something else.
Taken into context, as you read the passage that your specific quote came from, you will run into this which completely changes the meaning of his argument, in opposition to what you are implying:
“Speaking of the laws of the Saxon kings, he says, “the ten commandments were made part of their laws, and consequently were once part of the law of England; so that to break any of the ten commandments was then esteemed a breach of the common law, of England; and why it is not so now, perhaps it may be difficult to give a good reason.” Preface to Fortescue Aland’s reports, xvii. Had he proposed to state with more minuteness how much of the scriptures had been made a part of the common law, he might have added that in the laws of Alfred, where he found the ten commandments, two or three other chapters of Exodus are copied almost verbatim. But the adoption of a part proves rather a rejection of the rest, as municipal law. We might as well say that the Newtonian system of philosophy is a part of the common law, as that the Christian religion is. The truth is that Christianity and Newtonianism being reason and verity itself, in the opinion of all but infidels and Cartesians, they are protected under the wings of the common law from the dominion of other sects, but not erected into dominion over them.” — Thomas Jefferson
Looks like the school district is afraid of someone getting a case of “the butt hurt” over letting the HS football team honoring fallen warriors.
My opinion – honoring those that have fallen, to include LEO’s, firefighters and EMT’s, shouldn’t be a one day event… we should remember them always. One day student assemblies for Veteran’s Days is just the schools/school district’s way of being PC, but as soon as the day is over with, nothing else is said.
Enigma4you, yes indeed…God help us.
One of my most trusted and valued friends is an atheist that just gets seriously pissed at atheists that want to shut down anything remotely Christian. He always said a thinking atheist has to admit that the 10 commandments is a pretty good idea
He would probably agree that maybe there are 6 commandments that are a good idea. The first four dictate exactly how you must worship that particular God.
The rest of them are moral beliefs that have been held by every civilization know to mankind. The false notion is that the God of Abraham had some kind of ownership to them. Those same moral values and many more not mentioned there have existed long before any mention of the Abrahamic God.
Good point Dave.
what’s up D !!!!!
🙂
Given the sniveling slovenly unabashed liberals running our Pubic Screwool systems these days, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if they espoused the idea of putting the names of dead felons shot by LEO’s instead of the names of Fallen Veterans, and the Cross? I’m sure they wouldn’t utter a peep if a pentagram or a crescent moon was used instead, and the US Flag? They’ll gloat, drool and grin when one is burned, spat on, or stepped on, but do the same to a “Foo-foo flag” (rainblow) and they’ll be screeching and bawling for you to be arrested and “reeducated” a la Nazi Germany, USSR, or North Korea.
The idea that the Apotheosis of Washington depicts him going to ‘heaven’ is utter nonsense.
It is him going into the HEAVENS. Not a Christian heaven as is implied. He is surrounded by Roman Gods not the Christian one.
I agree that many people take both sides of the issue too far. That little cut out of a soldier kneeling with the cross has been used all over the country for the sole purpose of stirring up trouble.
It is cheap and easy to place anywhere. I have lost count of how many times that exact thing has been removed from public lands.
There are a number of things wrong with the Iowa cross story, and it’s hard to know where to begin without going into some length.
In the first place, the media thrives on conflict. It’s part of the stock in trade, and if there isn’t enough real conflict handy, it tends to get created.
In the second place, most of the expressed outrage in the story is coming from a single source, the attorney for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a guy who apparently makes a living working for a non-profit as a professional complainer. His rationale being summed up in the nut-graf quote:
“The separation of church and state is vital for religious freedom,” (Ian) Smith said. “When the government puts its authority behind a particular religion, it stifles other religious expression.”
Kinda makes you wonder if that sound you’re hearing is all those other religions gasping for air doesn’t it?
My great grandfather, who served in the Civil War, was what was known in the day as a “free thinker.” He was married to a woman who was a devout Southern Baptist. Somehow they managed to have 13 kids without the world coming to an end.
Personally, it doesn’t matter to me much whether somebody thinks the Creator is an imaginary friend, or if somebody else wants to worship Wanda the Flying Pig. What actually counts is having common sense and a moral compass.
On the other hand, I’ve been tempted lately to get a plastic statue of St. Jude for the dashboard of my truck. He being, after all, the patron saint of lost causes.
And if they were to put a picture of ‘a’ or ‘the’ Kardashians up naked, it would be perfectly fine. (free speech!) To disagree with putting it up would make “you” a racist or evil conservative, or anything else negative.
Let alone, far too many people these days could name all the Kardashians, but couldn’t name the 50 states, couldn’t tell you who is third in line to be President during peace time, how many members of Congress there are, etc etc. (Stuff we used to learn in grade school.)
“Did the constitution change?” No, but there is a group of people, a very small group of people who apparently have a supernatural ability to see words where there are none and attach meaning to words that defy a plain reading of the Constitution. These seers, these mystics, wear black robes, and are neither elected by nor answerable to the people. They have wrested power not granted to it by the Constitution, including the power of judicial review, something the Founding Fathers were well familiar with and could easily have conferred explicitly in the Constitution. But they did not. Instead, it was concocted as an implied power of the mystics of the Supreme Court. From there, over time, the mystics’ developed abilities far beyond those of mortal men. They found a “penumbra of rights” which, try as we might, none of us can find in the Constitution. It’s truly uncanny and mystifying that a small group of lawyers can dictate to millions of people what is and is not good and right and proper in a society that prides itself on being a republic–and a democratic one at that.
“Assentation,” huh?
As to the football team, the school is bound by the NHFS (commonly called “the Fed” by those in the sports officiating avocation. )
The Fed is really picky on what can be allowed on a jersey in all sports and does not allow what the football team wants to do.
Before reading the entire article and the press release by the school district, my thought was “what they want to do is against Fed rules.” It’s that black and white.
So if the school wants to fight the Colorado High School Sports Association and the Feds, they can. They will lose because there is no dissent allowed in those organizations, but they can try.
That being said, the other reason of “allowing other events or points of view” on jerseys is poppycock. Schools have a wide discretion as to what speech is allowed on campus and at events. If they think the speech may even remotely cause a disruption, they can ban it.
So saying “we can’t allow military names because it opens the door to other, more controversial things is heifer hockey.
The school district is right about the Fed rules but wrong on the speech issue.
Questions for Dave Hardin
These will be asked (posted in this box only) one at a time. None are long winded thereby making it easy for you to answer each. Please, keep your answer to each short, concise and to the point.
What would you count as actual, credible, real world evidence for God?
And so, Dave here it is five hours later! You gonna answer the question or what? Are you hiding? Is your answer stuck on a piece of bubble gum up under the table? How about underneath your chair? Looking for it on your laptop? Ah…Your file server crashed and you don’t have backups of the files. Is that it?
He probably has a life.
My answer? I look around at the Universe, and reason that a system that complex did not simply just kinda happen accidently.
Others take the opposite path.
Smugness in either seems …. dumb.
Yep. I dabbled a bit in astronomy and spend quite a bit of time hanging with the smart folks of my company’s Space Science Division. These guys have put stuff on Mars and had some of the principal scientists for that little probe that just flew by Pluto, among other things they’ve done. We can pretty much explain, scientifically, everything going on out there in the cosmos. But when discussing the actual creation of the universe, aka the Big Bang Theory, the one thing none of us can explain is: where did that first speck come from?
Hmmmm….
Guess you told me what was what, huh? Who the fuck are you? Comedic relief? Stow the sock puppet act in your field pack 11B-Mailclerk and take a hike. Dave is a *big boy* the last I heard and very capable of defending his position.
Lol.
Irony. troll much?
Do you even read your own posts?
Just lol…..
Yes, science doesn’t really have an explanation for the random collection of chemicals that came together and ignited what is generally called ‘life’, does it?
We may eventually. But at the moment we get all sorts of flame wars over “builder” versus “happenstance”. (Or to be fair, over one or another imagined answers to ‘how?’)
And some folks are really, really touchy about anything challenging or even questioning that ‘how?’