[HGM]

In reviewing the referenced thread entitled, "No God, No Rights"... I thought it important to post this information.

One of the most successfull propoganda themes in American history is one that started in the mid 1940s, which claims that our founding fathers were "non-believers" and that reiligion, and more specifically, Christianity, was to be kept seperate from our secular government institutions, including education. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it just so happens that the founders who are the most frequently quoted and mentioned while making said argument just so happen to be the ones who were the least Christian, of their time, that is.

How many of you are aware of these simple facts:

1) The 10 Commandments are chisled into the walls of the Supreme Court building in Washington D.C.?

2) The Capitol Building was once used by Congressman for Church services.

3) The House Chamber, at the Capitol Building, is adorned along the top of the walls with the side-view profile reliefs of 23 great lawgivers, including Hammurabi, Justinian, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, William Blackstone, Hugo Grotius, George Mason, and 16 others. Significantly, there is only one relief of the 23 that is full faced rather than in profile, and that one relief is placed where it looks directly down onto the House Speaker’s rostrum, symbolically overseeing the proceedings of the lawmakers. That relief is of Moses.

There are many, many other simple facts that exist, physically, of our heritage as a nation founded upon Christian principles. But for now, please read the following article as a primer. For those who are truly interested in the REAL history of our founding, visit the source link at the bottom of this page.

____________________________

The Importance of Morality and Religion in Government



John Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)

John Quincy Adams

Sixth President of the United States

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.

(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams, to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), p. 61.)

There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.

(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), pp. 22-23.)

Samuel Adams

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.

(Source: William V. Wells, The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1865), Vol. I, p. 22, quoting from a political essay by Samuel Adams published in The Public Advertiser, 1749.)

Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.

(Source: Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)

Benjamin Franklin

Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence

[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

Source: Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, April 17, 1787.

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from tis unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one of more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

(Source: James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, pp. 450-452, June 28, 1787.)

* For more details on this quote, click here.

Thomas Jefferson

Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States

Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for your to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all you virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. 5, pp. 82-83, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr on August 19, 1785.)

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383.)

I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)

Richard Henry Lee

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

It is certainly true that a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people.

(Source: Richard Henry Lee, The Letters of Richard Henry Lee, James Curtis Ballagh, editor (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1914), Vol. II, p. 411. In a letter to Colonel Mortin Pickett on March 5, 1786.)

James McHenry

Signer of the Constitution

[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.

Source: Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.

Jedediah Morse

Patriot and "Father of American Geography"

To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.

(Source: Jedediah Morse, Election Sermon given at Charleston, MA, on April 25, 1799.)

William Penn

Founder of Pennsylvania

[I]t is impossible that any people of government should ever prosper, where men render not unto God, that which is God's, as well as to Caesar, that which is Caesar's.

(Source: Fundamental Constitutions of Pennsylvania, 1682. Written by William Penn, founder of the colony of Pennsylvania.)

Pennsylvania Supreme Court

No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.

(Source: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1824. Updegraph v. Cmmonwealth; 11 Serg. & R. 393, 406 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1824).)

Benjamin Rush

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)

We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), pp. 93-94.)

By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18]

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.)

Remember that national crimes require national punishments, and without declaring what punishment awaits this evil, you may venture to assure them that it cannot pass with impunity, unless God shall cease to be just or merciful.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America Upon Slave-Keeping (Boston: John Boyles, 1773), p. 30.)

George Washington

"Father of Our Country"

While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.

(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)

[T]he [federal] government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, and oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people.

(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1939), Vol. XXIX, p. 410. In a letter to Marquis De Lafayette, February 7, 1788.)

* For the full text of Geo. Washington's Farewell Address, click here.

Daniel Webster

Early American Jurist and Senator

[I]f we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity.

(Source: Daniel Webster, The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1903), Vol. XIII, p. 492. From "The Dignity and Importance of History," February 23, 1852.)

Noah Webster

Founding Educator

The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality and religion, are to be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have truth, immutable truth, for their foundation. . . . All the evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible. . . . For instruction then in social, religious and civil duties resort to the scriptures for the best precepts.

(Source: Noah Webster, History of the United States, "Advice to the Young" (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 338-340, par. 51, 53, 56.)

James Wilson

Signer of the Constitution

Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.

(Source: James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), Vol. I, p. 106.)

Robert Winthrop

Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives

Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.

(Source: Robert Winthrop, Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1852), p. 172 from his "Either by the Bible or the Bayonet.")


source:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=21


--------------------------------------------------------------------



Hopefully, the TRUTH of our history will once again be taught to our children.

HGM



"[T]o promote true religion is the best and most effectual way of making a virtuous and regular people. Love to God and love to man is the substance of religion; when these prevail, civil laws will have little to do."

--signer of the Declaration, John Witherspoon, who served on over 100 committees while in Congress

[Graystar]

I think you should lead the movement to enslave all the non-believers. :rolleyes:

[HGM]

The above is not an "article" as I mentioned at the top of the post, simply a list of quotes from the Founders. For an extremely enlightening reference in relation to the subject, please follow this link.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=41


Regards,

HGM

[HGM]

Graystar,

Wow! You read fast.

HGM

[HGM]

Graystar,

But seriously, in reviewing the title of my thread, I realized that it wasn't worded very wisely to say the least.

I simply picked up on the "Founders were all non- believers" theme in the referenced thread and figured it might be a good time to inject a bit of little know history into the argument.

I didn't intend to put forth the notion that those who choose NOT to believe should have no rights.

I do apologize for the misconception. As I stated, my choice of words for this thread title weren't very well thought out.

But, at least the history is interesting.

Regards,

HGM

[Graystar]

Gotcha.

[HGM]

Graystar,

Yep, you got me on the thread title. But you are deadly silent on the subject matter at hand.



HGM

[4v50 Gary]

The founding fathers were believers. What they had in mind is that there should be no state sponsored religion. They remember all too well the French-Indian War (1755-1760) and the French colonist, being largely Catholic, had to be persuaded to be neutral during our Revolution. The fathers didn't want to favor one religion over another for fear of tearing the young republic apart. They knew history, knew of the purge of the Hugenots in France, of the Thirty-Years War and wanted to avoid it.

[Graystar]

That's cause I already stated what I thought in the previous thread.

[Boats]

I don't think anyone was asserting that the FFs were non-believers. It is inescapable that many colonists originally made for these shores for religious freedom, to be free from a synergistic alliance between the state and the preferred sect of the moment. Puritans, Quakers, Shakers, Catholics and some Jews all came here early to get away from perceived religious oppression and suffering the forebearance of a different sort of tyranny to leave them alone.

The bar against "establishment" is the distillation of that principle. Yes, the "wall" metaphor has been taken too literally in many cases, in the sense that Congrees could make laws that finance all sects and beliefs equally and not suffer a fatal inconsistency with a literal reading of the First Amendment. However that type of scheme would be fraught with its own perils that many in this country simply do not recognize by their absence.

Where that sort of system would break down would come in two areas. First, larger and more ideological faiths, for lack of a better term, would inevitably demand the defunding of "anti-American" beliefs such as Buddism or Islam. Two, and by far the more underapppreciated danger, is that as in Europe, where establishment has survived in various forms, dependence on the state for support saps the vitality of religious sects, leading to stagnation and irrelevancy, just like any other socialistic enterprise does to initiative. It could be argued that disestablishment is what makes religious life much more vibrant here than in other Western style democracies.

Besides, why endorse the public expressions of faith at secular functions that require no invocation, such as high school commencement ceremonies, especially in religiously diverse communities? What is gained by being in the face of people who believe differently or not at all? At least the reliquary on public buildings and whatnot can be viewed as inconsequential anachronisms by those who might find a more pervasive governmental endorsement highly offensive. Bas reliefs on buildings stand as mute testimonials to faith. Witnessing is important to many Christians, but should not at the expense of community sectarian peace. That is the genius of the disestablishment idea incontrovertably present in the First Amendment. Like all expressions of policy, it does have its overbearing moments that clash with common sense, but on the whole it turned out to be a pretty good idea. We have nothing approaching the religious indifference of most of Europe and none of the sporadic sectarian violence of the Third World where many political parties are nakedly faith based and on some level incapable of treating other sects fairly.

[HGM]

Graystar,

And does what you think correspond with what the Founders thought, or with what you've been taught in today's enlightened and "sophisticated" America?

You see, as the French learned and are still learning, freedom doesn't work without God. It's that simple. The French basically attempted to replicate what America had done. The one primary, and obvious difference is that they intentionally, from the beginning, did it without God and without so much as a reference to God. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in great detail on the subject.

Without instilling virtue into our people and without embracing the true source of virtue, a Replublican form a government cannot and will not last very long. Our Founders knew this over 200 years ago.

As proof, I give you modern day America. Simple truths never change, no matter which Harvard professor says so.


HGM

[Graystar]

Why is religion the only source of virtue?

[Alan Smithiee]

uhm, Which God? and might it not be Goddess?

[Boats]

Without instilling virtue into our people and without embracing the true source of virtue, a Replublican form a government cannot and will not last very long. Our Founders knew this over 200 years ago.

As proof, I give you modern day America. Simple truths never change, no matter which Harvard professor says so.


But for the fact that civilization "as we know it" has been in degeneracy since it was first established anywhere, you might have a point. Ancient Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Chinese, while not always or ever "Republicans" in their forms of government, all had leading thinkers and common folk who left writings lamenting the decay of society or reacting to the charge that the decay was so. Just read the Apologia by Plato where the Athenian leaders all accuse Socrates of being a corrupting influence on the youth of the city-state. The parallels to latter day complaints in the same vein made by Plato in his later works via his description of the ideal society are hilarious if you are into seeking that kind of irony out. What is even more amusing is St. Augustine making many of the same compliants about the state of man as the Athenian leadership was against Socrates many centuries later in a different context.

Hadn't Socrates already destroyed the "civilization" Augustine was living in through being a radically free-thinking libertine?

We'll all muddle through I suspect. After all, Greece and Italy are still there.

BTW I am feeling really overeducated today.:uhoh:

[HGM]

Graystar,

The purpose of this information isn't to debate with you the source of true virtue. You'll have to figure that out for yourself, and you will, someday. My intention here is to expose the myth that our Founders were deiests for what it is, a myth. This myth is so common know that it has become true even amongst those of our society who should know better... like "expert historians", professors, and such.

A classic example of the adage, ' a lie told often enough becomes the truth...." I forget the rest.


HGM

[HGM]

Boats,

Should we compare the democracy of Ancient Greece with the Constitutional Republic of the US?


Regards,

HGM

[Graystar]

The purpose of this information isn't to debate with you the source of true virtue. But you are the one that raised such a debate with your statement:
Without instilling virtue into our people and without embracing the true source of virtue, a Replublican form a government cannot and will not last very long. That's a very definitive statement that just begs to be debated. I can't just sit here and accept it as "truth" because I don't believe it.

[HGM]

Graystar,

How can there exist a respect for the law if the population has no virtue?
If the law is simply something created by other men and women to keep us all in line, then what motivation is there for us to obey the law when nobody's watching?

Here's another thing to ponder. If there exists no higher power, then what is the purpose of an Oath? Do you see why this is very important for the survival of our nation?

HGM

[Boats]

Should we compare the democracy of Ancient Greece with the Constitutional Republic of the US?



No. I was only illustrating that the "war" between new ideas, or reinterpretations of old ones, and traditionalists, is an eternal one that nobody will win. It is a pendulum and we are definitely on a rather societally liberal swing here. Nothing suggests that the interplay of forces is static however.

Traditionalism will become vogue again, just wait. It will swing back when the point of excess is reached. We are feeling "degenerate" to many observers at the moment. The exact opposite problem is taking place in Iran at this instant, where the populace has gorged itself on being retrograde and is about to overthrow the traditional order of the last quarter century.

Society always seeks balance as it needs order and defined rules to exist, combined with enough freedom to not strangle itself through despair. If it has to exist in a different form, that was not something most of the Founders feared. They weren't handing down tablets from the mount. If this system fails to work, it will fail. Rest assured that something else will take its place, influenced by getting "back to basics" if it has to reconstitute itself.

I am just not worried about the impending "collapse of America." The world has been ending since it was formed and its institutions created by man will thrive or die irrepsective of my wishes.

[Graystar]

How can there exist a respect for the law if the population has no virtue? I don't argue the need for virtue, only the idea that the true source of virtue is god.
If the law is simply something created by other men and women to keep us all in line, then what motivation is there for us to obey the law when nobody's watching? Virtue.
Here's another thing to ponder. If there exists no higher power, then what is the purpose of an Oath? An oath is a personal commitment. An oath may call upon god as a witness, but that is not a requirement of taking (and keeping) an oath.
Do you see why this is very important for the survival of our nation? Nope.

[HGM]

Boats,

I appreciate your taking the time to debate this issue. I can tell that you truly do care about the future of America, as I do.

Everything you said above is true. The cycle of traditionalism and liberalism will always exist. The pendulum (sp?) will forever swing in one direction or the other. I'm not particularly worried about it though, as you imply. I do, however, think it is extremely important for us, as Americans, to understand tha basics of how and why our system works.

My point is this. Without a true understanding of the importance of virtue in the hearts of our people as a whole, our form of government simply cannot survive. The best, and most proven source of true virtue is documented at the beginning of this thread.

Please consider these questions, as posed to Graystar above.

1) If the law is simply something created by other men and women to keep us all in line, then what motivation is there for us to obey the law when nobody's watching?

2) If there exists no higher power, then what is the purpose of an Oath? Do you see why this is very important for the survival of our nation?


Regards,

HGM

[Boats]

1) If the law is simply something created by other men and women to keep us all in line, then what motivation is there for us to obey the law when nobody's watching?

2) If there exists no higher power, then what is the purpose of an Oath? Do you see why this is very important for the survival of our nation?


A British professor once asked a sage in India, "How is it that the world is here?"

He replied, "The world rests on the back of a gigantic turtle we can only guess at."

"What holds up the turtle?" asked the professor.

"An ocean."

"What holds up the ocean?"

The sage just stared at him.

I am not an atheist, but I do not necessarily subscribe to the notion that the fear of extraworldly punishment or a belief in earning "merit points" towards an eternal reward are necessary preconditions to being good. I have known many good people and some of them were atheists. Some of the biggest liars and hypocrites I have ever known were devout.

God makes the man, the man makes the human being what he is. Notions of honor, duty, devotion to an ideal or principle can and have existed in atheistic, polytheistic, monotheistic, and spirit worship societies. From literature, Gilgamesh was a stand-up guy. So was Beowulf, many of the Greek heroes were paragons of virtue like Prometheus, others were not.

A list of real people who didn't necessarily believe in God in the way most do, if at all? Confucius, Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, Chuang Chou, Epicurus, Lucretius, Epictetus, Sextus Empiricus, S'ankara, Benedictus de Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Rosseau, Schopenauer, Kierkegaard, Mill, Nietzsche, Santayana, Wittgenstein, Popper, Alfred Jules Ayer, Russell, Sartre, Suzuki, Camus, Tillich, and Rawls. I am certain there were some women along the way, but I haven't had a chance to make their acquaintance as a sailor is wont to do.;)

Not all angels, but none of them devils either.

I once took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It was only "so help me God" at the tag end. God earned an assist if I needed to lean on Him to keep my oath. However, I have proven to my own satisfaction that I can keep my word "merely" on the basis of the desire to be honorable, to avoid self-loathing, and to not disappoint others who are counting on me to perform. In those cases God would only be a crutch for the failure of my own will, not an enforcer of it.

The same goes for laws. I respect them to the point that they deserve it. There are no secular codes I am aware of that we set down in the United States by God. They are a construct of men, and as such, have the capacity to transmit wickedness. I will not let an appeal to God for obedience to tyrannical laws deter me from not honoring them when they do not merit observance.

[HGM]

Boats,

You say, "I once took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It was only "so help me God" at the tag end. God earned an assist if I needed to lean on Him to keep my oath. However, I have proven to my own satisfaction that I can keep my word "merely" on the basis of the desire to be honorable, to avoid self-loathing, and to not disappoint others who are counting on me to perform. In those cases God would only be a crutch for the failure of my own will, not an enforcer of it."

-- It's interesting you mention the "so help me God" phrase at the end of the traditional American oath. Here's an interesting tidbit for you on the phrase's origin...

George Washington provides a succinct illustration. During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words “So help me God!” to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible.

Washington Irving, Life of George Washington 475 (New York: G. P. Putnam & Co., 1857); Mrs. C. M Kirkland, Memoirs of Washington 438 (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1870); Charles Carleton Coffin, Building the Nation 26 (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1882); etc.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You then say,

"The same goes for laws. I respect them to the point that they deserve it. There are no secular codes I am aware of that we set down in the United States by God. They are a construct of men, and as such, have the capacity to transmit wickedness. I will not let an appeal to God for obedience to tyrannical laws deter me from not honoring them when they do not merit observance."

----- I totally agree with your first two sentences above. There are thousands upon thousands of stupid laws on the books. However, how many of these laws existed in the original Constitution? Most of our stupid laws have come about since we began to turn our backs on God... around the mid 1940s. Where there is less virtue in the people, more laws seem to become a necessity. Here's an appropriate quote for reference as John Witherspoon explains, "[T]o promote true religion is the best and most effectual way of making a virtuous and regular people. Love to God and love to man is the substance of religion; when these prevail, civil laws will have little to do." --signer of the Declaration, John Witherspoon, who served on over 100 committees while in Congress

However, as I stated earlier, and as the Founders have indicated in so many of their personal and public writings, they themselves felt that the inspiration for the Constitution was Divine in origin. I couldn't agree more, and the laws we've seen passed over the last 60 years or so are, for the most part, devoid of Divine inspiration, as you can tell.

Take care,

HGM

[Mike Irwin]

"Hopefully, the TRUTH of our history will once again be taught to our children.

The 10 Commandments are chisled into the walls of the Supreme Court building in Washington D.C.?"

A little context is needed to fully flesh this out.

Your message implies that the 10 Commandments are chisled into the walls of the Supreme Court building (which, by the way, wasn't built until the 1930s) out of some sense of Judeo-Christian sense of religion.

That's simply not true, or Moses certainly wouldn't be sharing equal wall time with individuals such as:

Mohammed

Napoleon Bonapart

Menes (first Pharo of Egypt)

Blackstone

Draco

And others.

Moses also is holding only a PARTIAL text of the SOME of the 10 Commandments, not all 10. The text is also in.... Hebrew.

Inside the Court buidling are tableture representations of what we think of when we think of the 10 commandments, but there are only Roman Numberals, no text of the commandments. These representations are also small, and located in rather inconspicuous locations.


"A carving of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, if that is the only adornment on a courtroom wall, conveys an equivocal message, perhaps of respect for Judaism, for religion in general or for law."

"The addition of carvings depicting Confucius and Muhammad may honor religion, or particular religions, to an extent that the First Amendment does not tolerate. Placement of secular figures such as Caesar Augustus, William Blackstone, Napoleon Bonaparte and John Marshall alongside these three religious leaders, however, signals respect not for great proselytizers but for great lawgivers." (Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in a 1989 decision regarding placement of religious figures in public government buildings).


The contextual reference is clear as it relates to the Supreme Court -- Moses is one of many of the world's great lawgivers, and the great lawgivers of history was the message intending to be conveyed, not the Judeo-Christian dogma as a founding principle of the United States.

In the House of Representatives it should also be noted that Moses is shown WITHOUT the 10 Commandments. If his stature as a religious figure, instead of a lawgiver, were to be paramount, it would be more logical for him to be depicted with the full text of the 10 Commandments, not as a simple figural depiction.

Finally, it must also be noted that Moses isn't important only to Christians. His role as an important agent of God is recogized by three of the world's major religions -- Judiasm, Islam, and Christianity.

There's no doubt that many of the Founders and the Framers were religious men. I've been to the Church where George Washington regularly worshiped many times. Kind of odd to actually sit in his pew.

There's also no doubt that the Founders and Framers intentions regarding religion have been perverted by later courts which seek to excise all religion from public life.

But I think it's also safe to say that the Founders did not intent for any single religion, or religious doctrine, to be paramount in the lives of every individual at the expense of other religious doctrines, or the practicants of those religions.

Morality and viture are not, in any way, shape, or form, solely defined by a Christian religion, or necessarily by any religion, for that matter.

[HGM]

Mike,

As stated previously, "Significantly, there is only one relief of the 23 that is full faced rather than in profile, and that one relief is placed where it looks directly down onto the House Speaker’s rostrum, symbolically overseeing the proceedings of the lawmakers. That relief is of Moses."

You see, all the others are facing Moses in a half circle. Their faces are profiles, or side shots. Moses' face is the only full frontal and Moses is in the center of the half circle, which is symbolic of the notion that all law originated with Moses.

Do you see the significance? It's hard to picture, unless you've seen it, I suppose.


HGM

[S_O_Laban]

Excellent point HMG, one that like it or not needs to be reintroduced in our education system. Without higher authority (higher than man's) the only authority that matters is the one with the muscule to enforce it.

[Mike Irwin]

No, I don't see the significance, HGH.

Or I should say I do not automatically, as you seem to, attribute Moses' placement to an overtly religious statement. There's no evidence for it other than speculation, and if religious statements were the point of depiction, I seriously doubt that the other, non-Christians also depicted in the chamber, would have been included.

And, once again, I point to the lack of the 10 Commandments in Moses depcition. If this were truly a religious depiction, the 10 Commandments would be included. That way there would be no doubt about who the figure depicts (quite frankly, if you've ever seen the medallion from the floor of the Chamber, it's NOT easy to read the name if you're even any distance from it).

But if the designers of the Chamber were truly bent on a religious, rather than legalistic, theme, then why did they choose Moses instead of a depiction of God himself, a la' the Sistine Chapel?

After all, isn't God the ultimate religious figure as well as the ultimate law giver?

It was, after all, God who gave the Commandments to Moses.

Moses was, in essence, the messenger boy.

There's also a problem with the concept of "all laws originating with Moses," in that Hammurabi is depicted as one of the lawgivers.

If Biblical references are to be believed regarding Moses and the Exodus, Hammurabi lived almost 700 years BEFORE Moses.

Ergo, law existed before Moses.

The ONLY overt signifigance that can truly be given to this is that of the 23 lawgivers depicted in the carvings, Moses is the most recognizable to the most people.

[Mike Irwin]

Oh, by the way...

Do you know when the 23 portraits of the lawgivers were placed in the House Chamber?

1950.

Over 100 years after the Chamber was first designed.

Based on the reasoning of your above statements, can it be inferred that the men who designed the original House Chambers, and who obviously omitted the depiction of Moses, were unreligious?

[Marko Kloos]

It doesn't matter whether the Founders were Christians. (Actually, most of them were deists, which is where the "God of Nature" language in the preamble originates. The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.)

The fact is that they started this nation with a clean slate, and they had the opportunity to enshrine the Christian faith in the Constitution if they had wished to do so. But the Constitution of the United States does not mention God or Christianity once, and the only mention of religion in the Bill of Rights is in a restrictive context, forbidding Congress from respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise.

The basis of this country is the Constitution, not the Bible. The notion that one derives from the other is not supported by the facts...in many cases, the Bill of Rights and the Ten Commandments are diametrically opposed to each other. (The first four Commandments don't even address interpersonal relationships, they are specific instructions for the worship of a particular god.) Heck, even the very first of the Ten Commandments is in conflict with the very first Amendment of the Bill of Rights:

First Commandment:

"I am the LORD thy GOD. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, which is it? Worship Yahweh exclusively, or free exercise of any religion?

Only three of the Commandments, the ones dealing with homicide, theft, and perjury, have anything to do with current American law, and all three of these concepts have been enshrined in law long before Moses, for example in the Code of Hammurabi. Ethics and morals didn't just magically spring into existence when the Bible was written.

Oh, and the oath appendage "..so help me God" is completely optional, even in the Oath of Office of the President of the United States. It can be omitted if that is the oath taker's preference. In court, you can choose to affirm instead.

[BigG]

HGM: Simple truths never change, no matter which Harvard professor says so. Very eloquent, thanks! :)

[Nightfall]

So, which is it? Worship Yahweh exclusively, or free exercise of any religion?

Worship that god, you go to that hell. Worship this one, you go to the other hell. We're all going to somebody elses hell anyway. :p

[brookstexas]

is what your info is. Kind of like saying 90% of people in US prisons are Christians.
It's unimportant who was religious or how much. They agreed that religion and government should not mix.
-BT

[spacemanspiff]

whoa! whoa! whoa! i think its about time we discuss the role the Knights Templar have played in this issue...


hehehe....nevermind me, just pulling ya'lls leg a little.

[Mike Irwin]

"Knights Templar..."

Aren't they related to the Knights Who Say Nicht?

[KpEng16]

Politics, Religion, and Women....the causes of many a debate!!

[Kaxter]

*

[HGM]

brookstexas says, "It's unimportant who was religious or how much. They agreed that religion and government should not mix."

----------------------------

-- This statement is blatantly false, and if you'd visited the link I provided at the beginning of this thread you'd know this to be the case. I agree, the Founders didn't want the FEDERAL government directly involved with religion directly, as in funding, but they certainly didn't have a problem with Christianity being practiced, taught, and promoted at the state and local level. In fact, they encouraged it. Go read the Northwest Ordinance.

One of the most detailed accounts on the subject is David Barton's "Affidavit in Support of the Ten Commandments" which can be seen here :

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=41

To say that the Christian Faith had no impact and no influence on the development of our laws is absurd. After you've taken the time to research the history for yourself, you will realize this also.

HGM

[HGM]

Mike,

"HGH" ... you say? Was that a typo, or an insult?

Anyhow, you posted, "But if the designers of the Chamber were truly bent on a religious, rather than legalistic, theme, then why did they choose Moses instead of a depiction of God himself, a la' the Sistine Chapel? After all, isn't God the ultimate religious figure as well as the ultimate law giver? It was, after all, God who gave the Commandments to Moses. Moses was, in essence, the messenger boy. There's also a problem with the concept of "all laws originating with Moses," in that Hammurabi is depicted as one of the lawgivers. If Biblical references are to be believed regarding Moses and the Exodus, Hammurabi lived almost 700 years BEFORE Moses.
Ergo, law existed before Moses."

No, because since God gave the commandments to Moses, then the commandments are, in essence, OLDER than Hammurabi since they came from God.


HGM

[Marko Kloos]

I agree, the Founders didn't want the FEDERAL government directly involved with religion directly, as in funding, but they certainly didn't have a problem with Christianity being practiced, taught, and promoted at the state and local level. In fact, they encouraged it. Go read the Northwest Ordinance.


What kind of Christianity? Will you abide by laws made by a Pentecostal legislature? How about a Catholic one? Would you mind Lutherans practicing, teaching, and promoting their faith at your child's elementary school? Are you comfortable with Southern Baptist doctrine being made local law in your town? Or what about Mormon or Methodist doctrine?

As to your assertion that only the fed.gov is prohibited from interfering with religion, I have to point out that the States are bound by the Constitution. No State may pass a law that is contradictory to the supreme law of the land. It's like saying that only the federal government may not infringe the right to keep and bear arms, but that state and local governments are not bound by the Bill of Rights.

Whenever you openly mix religion with government, it degrades both. All our Congress members, our President, and all Supreme Court justices are declared Christians. The House and Senate start their sessions with prayers. Schoolchildren may exercise their religion freely, as long as it doesn't interfere with class work. There are churches on every street corner in this country. This is all fine and good, as long as no tax dollars are spent on religion, and no legislature makes its exercise mandatory.

Why, oh why, then, do you so desperately want the government to take sides in matters of religion? Can't you see that the only reason religion is flourishing in this country is because the government has to remain neutral in religious matters? Can't you see that the worst thing you can do to your religion is to give it government subsidies in any form? Can't you see that wherever State and Church have mixed in the past, religious strife was the result? Whenever the State takes sides and favors one religion, you automatically produce religious strife, because you give the majority religion legislative power over the minority religions. That's *precisely* what the First Amendment is supposed to prevent.

To say that the Christian Faith had no impact and no influence on the development of our laws is absurd. After you've taken the time to research the history for yourself, you will realize this also.

Our law has some concepts in common with Mosaic law. It also has some things in common with Judaic law, Hammurabic law, and a zillion other law codes before and after Christianity. It also has many concepts that are nowhere to be found in the Bible or other contemporary holy books, and the Constitution often openly contradicts the Ten Commandments and other Christian tenets, as I've pointed out a few posts back.

Christianity had some impact and influence on our laws, but humanistic thought (the Constitution framers were greatly influenced by the Enlightenment period) had an equally great influence. The fact of the matter is that even with those commonalities, the Founding Fathers did *not* set this country up as a Christian theocracy, and they built specific safeguards into the Constitution to avoid giving *any* religion the power to legislate their creed into law for the other religions. The government of this country, at any level, needs to be neutral in religious matters, or it will mean the death of religious freedom and turn this country into Northern Ireland with Starbucks and Burger King.

[Mike Irwin]

HGM,

How is HGH an insult?

It's a typo.

When you type 102 words a minute, things like that creep in every once in awhile, so relax. No insult was intended, or should be inferred.

"No, because since God gave the commandments to Moses, then the commandments are, in essence, OLDER than Hammurabi since they came from God."

Now you're really stretching.

You're only ASSUMING that the commandments are older than Moses, in fact as old as God, as if God simply whipped them out of his back pocket when he finally found a messenger boy nimble enough to carry the tablets off the mountain without dropping them.

That's like saying that, since I'm 38 years, old the salad I made this evening for my dinner is also 38 years old.

Once again, in your zeal to assign an overtly Christian (remember, Moses was a Jew, not a Christian) meaning to the placement of the depciting of Moses, you fail to take into account or attempt to explain:

1. That all the plaques depict law givers, not Christians. If this were truly a Christian effort, why then, isn't Jesus on the Cross at the center of the display? Because Jesus was the Savoir, but not a lawgiver.

2. If the attempt was overtly theological, instead of legal, where are the rest of the great Biblical figures? Where's John the Baptist? Mary Magdalen? Peter? Paul? The rest of the Apostles?

3. If the attempt was theological, why are non-Christians also depicted? To many fundamentalist Christian religions in the United States such a pairing would not only be wrong, it would be sacreligious.

4. If the attempt was theological, why were the 10 Commandments omitted from depictions?

5. Why, if this is overtly a theological attempt, was Moses placed at the REAR of the chamber, instead of over the Rostrum, where all House members could see it when they are seated? In fact, House members see a Webster quotation and depictions of Jefferson and Mason when they look at the Rostrum.

You'd think that if this were theological, Moses would instead be placed front and center where all House members could see him, and theoretically draw inspiration from the depction. Instead, as they conduct their business, virtually all members of the House have their backs to Moses. That's hardly a position of strength.

6. Finally, if this were theological, why then is Moses flanked by two lawgivers -- Solon and Hammurabi -- who have virtually no standing in the Christian religion?

Why aren't the depictions of Popes Gregory and Innocent flank Moses, with the depcitions of St. Louis, Edward the Confessor, and Justinian, and Alphonso the 10th in close proximity, instead of spread out amongst pagans, Muslims, and humanists?

I've got to tell you, HGM, I admire the strength of your conviction, but I don't admire your attempt to subvert the true intention of these depictions for one that simply was never intended.

[Mike Irwin]

I can answer that question, Lendringser...

I'm United Methodist, brough up in both Methodist and Evangelical United Brethren teachings (which joined in 1968 to form the United Methodist church in the United States).

I do not now practice, nor have I ever practiced, Christian rites as defined in Catholic dogma.

They are as foreign to me as Judaic or Muslim rites and beliefs.

And I would be SORELY pissed if I were told that the laws of the United States were being changed to adhere to the religious teachings of ANY of those dogmas.

[HGM]

Mike and Lendringser,

Let me make my position clear, I am not arguing for the Federal government to have a say in matters of religion or to favor a particular sect of the Christian religion or to ever get involved in the funding of religion. However, I do think it important for us to know the truth about our history and the role Christianity played in that history.

I suppose the best thing for us to examine at this point is the source of the "separation of church and state" phrase since it seems to be at the root of the argument against public expression of Christian belief. A case in point is the ACLU's recent assault on nativity scenes in their attempt to have them removed from public display during the Christmas season. You see, the separation phrase was used in the ACLU's argument. This simple phrase has been abused and is misunderstood and I think that the vast majority of our citizens have no clue where the "separation of church and state" phrase originated, and more importantly, the context under which it originated.

As the article below explains, up until the landmark Everson v. Board of Education, this phrase was practically unknown to the general population. And for good reason since the phrase wasn't mentioned ONCE during the debates over the development of the 1st Amendment.

---------------------------------------------------------------


The Separation of Church and State

by David Barton



In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

The election of Jefferson-America’s first Anti-Federalist President-elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.1

However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religion”:

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. 2

In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”

Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:

[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.Kentucky Resolution, 1798 3

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 4

[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 5

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 6

Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:

It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. 7

Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. 8

Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

Gentlemen,-The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. 9

Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.

By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” 10 That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.

So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? 11

Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only once prior to the 1947 Everson case-the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) 12

That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:

[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. 13

With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”

That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People ), identified actions into which-if perpetrated in the name of religion-the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.

Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel”-whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.

Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.

For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.

One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment-as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.

In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

Endnotes:

1. Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.

2. Id.

3. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179.

4. Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.

5. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.

6. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on January 23, 1808.

7. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. VIII, p. 112-113, to Noah Webster on December 4, 1790.

8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.

9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.

10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207.

11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.

12. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1878).

13. Reynolds at 163.


------------------------------------------------------------



Regards,

HGM

[Marko Kloos]

As the article below explains, up until the landmark Everson v. Board of Education, this phrase was practically unknown to the general population. And for good reason since the phrase wasn't mentioned ONCE during the debates over the development of the 1st Amendment.


Jefferson used the phrase "separation of church and state" to describe the religion clause in the First Amendment to the Danbury Baptists. The phrase per se is not found in the Constitution, but the underlying concept is found in the First Amendment.

The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.

Besides, I don't understand the course of your argument. You argue against the meaning of the First Amendment by trying to refute the constitutionally enshrined church-and-state separation, and yet you say that you are "not arguing for the Federal government to have a say in matters of religion or to favor a particular sect of the Christian religion or to ever get involved in the funding of religion." Well, that's what it means to keep church and state separate! Are you arguing that you personally support the separation of church and state, but you don't think the Constitution disallows all those things?

[HGM]

lendringser,

Did you read the article? If so, care to comment?


HGM

[Marko Kloos]

Yes, I did read the article. It's trying too hard to explain that "Jefferson didn't mean what they now say he meant". It still doesn't address how the First Amendment can only mean the Federal government, and how States can freely proscribe religious exercise by law.

Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

You know, I absolutely agree with that. Privately initiated religious activity cannot be limited in public, as long as it does not infringe on others' rights. The First Amendment, however, stipulates that any such religious activity must be privately funded, and it may not be initiated by any government official while he's on the government clock, because then the government would in effect pay for the activities of a particular religion.

You can start a church. You can pray in public. You can pray in school. You can use public facilities for private religious initiatives, as long as every other eligious group in the community is granted the same access to that facility for their own purpose. The one thing you cannot do is use tax money for any of those activities, or pass a law that mandates religious exercise, or grants any sort of public funding for it.

[Mike Irwin]

And in trying to convey what you claim to be the truth of the matter you made a series of incorrect assumptions and statements, and continue to do so.

I've already stipulated that religion played a an important role of the men who founded this country.

However, your attempt to use the positioning of certain statuary figures as proof of the dominant role of Christianity in the founding of this nation is simply wrong.

You're overextending yourself with no basis.

[HGM]

"You can pray in school."

----But not at high-school football games, right? You know, when my mother was in high-school, they had a Bible Club in all the local high schools. (In fact, they even had a Rifle Club... pretty cool, huh?) This wasn't unusual. In fact, it was the norm. The Bible had been taught in our nations public schools since the birth of our nation and this all started to change around the late 1940s. If the founders of Harvard were alive today, they'd be in awe of how this institution has been perverted. I know, it's a private institution, but it is indicative of how our nation's educational institutions as a whole have become hostile to Chistianity over the years.

"You can use public facilities for private religious initiatives, as long as every other eligious group in the community is granted the same access to that facility for their own purpose."

----I disagree, and the Founders would too. Should pagans be permitted to use public facilities for human sacrafice? How about animal sacrafice? Afterall, paganism is a religion isn't it? What most of us fail to realize is that when the Founders debated religious issues, they assumed the nation would remain Christian. The protections they put in place were to prevent one sect of Christianity from gaining the upper hand on the other sects.

"The one thing you cannot do is use tax money for any of those activities, or pass a law that mandates relgious exercise."

----Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that State and Local governing authorities are forbidden to use THEIR tax dollars for the religious activities they support. I think it's a shame, and directly contrary to what the Founders intended, that a high school with 1000 students, say 99% Christian, are DENIED their freedom of religion because ONE or TWO Muslims may be offended. This type of situation is not what the Founders had in mind when they developed the 1st Amnd. The Congressional records of the day are proof of this.



HGM

[Marko Kloos]

I disagree, and the Founders would too. Should pagans be permitted to use public facilities for human sacrafice? How about animal sacrafice? Afterall, paganism is a religion isn't it? What most of us fail to realize is that when the Founders debated religious issues, they assumed the nation would remain Christian. The protections they put in place were to prevent one sect of Christianity from gaining the upper hand on the other sects.

Ah, now we come down to the heart of the matter: the definition of "freedom of religion" as "freedom to be a Christian".

Pagans should be allowed the use of public facilities, as long as their conduct does not violate anyone's rights. Pagans should not have the right to human sacrifice, even if it did constitute part of their religion (which it doesn't.)

Equal access to all religions, even the ones you don't like or understand, as long as their religious exercise does not involve violating someone's rights. That goes for Christians, pagans, Muslims, Buddhists, and every other religion or cult ever dreamed up by humanity. That's the only way you can keep religious peace.

The protections they put in place were to prevent one sect of Christianity from gaining the upper hand on the other sects.


No, the protections were put in place to keep any religion from gaining the upper hand over other religions, not just the Christian sects. I know that many Christians have no issue with the bible club at their local high school, but can you imagine the uproar in rural Georgia if some students wanted equal access to the school facilities for a Pagan or Muslim prayer club?

I think it's a shame, and directly contrary to what the Founders intended, that a high school with 1000 students, say 99% Christian, are DENIED their freedom of religion because ONE or TWO Muslims may be offended.

What about a community of 999 liberals, and one gun owner? Can the 99% be denied their right to not have guns around them, because one gun owner's rights may be restricted? Never mind the fact that the school kids you mention are not being denied their freedom of religion, just because the law says that the teachers may not lead the class in prayer.

Listen, contrary to your assertions, majority domination is *precisely* what the Bill of Rights is supposed to prevent. The majority opinion doesn't mean doodly-squat when it comes to constitutional rights. If your frreedom of religion to you means that the 1% non-Christian students are forced to get up and proclaim that they live under a god, or listen to Bible sermons read by the scholl teachers, or participate in a graduation prayer against their religious convictions, then the majority cannot cancel out the rights of the 1% just by virtue of sheer numbers.

Besides, what kind of religious exercise is not open to you in school? All the Constitution prohibits is the exercise of school-sponsored (i.e.tax-funded) religious activities. The children are free to exercise their religion even in school, as long as it doesn't interfere with classwork, and as long as it doesn't involve violating someone else's rights to *not* have to pray or listen to sermons. This is solved by prohibiting the State (in the form of school teachers) to lead kids in prayer or make the exercise of religious rituals of any form mandatory for the whole class. Why is that not enough? Why do you claim "persecution" until you have the Ten Commandments in public classrooms, and a teacher-led prayer every morning, and a school-sponsored revival every year? Why does your idea of "religious freedom" mean that every child has to pledge allegiance to your God, even if there happen to be "one or two Muslims" in the crowd?

[HGM]

"I know that many Christians have no issue with the bible club at their local high school, but can you imagine the uproar in rural Georgia if some students wanted equal access to the school facilities for a Pagan or Muslim prayer club?"

If I were a Pagan or Muslim, I wouldn't live in rural Georgia to begin with... but if I did, I would accept the fact that these people have been predominantly Christian for 200 years or so and I would respect this tradition. If I lived in Japan, which I did for a year, I wouldn't try to change their traditions. I would respect their traditions and if I wanted to practice my Christian beliefs, I would do so in private. I certainly wouldn't demand that the entire student body change their way of life on my behalf.

However, given your scenario, if enough of Muslims or Pagans move to the area, they can start their own school, just like Christians do in communities all across America. An important part of any nation's culture is it's religious traditions, and our tradition is undoubtedly Christian.

Well, anyway, I don't think we're going to change each other's minds and although we disagree on this issue, I'm sure we can agree on the meaning of the 2nd Amdnt. :)

Regards,

HGM

[MeekandMild]

Rambling a bit

I do apologize for the misconception. HGM I think this was your first mistake. Why should you apologise because someone doesn't take the time to read and understand what you said?

The one thing you cannot do is use tax money for any of those activities, or pass a law that mandates religious exercise, or grants any sort of public funding for it. Just curious, L, what do you think of other unconstitutional use of government funds? Everything from the TVA to school lunches to medical aide for Uganda fails to meet strict Constitutional tests. (This could go all the way down to the town's traffic light purchase if you are strictly anti-states-rights.)

I know you said "the one thing you cannot do", but did you really mean that you think its OK for the NEA to fund Maplethorp's buggy whip collection? Or are there really two things you cannot do? Maybe three if you count Medicare payment for partial birth abortions? :rolleyes:

It puzzles me to no end how some folks on the one hand try so hard to stifle the religious expression of local majorities in every public and private forum, on every level from the village passion play up to the national Christmas tree but they don't do the same thing for all the wrongheaded things the Left comes up with to fund at taxpayer expense.

No, the protections were put in place to keep any religion from gaining the upper hand over other religions, not just the Christian sects. No, this was done in the historical context of the English Civil War, the Protectorate, The Restoration, et cetera plus the Scottish Covenent and the Irish wars. "Establishment" was specifically referring to the Church of England. The US hoped to avoid the bloody consequences they recalled Britain having had with its Christian sects vying for governemnt control.

Whether the Christians might somehow suppress the lone Weasel Worshipper in town should be the last and least of freethinker's worries. If you really want to see bloody wars of conquest you need to look at what the non deistic sects of world socialism have done to each other over the past century. Now that is a problem worth study!:scrutiny:

**
On a less confrontive note, I must say during the 20+ years I considered myself to be an atheist I felt zero persecution from Southern Christian Conservatives. I watched them with a good deal of humor and in many ways it was like watching a Faulkner novel come to life. So I will mildly wonder about the psychodynamics of projection and denial among the more vociferous atheists among us. :p

[Marko Kloos]

Whether the Christians might somehow suppress the lone Weasel Worshipper in town should be the last and least of freethinker's worries.

Actually, it should be the first of our worries. As we keep pointing out in regard to gun and free speech rights, all our freedoms are only secure if we extend them to even the least mainstream and most "radical" members of society. If you are not concerned about the majority suppressing the "lone weasel worshipper", you are only willing to grant religious freedom to those that have majority approval. Then you have effectively abolished religious freedom, because you subject to the majority definition what constitutes "acceptable" religion...precisely what the First Amendment is supposed to prevent. Thank you for making my point, though.

I know you said "the one thing you cannot do", but did you really mean that you think its OK for the NEA to fund Maplethorp's buggy whip collection? Or are there really two things you cannot do? Maybe three if you count Medicare payment for partial birth abortions?

Just in case you haven't yet picked up on my political stance: I am against tax-funded free rides for *anyone*. No NEA...if you want to look at a cross in urine, you bloody well pay for it out of your own pocket. If you want to make a living displaying that stuff, you bloody well finance it out of your own pocket or find a willing investor. No payment for partial birth abortions, or any other medical procedures...if you want an abortion, find a doctor who is willing to do one, and pay for the procedure out of your own pocket. No Medicare...if you can't afford a doctor, get off the couch and work so you don't have to reach into your neighbor's pocket. No welfare, no farm subsidies, no sloghing at the public trough for *anyone*.

If you really want to see bloody wars of conquest you need to look at what the non deistic sects of world socialism have done to each other over the past century. Now that is a problem worth study!

The body count of the "non-deistic sects" of the last century or so, namely Communism and Fascism, pale in comparison to 2000+ years of religious warfare. Furthermore, the "secular body count" was not explicitly racked up in the name of atheism or secularism, while all the dead from religious wars explicitly bit the dust because they disagreed violently over whose god was more powerful, or who was praying to the right god. Let's not drag out the body count sheet here in defense of religion and condemnation of secularism, lest we start debating such explicitly religious niceties like the Inquisition, the witch burnings, the Crusades, the Thirty Year War, the Holocaust (perpetrated by a "secular" fascism cashing in on the anti-Semitism of a Christian population), the medieval pogroms of Europe, the Huguenot affair, Northern Ireland, and the current and past mess that is the Middle East. Stalin may have killed millions in the name of Socialism, but the only reason why Torquemada didn't kill tens of millions in the name of Christianity is because back then they didn't have gas chambers and machine guns. In any case, he probably came close enough.

That said, don't you think it's silly to base the superiority of theism over secularism on the notion that "a few less guys have been killed in our God's name", even if you could ascribe the secular body count primarily on the official "godlessness" of the regime that perpetrated it?

Let's move the discussion away from "my belief system is better than yours", though, because those discussions always end up messy. There's a reason why we didn't permit any religious threads on TFL, and it's starting to dawn on me that it may have been a bad idea to allow continuation of this thread at the first mention of religion.

[MeekandMild]

No, L, the way it works in the real world is that one or two dissenters don't bother the majority of folks. On the other hand the majority of folks, going about their own business seem to annoy the dickens out of some of the dissenters. For reasons you have already given. I'll try once more to reduce this to its absurd core.

Religion aside, whenever I hear the Separationist blurb it sounds a lot like the "debate" if you can call it that, which arises whenever a yuppie moves next door to a working cattle farm. Its all sweet and picturesque until the weather warms up and the snow melts. Then they discover flies and funny smells and pretty soon they are writing letters to the editor demanding county wide zoning laws.

The trouble with your concept of equality is that if you give EQUAL freedom to all then the majority stands out more. The fifty farmers in the neighborhood, each with their fifty or hundred cows have more of a physical presence than the yuppy's single little wiener dog.

So you have to pass PREFERENTIAL laws so the yuppy can take his little dog out on a walk without it running over and stepping into cow poop. Which is what the separationsists really want, preferential laws.

Just in case you haven't yet picked up on my political stance: I read Kafka as well as Faulkner. :) It is odd that in a general universe of libertarian ideas there would be this one single authoritarian quirk.

body count So much for trying to illustrate by analogy. I get the same blank stare when I try to point out that corporations in twenty first century America are analogous to royalty of eighteenth century America.

By way of ending this, you may feel free to rub blue paint in your navel and stick feathers in your nose without bothering me. However I would appreciate it if you don't get upset when I and the majority of others choose to wear clothes instead. :what:

[Sean Smith]

Historically, the dissenters get killed.

[Tamara]

It puzzles me to no end how some folks on the one hand try so hard to stifle the religious expression of local majorities in every public and private forum, on every level from the village passion play up to the national Christmas tree but they don't do the same thing for all the wrongheaded things the Left comes up with to fund at taxpayer expense.

This was the first post of lendringser's you've read, right?

"The one thing (understood within the confines of the present discussion) you cannot do..." ;) Asking someone who publicly decries taxation as theft why they don't condemn aid to Uganda is, well, I just can't find the words... :uhoh:

[Marko Kloos]

Which is what the separationsists really want, preferential laws.

I don't want preferential treatment; I want the same freedom of religion you claim for yourself.

I have no issue with all the Christians in my town getting together and pooling their cash to erect a nativity scene on the public courthouse lawn. Go right ahead, you're welcome to it, no problem from my side.

But if the local chapter of the Freedom from Religion Foundation wants to put up their Winter Solstice display on that same public front lawn right next to your nativity scene, you damn well better let them do so. And if you put up your nativity scene on that public lawn, you better do like the folks from the FFRF and not use a dime of tax money for it...you know, the tax pool that holds contributions from Americans that are Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, Humanist, Wiccan, Pagan, Zoroastrian, Shinto, Confucianist, Baha'i, and Taoist.

All of them have a right to put up their own display on that public courthouse lawn; all of them have the right to not get their display kicked to pieces in the middle of the night by adherents of the majority religion in town, and none of them have the right to help themselves to tax funds for their happy little displays. *That* is the crux of the matter, not "preferential laws".

And if you insist that you get to help yourself to the tax pot because otherwise it would be "hostile to religion", equal rights mean that every other religious group in town gets the same amount of money for their own displays. Otherwise you're the one claiming "preferential laws" for your religious group.

[Preacherman]

I've been watching this thread with considerable interest. Well done, everyone, for keeping it civil and reasonably level-headed! - I was worried it might have to be shut down before now.

I'd like to state, as a Christian minister, that I think Lendringser has it right. We have to treat all religions/faiths/sects equally - including atheism! - and keep government out of them and them out of government. If we don't, we open up all sorts of cans of worms, and that's precisely why we find ourselves in the situation we're in today. I think St. Paul had it right when he asked his followers to pray for and obey the ruling government, for the sake of peaceful lives and the freedom to follow God. The State is basically and inherently secular, and should be. If we end up with a theocracy in power, well, history shows us all too clearly what happens... :rolleyes:

Again, all, well done for keeping things polite.

[LawDog]

No, L, the way it works in the real world is that one or two dissenters don't bother the majority of folks. On the other hand the majority of folks, going about their own business seem to annoy the dickens out of some of the dissenters. For reasons you have already given. I'll try once more to reduce this to its absurd core.

You know, in the Real World(TM) that I'm in I see the exact opposite. Maybe it's just religion, or maybe it's just North Texas, but I can tell you that being the one non-Baptist in high school just annoyed the dickens out of the majority.

Now, I'm a mind-my-own-business kind of guy. My religious beliefs are my own, and I don't care to explain them or foist them off on anybody else. And -- in your words -- to reduce this to its absurd core the fact that my God is somewhat different than the God of the majority just seemed to annoy the dickens out of the majority.

Now, I know about the yuppies moving next door to the stockyards. Seen it a time or two, and the yuppies can plumb get nasty about the situation.

I also know from painful detail what happens when a non-Shi'a Baptist walks into a town full of Shi'a Baptists -- and it wasn't me that wound up with my knickers in a wad.

The trouble with your concept of equality is that if you give EQUAL freedom to all then the majority stands out more. The fifty farmers in the neighborhood, each with their fifty or hundred cows have more of a physical presence than the yuppy's single little wiener dog.

So you have to pass PREFERENTIAL laws so the yuppy can take his little dog out on a walk without it running over and stepping into cow poop. Which is what the separationsists really want, preferential laws.

If by 'preferential laws' you mean not winding up in the principal's office because you refused to lead the class in prayer when it was deemed to be your turn, then yeah I guess I'm for those 'preferential laws'.

If by 'preferential laws' you mean not getting thrown off the track team because you told the coach the truth about your version of God, then yeah, I'm for those 'preferential laws'.

See, that's the thing about not living in a Republic instead of a democracy: the majority should not be allowed to beat me about the head and shoulders with a Gov't stick just because I'm a little bit different than them.

Now, maybe you think that it's okay to use the Gov't to force me to be a Baptist and maybe you think that it's okay to use tax-payer money to push Baptist beliefs down my throat, but I'm here to tell you that in that case Lendringser isn't the one with the "authoritarian quirk".

LawDog

[MeekandMild]

Tamara, I suppose it was L's use of "the one thing you can't". Reductio ad absurdum. He shouldn't have said "the one thing" if he meant the thousand and first thing now should he?

L, you are kidding of course? Winter Solstice ceremonies are best put on in places with dark skies and open horizons. You can't see anything in a lighted lot between buildings. Full of electrical potentials and cold iron in every direction I might add.

But then you gave yourself away when you said "display" and "Freedom From Religion Foundation". That heavily implies the purpose isn't to celebrate but to intimidate, sort of like perverting the use of the Christian cross in a cross burning display.

But since there aren't so many Pagans to complain you would use their holy symbols for your political ends? You would set up the local Pagans and Wiccans to be caught in the crossfire wouldn't you?

Which leads back to my perpetual question as to motivation? If you would, could you tell me why the FFRF isn't a hate group?

Sean makes a point, but that should be dissenters from the "one true government" by neccessity and from "the one true religion" only when that religion becomes the government. The same happens when any total system becomes the government...

[Marko Kloos]

But then you gave yourself away when you said "display" and "Freedom From Religion Foundation". That heavily implies the purpose isn't to celebrate but to intimidate, sort of like perverting the use of the Christian cross in a cross burning display.

I just pulled the name of the FFRF out of the hat; substitute the name of any secular group instead if you want.

As to the purpose of a Winter Solstice display: how does it intimidate you when a group of non-religious people puts up a sign that says there are no gods or devils, and that at the season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail? Does that intimidate you in any way? What if the sight of an execution instrument on every church spire intimidates the crap out of me?

(The Winter Solstice sign described was stolen or defaced two years in a row when FFRF put it up at the Wisconsin Capitol. Does it matter whether they put it up to celebrate the season or to have equal time on public grounds to make a political point? They wanted to show the intolerance of the "mainstream" to non-mainstream opinions regarding religion, and they succeeded.)

But since there aren't so many Pagans to complain you would use their holy symbols for your political ends? You would set up the local Pagans and Wiccans to be caught in the crossfire wouldn't you?

I would set up no one, I am merely asserting that the local pagans and Wiccans have every right to any sort of display or activity which the Christian community claims for itself on public grounds. Do they have that right, or do they not?

Which leads back to my perpetual question as to motivation? If you would, could you tell me why the FFRF isn't a hate group?

Can you tell me why they are a hate group, if that's your opinion of them? What's your basis for that judgment, the fact that they disagree with Christians on both theology and the nature of church and state separation? (Can I classify the Southern Baptists as a hate group, because every one of their learned clergy will tell me that I will be tortured for all eternity if I do not accept their God as my savior?)

What's your take on the religious intolerance experienced by LawDog? Do you not see anything wrong with that kind of unchecked and condoned majority dominance of one religion in a public facility?

[Mike Irwin]

I've found that certain supposedly Christian denominations are more likely deserving of hate group status based on their intolerance of other denominations/religions than most of the groups they profess to dislike.

Some of the fundamentalists/born agains I know are downright frightening. For believing in a Savoir who teaches love, peace, and compassion, they certainly are a pugilistic, intolerant, and downright pathetic lot.

[MeekandMild]

Does it matter whether they put it up to celebrate the season or to have equal time on public grounds to make a political point? It makes a lot of difference. Would you think the Klan should burn crosses on public grounds to make a political point?


how does it intimidate you It doesn't, it offends me in the same manner that the Klan would when they take ancient religious and cultural symbols and use them for their own purposes.

I am merely asserting that the local pagans and Wiccans have every right to any sort of display or activity which the Christian community claims for itself on public grounds. Do they have that right, or do they not? Of course they would have the right. FYI the Christmas tree is a Pagan symbol as is the Yule log and the tradition of Wassailing.

But you were not asserting anything about Pagans doing this. You were asserting the privilage of atheists and agnostics to "borrow" Pagan symbols for their own nefarious purposes. Hitler who was nonreligious, borrowed freely from Christian and Pagan symbology. For his own political purposes, just as FFRF appears to do by your report.

Can you tell me why they are a hate group, if that's your opinion of them? What's your basis for that judgment... (?) My basis is primarily based on your description of their actions to politicize a sacred Pagan holy season and to attempt to polarize religious people in strife. Admittedly a part of my judgement is based on your past discussions of how you think all theism and religious ideation is crackpottery. Your disdain and hatred are palpable.

You don't seem to see how even the atheist and agnostic are religious, merely in a non theistic direction. Let me use an example you will understand, the Harley owner's philosophy of fatalism. "If you ride it isn't if it's when." Purely nontheistic, however it describes a philosophical and religious worldview which is impossible to put into non-religious terms.

[HBK]

Well said, meekandmild.

[Marko Kloos]

You were asserting the privilage of atheists and agnostics to "borrow" Pagan symbols for their own nefarious purposes.

The FFRF in the example I cited did not put up any sort of "borrowed" Pagan symbolism. They put up a little sign with text wishing that reason may prevail in the Winter Solstice time, and that there are no gods and devils. Their "nefarious purpose" was to demonstrate that there are non-religous people in the community who celebrate the season without invoking gods or other spirit things, and to assert that they have as much right to wish the community a happy holiday in their own way as the Christians do. The courthouse lawn is, after all, public property and belongs to everyone.

If the Christians get to put up a Christmas display on that lawn, then the atheists get to put up a Winter Solstice display, and the local Star Trek club can put up a cardboard Mr. Spock wishing people to "live long and prosper". Why they want their own display doesn't matter; what they believe doesn't matter; all that matters is that if one group gets to use the public lawn for a display, all the other belief groups in town get to do the same. The only limitation is that they can't violate anyone's rights with their display, but that is it.

My basis is primarily based on your description of their actions to politicize a sacred Pagan holy season and to attempt to polarize religious people in strife.

The only "strife" was the vandalization and theft of the FFRF display in the middle of the night. The Christian and Jewish displays were not touched. Looks like the Atheists were fine with giving the Christians equal time for their holiday message; the same cannot be said for the Christians. If there was strife, it did not originate with the FFRF. If the Atheists put up a sign, and the Christians tear it down because they disagree with the message, did the Atheists cause the "strife"?

Ask yourself why your co-religionists were so threatened by a sign saying there are no gods or devils that they had to vandalize and steal it in the middle of the night. You don't see atheists or those nefarious FFRF people running around and kicking in other people's nativity displays.

Admittedly a part of my judgement is based on your past discussions of how you think all theism and religious ideation is crackpottery. Your disdain and hatred are palpable.

You just can't get over the fact that I once told you in a PM that I consider all religion bunk. Why does it offend you so much that I don't believe like you do? I don't hate Christians, just because I don't think much of their theology. I am disdainful of the belief, not the believers. (Kind of like "Love the sinner, hate the sin".)

As far as "hatred" goes, please look up the psychological term "projection". I don't hate Christians. I don't have a problem with most of them. Some of my best friends, and many of my family members are Christians, and I love them dearly, despite the fact that we don't share an opinion on celestial things. The only Christians I do mind are the ones who can't accept the fact that not everyone wants to worship like they do, and who are so intolerant of non-Christians that they bully the few "weasel worshippers" in their school and tell them to "change your religion, or we'll change it for you". I've heard stories from my non-Christian friends about religious hazing in public schools here in Tennessee and Georgia that are much in line with LawDog's story above. On that note, you still haven't answered the question I asked earlier....what's your take on the religious intolerance experienced by LawDog? Do you not see anything wrong with that kind of unchecked and condoned majority dominance of one religion in a public facility?

I have no problem with your faith, as long as you don't try to make it law for me in any way. I promise I'll never try to make a law saying that you cannot exercise your faith, or that you cannot pray or put up any kind of religious display you care to pay for with your own money. I won't make a law saying that your children cannot pray in school; how about you don't try and make one that *requires* my kids to pledge that they're living under your god?

And before you start asserting that Atheism is a religion as well, let me point out that Atheism is no more a religion than baldness is a hair color. Any two atheists have most likely nothing in common other than the disbelief in a god or gods. There are no rituals, no churches, no priests, and nothing else indicative of anything approaching a "religion". If you stretch the definition of religion to include atheism just on the basis of a single common belief, you render the word "religion" meaningless, because then you can classify anything as a religion: golf, soccer, Oprah's Book Club, the Republican Party, the Delta Frequent Flyer Club, and so on. Definitions are the guardians of rationality; let's not overstretch them to fit an argument.

[MeekandMild]

You just can't get over the fact that I once told you in a PM that I consider all religion bunk. Why does it offend you so much that I don't believe like you do? I don't care what you believe. That's your business. I believe I'm going to unplug after I finish this and go have a beer. :)

My entire reason for pursuing this is (besides the fact that I'm bored and lazy, having worked too hard last week):

1: Atheism is a worldview,a meme and a religion. Groups of atheists who band together to pursue group goals consitute a church. There are sects of atheism which include rationalists, humanists, Buddhists and many others, each of which has its own 'atheology'. There are also lone atheists, just as there are lone Pagans and solitary witches.
2: If free expression of theistic religion is suppressed from the Commons by the government in favor of any of the sects of atheism then that constitutes Establishment of Religion.
3: It is wrong for the government to maintain Establishment of any religion even if its members maintain they are not a religion. Also if they maintain their hierarchy is not an Establishment.

On that note, you still haven't answered the question I asked earlier....what's your take on the religious intolerance experienced by LawDog? I don't have a clue about it, considering I haven't been following that corner of THR. In turn I'll have to ask you again by what right would honorable Atheists take the holy holidays of Paganism and use them for political motives? If the atheists want to put up signs and symbols then they need to put up one of those little fish with feet or something of their own. They shouldn't misappropriate from other folks.

And don't give me that "it was the Christians who tore the sign down" stuff. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is incitemnt to riot. It is more so if the theater is full of residents from the local mental hospital out on a day pass.

[chaim]

First Commandment:

"I am the LORD thy GOD. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Actually you are using an incorrect translation that leaves out a key sentence fragment. The correct English translation of the Hebrew is:
"I am Hashem your G-d, Who has taken you out of Egypt from the house of slavery.

You shall not recognize the gods of others in My presence. You shall not make yourself a carved image nor any likeness of that which is in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the water beneath the earth. You shall not prostrate yourself to them nor worship them, for I am Hashem your G-d- a jealous G-d, Who visits the sins of fathers upon children to the third and fourth generations, for My enemies; but Who shows kindness for thousands (of generations) to those who love Me and observe My commandments"

Basically the second sentence in your translation is a short version of the paragraph that follows while it leaves out a key sentence fragment that both identifies G-d as if to show His "qualifications" and more importantly, identifies to whom he is speaking (the nation that he had just freed from Egypt).

The protections they put in place were to prevent one sect of Christianity from gaining the upper hand on the other sects. Wow, I never thought I'd actually see someone on THR essentially say that I am undeserving of freedom of religion or that the founders did not intend freedom of religion for people like me. I guess I shouldn't forget my place, we Jews are the "killers of Jesus" and all that after all.

Lawdog and lendringser,

Unfortunately religious intolerance is alive and well in Maryland schools as well (or at least it was just over 20 years ago). When I was in middle school I was in music class (standing no more than 3 feet from the teacher BTW) and some students around me were talking about Jesus (it was close to Easter if I remember correctly). They asked me how I felt and wouldn't take no answer for an answer. Eventually I let them know that I didn't believe him to be divine and got the crap beat out of me by 4 other 12 year olds with the teacher looking on (she didn't move to stop it, she didn't try to get help, she didn't even scold the kids after, in fact when I complained to her I was essentially told that I brought it on myself).

If the atheists want to put up signs and symbols then they need to put up one of those little fish with feet or something of their own. They shouldn't misappropriate from other folks. Wow, a Christian getting upset that a group is taking items of religious value to some religions and misappropriating and changing them for their own use! If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black!

[Nightfall]

1: Atheism is a worldview,a meme and a religion. Groups of atheists who band together to pursue group goals consitute a church. There are sects of atheism which include rationalists, humanists, Buddhists and many others, each of which has its own 'atheology'. There are also lone atheists, just as there are lone Pagans and solitary witches.


I'm going to be honest, I can't wrap my head around this one. Are you simply using ‘church' as a metaphorical way of saying ‘group' since this is a religious debate? Because the dictionary describes church as "a building for public and especially Christian worship". Now, the very definition of someone who is atheist is one who does not worship any supernatural being.

Seems somebody needs to contact Merriam-Webster, because the definiton of what constitutes certain words is being changed in this very thread. :p

[H Romberg]

I haven't finished reading all the responses to this (work and all), but I'd like to assert that it is possible to be a moral ethical person in the absence of a God. I believe that we abdicate our responsibility to ourselves and our neighbors if we surrender to any other entity the duty of determining what is right and wrong.

My .02

[H Romberg]

OK, now I'm ready. :D

First, Jefferson was NOT a christian, and had some REALLY vitriolic stuff to say about organized religion and Christianity in particular. (I'll post the quotes when I find them again) He was a "Deist", believing in a sort of nebulous godlike whatever.

All of the above is just a correction. There were lots of Christians among the FF's and this nation is indeed founded on Christian principles. That however, is irrelevant to the issue of church and state. The question is whether or not the government of the US should have a religion of its own. The answer, per the 1st ammendment, is a very wise and emphatic "NO". That's not because anybody was against Christianity, just that they thought mixing govt. force with religion of any type was a really bad idea.

Personally, I value that distinction. In a nation that is overwhealmingly Christian, an Atheist like me would normally be at severe risk for his life. (it doesn't pay to be the only non-member of the local cult). If it weren't for the doctrine of separating church and state, I'd probably end up on a rope, a stake, or in prison somewhere. Because of that, I am understandably intolerant of religious activities of any kind by the state.

The short version is that I'll defend to the death any American's right to join or not join whatever cult he or she wants as long as they don't hurt people. (meaning they do it on their own dime and not the taxpayer's) The State OTOH, has no such right.

Let the bonfires be lit!

:scrutiny: :uhoh: :what:
:fire: :fire: :fire: :fire:

[H Romberg]

I finally found the quote list!
Here tis, and ready the flame throwers......:D Some of these are downright offensive.

John Adams (the second President of the United States)

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

From a letter to Charles Cushing (October 19, 1756):
“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.’”

From a letter to Thomas Jefferson:
“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!”

Additional quotes from John Adams:
“Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?”

“The Doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”

“...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.”


Thomas Jefferson (the third President of the United States)

Jefferson’s interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802):
“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.”

From Jefferson’s biography:
“...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’”

Jefferson’s “The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom”:
“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....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.”

From Thomas Jefferson’s Bible:
“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.”

Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia:
“Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these free inquiry must be indulged; how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse ourselves? But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments?”

Additional quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”

“They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition of their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the alter of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

“I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.”

“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.”

“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear....Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue on the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you.”

“Christianity...[has become] the most perverted system that ever shone on man....Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.”

“...that our civil rights have no dependence on religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry.”


James Madison (the fourth President of the United States)

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments:
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”

Additional quote from James Madison:
“Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”


Benjamin Franklin

From Franklin’s autobiography, p. 66:
“My parents had given me betimes religious impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.”

From Franklin’s autobiography, p. 66:
“...Some books against Deism fell into my hands....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”


Thomas Paine

From The Age of Reason, pp. 8–9:
“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....Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and of my own part, I disbelieve them all.”

From The Age of Reason:
“All natural 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.”

From The Age of Reason:
“The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.”

From The Age of Reason:
“What is it the Bible teaches us? — rapine, cruelty, and murder.”

From The Age of Reason:
“Loving of enemies is another dogma of feigned morality, and has beside no meaning....Those who preach the doctrine of loving their enemies are in general the greatest prosecutors, and they act consistently by so doing; for the doctrine is hypocritical, and it is natural that hypocrisy should act the reverse of what it preaches.”

From The Age of Reason:
“The Bible was established altogether by the sword, and that in the worst use of it — not to terrify but to extirpate.”

Additional quote from Thomas Paine:
“It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.”


Ethan Allen

From Religion of the American Enlightenment:
“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”

[MeekandMild]

Wow, I never thought I'd actually see someone on THR essentially say that I am undeserving of freedom of religion or that the founders did not intend freedom of religion for people like me. I think you read that out of context because that is not what was said nor implied. It is pretty clear that the founders were worried about the Church of England getting established here and killing a few tens of thousands of Catholic and dissenter taxpayers like they did in England.

As far as my reading of history goes I think the US founding fathers tried to treat the Jews much the same as they did the smaller (in number of taxpayers) Christian sects. But is you have evidence of antisemitism among the FF I'd like to read your references.

OTOH the European continental revolutionary influence (particularly Voltaire) was in places markedly antisemitic. By the 19th century, Wagner, et cetera this was pretty rabid, which is why we saw the Jews take their place beside the Irish as major immigrant population fleeing Europe during that century.

Are you simply using ‘church' as a metaphorical way of saying ‘group' since this is a religious debate? Well, maybe. ;) But just because they don't call themselves a religion doesn't mean they're not. I find it farfetched to believe their alternative thesis that they're just an epistemological club, considering the pretty much standard (theology?) in American Atheist beliefs. (Here I must go back to recollection of discussions I had during my own Atheist years. If you want more information it would be pretty easy to do a search on the infidels.org site. At that site you will find lots of different people saying exactly the same things in unique and different words, the same as if you were at a Church of Christ meeting and they were denying they were just another denomination of christianity.)

Concerning Deists, from the Atheist (or at least my recollection of it) perspective they are pretty much the same as Christians, just less noisy.

[HGM]

H Romberg,

Nice list. How about some footnotes, with sources?

As a side note, are you aware of the fact that Thomas Jefferson was not present during the debates over the development of the 1st Amendment. Also, what significant role did Thomas Paine have in the drawing up of the US Constitution.

Well, why don't we just cut to the chase and read what Benjamin Franklin, and many other Founding Fathers, had to say about Thomas Paine's modern day "masterpiece".

Regards,

HGM

______________________________________________________




Benjamin Franklin's letter to Thomas Paine

by Benjamin Franklin



Benjamin Franklin (1706-90) was a printer, author, inventor, scientist, philanthropist, statesman, diplomat, and public official. He was the first president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery (1774); a member of the Continental Congress (1775-76) where he signed the Declaration of Independence (1776); a negotiator and signer of the final treaty of peace with Great Britain (1783); and a delegate to the Constitutional Convention where he signed the federal Constitution (1787); Franklin was one of only six men who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution. He wrote his own epitaph, which declared: “The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out, stripped of its lettering, and guilding, lies here, food for worms. But the work shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more elegant edition, revised and corrected by the Author.”

Benjamin Franklin was frequently consulted by Thomas Paine for advice and suggestions regarding his political writings, and Franklin assisted Paine with some of his famous essays. This letter 1 is Franklin's response to a manuscript Paine sent him that advocated against the concept of a providential God.




TO THOMAS PAINE.
[Date uncertain.]

DEAR SIR,
I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.
But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.
I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,

B. Franklin



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paine latter published his Age of Reason, which infuriated many of the Founding Fathers. John Adams wrote, “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.” 2 Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, “[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.” 3

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine's Age of Reason was “absurd and impious”; 4 Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion”; 5 John Witherspoon said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith”; 6 John Quincy Adams declared that “Mr. Paine has departed altogether from the principles of the Revolution"”; 7 and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation—a full-length rebuttal to Paine's work. 8 Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine's work which he described as “the puny efforts of Paine.” 9

When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine's work, he thundered, “Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God?” 10 Zephaniah Swift, author of America's first law book, noted, “He has the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers.” 11 John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would prevail despite Paine's attack,“I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds.” 12 In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public opposition that he spent his last years in New York as “an outcast” in “social ostracism” and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains. 13



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Endnotes
1. Jared Sparks, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1840), Vol.X, pp. 281-2.(Return)
2. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles Little and James Brown, 1841), Vol. III, p. 421, diary entry for July 26, 1796.(Return)
3. William V. Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865), Vol. III, pp. 372-373, to Thomas Paine on November 30, 1802.(Return)
4. Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), Vol. II, p. 770, to John Dickinson on February 16, 1796. (Return)
5. Joseph Gurn, Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York: P. J. Kennedy & Sons, 1932), p. 203.(Return)
6. John Witherspoon, The Works of the Reverend John Witherspoon (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1802), Vol. III, p. 24, n. 2, from “The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men,” delivered at Princeton on May 17, 1776.(Return)
7. John Quincy Adams, An Answer to Pain’s [sic] “Rights of Man” (London: John Stockdale, 1793), p. 13.(Return)
8. Elias Boudinot, The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia: Asbury Dickins, 1801), pp. xii-xiv, from the prefatory remarks to his daughter, Mrs. Susan V. Bradford.(Return)
9. S. G. Arnold, The Life of Patrick Henry of Virginia (Auburn and Buffalo: Miller, Orton and Mulligan, 1854), p. 250, to his daughter Betsy on August 20, 1796; see also, George Morgan, Patrick Henry (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1929), p. 366 n; and Bishop William Meade, Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1857), Vol. II, p. 12.(Return)
10. John E. O’Conner, William Paterson: Lawyer and Statesman (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1979), p. 244, from a Fourth of July Oration in 1798.(Return)
11. Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham: John Byrne, 1796), Vol. II, pp. 323-324.(Return)
12. William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833) Vol. II, p. 266, to the Rev. Uzal Ogden on February 14, 1796.(Return)
13. Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Thomas Paine.” (Return)

source: http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=93

[S_O_Laban]

Very interesting thread, and I like Preacherman am glad that for such an emotional subject most have taken the high road.

In regards as to the quote from the Treaty of Tripoli, the following link, I believe provides needed context
http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/june_july97/tripoli.html


I have not looked into the other quotes listed by H Romberg but if they pan out like the one above, the credibility and context of that list of quotes should be taken with a grain of salt. I too would care to see further info on the sources of the listed quotes.

[H Romberg]

Meek,
I've got to say that the repeated argument that atheism is a religion is significantly flawed. Religions may fit into the larger category of epistemologies as do those epistemologies built without a reliance on the supernatural, but sharing membership in that group does not render atheism a religion. Yes, there are many similarities between people who think that there's probably not a god. Does that make us a church? I really don't think so.

HGM,
I've got to say, I really like Franklin. In that letter, he manages to insult (my opinion) the majority of humanity and we love him for it. Diplomacy in America starts with him I think. He cuts straight to the heart of the moral relativity debate that still rages today, and while I disagree with his conclusions here, (I think most of us ARE capable of living moral lives without the threat of hell) I have to admire his logic and his eloquence. IIRC from the biography, his funeral was attended by members of each and every clergy present in Philladelphia at the time, all having been supported by his actions. He was something I wish I'd see more of today: A TRULY tolerant religious person.

I'll work on the citations for those quotes, as I had to retrieve them from a family member. They were part of a larger article that describes Jefferson creating his own version of a bible by removing all the passages relating to the miracles he didn't believe happened. Given the times he lived in, that took some major cojones.

I couldn't attach the whole string of articles. Some of it is referenced pretty well, but its really long. Till I research all those quotes (not my highest priority, but I'll work on it), take them for what they're worth. Also keep in mind that it was put together by a separation of church and state activist.

On the same note, while we're on the subject of finding valid citations for purported statements of fact, we might want to apply those same standards to anything that claims to be "Holy Scripture". After all, the question of whether or not Jefferson was a Christian is pretty insignificant compared to the massive fictions sold the world round as religions. I mean, if only one of them is correct, the rest are bunk no? If I were a religious man, I'd have to ask myself how I got lucky enough to be raised into the one true religion amongst all the others.:evil: (I couldn't resist):D

[MeekandMild]

...but sharing membership in that group does not render atheism a religion. Yes, there are many similarities between people who think that there's probably not a god. Does that make us a church? I really don't think so. However, sharing membership in a group which is politically active and is involved in the compeditive inhibition of religious groups may very well constitute the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion.

We naturally assume that something which calls itself a religion or maybe even THE religion meets this criteria, but what of a clearly recognizable group which fulfills the, er, evolutionary niche of religion but declines to identify itself as such?

There exist religious hierarchies which refuse to label themselves as religions; I think immediately of the clergy of the Church of Christ as being a prime example. But when you do a survey of high school or undergraduate students and one of the questions is a little box with the label "RELIGION?" some kids will write in 'Church of Christ' and others will write in 'Atheist'. This is regardless of what the establishedment of their respective religions asserts.

For these kids their religion is what they say it is. It is what comforts them in the dark night and what makes them feel part of a greater something. It is what guides their day to day dealings with others and with themselves. Once something becomes operationally workable it IS regardless of how fluently its leaders argue it ISN'T.

Atheism is a religion in the operational sense in that it competes for the same ecological niche as other religions, the hearts and wills of the young people. It doesn't compete with the part of a man's soul which demands Golf or Rock and Roll or Skydiving. So operationally it isn't a hobby or avocation or sport. It doesn't compete with Swiss Cheese nor Potato Chips so it isn't a snack. One doesn't have to choose between Atheism and shoes, nor Atheism and a raincoat. So it is obvious that Atheism isn't clothing. But... one chooses betwein Atheism and Theism.

The atheist is already free to exercise his religious right to nontheism. He is free to practice it as hard as he wishes. But he should not be free to rezone the Commons so as to exclude theists, which is what I see being done with increasing frequency, especially in the public schools and the teaching of history and moral philosophy. He should not be free to creat conflict between the theistic religions and he should not be free to borrow their symbols in his pursuit of political power. :rolleyes:

Do the similarities make you a church? Does it matter? The Constitution doesn't mention 'churches'; rather it mentions free exercise of religion and establishment of religion.

[MeekandMild]

This thread relates to my point in an oblique way: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30344

[H Romberg]

Several points we're not going to agree on:
-Definition of religion I define it as any epistemology that relies on the supernatural. Your argument suggests a significantly different definition.

- You say I have the freedom of choice when it comes to religion. I don't see it that way, as long as I am coerced into subsidizing the religions of others by having them use resources paid for with my tax dollars when they should be using their own. This offends me at a visceral level. Picture being forced to fund the local Satanist church out of each and every paycheck you make if you want to try on my shoes for a while.

-You say Atheists should not be able to "rezone the Commons so as to exclude theists" citing tax funded schools as an example. I see that as an absolute necessity. The commons are a part of the state, which has been prohibited from having any religion. In other words, the state must be non-theist in nature in order to comply with the 1st Amendment. If you wish to change that, don't play semantics with the definition of "religion". Try honestly to change it at the constitutional level. Good luck.

When I discuss freedom of religion with the religious people, they often seem to equate losing the power of the state with losing their right to practice their religion. I sincerely believe these to be two separate things. The same thing seems to happen again when I'm accused of hating christianity when I advocate severing its links to the state. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I was raised with Christian values, in a nation founded on Christian principles, and I do my best to live up to many of those values and principles because they are at the core of my personal ethics. I think however, that those principles are poorly served when the church becomes part of any creature as inherently violent and corruptive as the state The Founding Fathers were wise to create a wall between those two parts of our society. We do ourselves a great disservice when we erode it.

[H Romberg]

Having read the thread you referenced, I'm not sure if I should be offended. Can you explain the link you see, because it seems that in referencing it, you lump objections to subsidizing others' religions together with the whinings of people who want to control what they don't own.

I think (or at least I hope) I'm missing something here.

[MeekandMild]

H, we must agree to disagree, unless of course you disagree in which case we must agree.:) We agree that various theisms are epistomological sets however we diverge in our basic assumptions as to the nature of religion versus the establishment of religion.

If you we can set up an experimental model whereby we can prove or disprove my thesis that operationally speaking atheism is a religion. I would propose we find a sample of a half dozen religious philosophers and half dozen atheist philosphers. We will then put them into a PET scanner and let the first group think about their deities and the second group think about their lack of deities. My bet is that there would be no difference between which areas light up in the respective brains. We could then find a half dozen religious zealots and the same number of atheist zealots. Same experiment and I'd bet that a different area would light up in the zealots brains.

I don't see it that way, as long as I am coerced into subsidizing the religions of others by having them use resources paid for with my tax dollars when they should be using their own. This offends me at a visceral level. Perhaps that visceral response may prove interesting in a PET scanner. One immediately thinks of the word "intolerance", or is it "intolerence"? I wonder also how you decide when it is your duty to be offended? Is there a rule book or do you just follow your biological urges? :neener:

Can you explain the link you see, because it seems that in referencing it, you lump objections to subsidizing others' religions together with the whinings of people who want to control what they don't own. Both are subsets of the Problem of the Commons which has enthralled philosophers from Aristotle to Mao.*** is Meek babbling about now? (http://www.negotiation.hut.fi/theory/Commons.htm)

[H Romberg]

I pretty much follow my biological urges when it comes to being offended. My ethics take over when I decide what to do about it though. As an illustration of the problem of the Commons (Do you like Adam Smith's work too?) I agree that it's a thorny issue.

Intolerance: I'm very tolerant of others who believe differently than I do, so long as they don't hurt me or anyone else. This extends all the way to being willing to risk my life in the defense of their right to believe differently than I do. On the other side of that coin however, I am equally intolerant of anyone (let alone the state which has no rights but only granted powers) using coersion to proselytize. I view the privileged use of state resources acquired via coersion (taxes) as a coercive act.

If those resources were equally available to all, Pagans, Satanists, Weasel Worshippers, Elvis worshippers, and yes even Atheists, I'd be left with just the economic objection that it's dumb to tax and spend when you don't need to. That's seldom the case though, in my experience. Where is Allah mentioned on our money? How about Satan, Zeus, Bhudda, and the Great Pumpkin? Why is it only the Christian sabbath that is observed by the Federal Government? In short, our government has adopted a religious character that reflects the religion of the majority. This is a natural trend, but it is dangerous. I know modern Christianity is an enlightened, kinder, gentler religion, but I still don't trust it when it's mixed with the state. I cite the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the IRA, and the KKK as examples of what happens when Christianity gets into the business of coersion.

When the FF wrote the Constitution, they recognized the corruptive influence religion and government have on each other, and declared that the government power, unlike the rest of the Commons, would be protected from the influences of religion, in order to keep people from using the government to beat "infidels" over the head. I think that was a stroke of genius, because its the main reason we can have jews, muslims, christians, hindus, bhudists, hindus, and pagans living on the same block without killing each other. Given the historical body count attributable to religious differences, and our population's religious diversity, I'm VERY reluctant to see that balance eroded any farther than it already is. The government is the biggest weapon of all, and I don't think anyone, not even the majority, should be using it to hurt fellow citizens because of their religion, so hands off!. If that makes me intolerant, I've got to reply with a hearty MEA CULPA!

:D

Atheism as a religion note:
If
We view "Atheism" is a religion.
And
The 1st Amendment prohibits establishing a state religion.
Then
The state cannot be "Atheist" and still comply with the Constitution.
Therefore
The state must be "Theist" in order to avoid establishing a state religion.
And by extension
The 1st Amendment is meaningless with regards to religion.:confused:

I don't think that's the logic the Founding Fathers had in mind. I think they intended an atheist (note the little "a") state.

[Marko Kloos]

If you we can set up an experimental model whereby we can prove or disprove my thesis that operationally speaking atheism is a religion. I would propose we find a sample of a half dozen religious philosophers and half dozen atheist philosphers. We will then put them into a PET scanner and let the first group think about their deities and the second group think about their lack of deities. My bet is that there would be no difference between which areas light up in the respective brains. We could then find a half dozen religious zealots and the same number of atheist zealots. Same experiment and I'd bet that a different area would light up in the zealots brains.


Zealotry is not the benchmark of a religion. There are Beanie Baby collectors who are as zealous about their hobby as some religionists are about their faith. Once again, if you define "religion" to include every group that has one trait or interest in common, then everything can be classified as a religion, and the term becomes meaningless. You are just playing semantics to somehow prove that a non-religious government is somehow religious because "secularism is a religion, too". Following your line of reasoning, a government cannot be impartial in matters of religion, and then it may as well be the majority religion that's favored, right?

Besides, it doesn't matter whther all the members of a government are uniformly religious or non-religious, as long as they don't pass any laws advancing their faith by state mandate, or hindering other faiths in the same fashion. The key here is not the religion (or lack thereof) of the legislators, but their willingness (or lack thereof) to make their particular dogma into law for everyone else.

[Cosmoline]

I would like to see a government so small and focussed that it simply does not have time to worry about issues like this. Keep the roads clear and leave me ALONE :D

[Mike Irwin]

"Once again, if you define "religion" to include every group that has one trait or interest in common, then everything can be classified as a religion."

And that would mean that I'm a member of quite a few religions...

The First Church of the Wobble Trap

Apostolic Church of Older Smith & Wesson Revolvers

Pentacostal Church of the Anti-S&W Sellout Agreement

Brethren of Subaru Outback Owners

Primitive Church of Canine Handlers

And I could probably be a Bishop in the Unitarian Church of ExWife Haters...

No wonder I'm poor. All my money is going into the collection plate...

[MeekandMild]

Mike, you left out the Seventh Day Horizontalist Fellowship, of which I happen to be the High Priest and Oracle of the NonProphet. In fact I am the NonProphet himself. Donations are welcome. :D

H, I still think you're missing one of my key points that there is a major ontological diffence between 'religious observations by citizens using the Commons' and 'Establishment of religion'. I cannot argue further without becoming offensive. I despair of ever convincing you there is a difference between religion and establishment of religion and would suggest you meditate on the concept of subjunctive clauses.

On another note, I would suggest you look at the historical issue of what happened to Catholic church properties during and after the time of Henry VIII then get back with me later about the historical background.

Once again, if you define "religion" to include every group that has one trait or interest in common, then everything can be classified as a religion, and the term becomes meaningless. Marko, I'm not talking about one trait in common, I'm talking about one's major undergirding philosophy of life. The Atheist has a recognizable Controlling Intellignece in his life; the human intelligence within him. He merely internalizes the concept of god and introjects it.

As long as there is no religions hierarchy controlling government I really think that if 90% of the taxpayers are XYZ religion it should be none of the business of the 10% who are ABC if 90% of the use of the commons is by XYZ.

Cosmoline, ditto. I find it frightening to the nth degree that such things are even discussed. I'm sure that if we were all sitting on the front porch drinking beer and/or cola we would never bring them up.

[Byron Quick]

It doesn't, it offends me in the same manner that the Klan would when they take ancient religious and cultural symbols and use them for their own purposes.

The Klan took this from the custom of the Scottish clans' method of calling the members of the clan and the allies of the clan to gather in time of war or emergency. It predates Christianity in Scotland. The original effigy was of a large double bitted battle axe set upright on a mountaintop. It metamorphosed into a cross over the centuries but was never considered by the Scottish clans to be burning a Christian cross...after all, after they converted, that would sacreligious, now wouldn't it? Besides, the Scots remember what it really represents...a war axe.


On that note, you still haven't answered the question I asked earlier....what's your take on the religious intolerance experienced by LawDog?

I don't have a clue about it, considering I haven't been following that corner of THR.

Uh, it's LawDog's posts in THIS thread. ???

Some of the colonies already had established religions. Virginia, if I remember correctly, was Anglican. The other Christian sects were pretty upset about being taxed to support it. Thomas Jefferson was part of the effort that disestablished it as well as writing Virginia's formula for the separation of church and state.

Marko might be able to shed some light on this, as my cousin's English is minimal and my German is abysmal. But if I understood her correctly, Austria has a state religion and Austrian citizens are taxed to support that church whether they are believers or not.

Is that what you want? For that is the historical meaning of establisment of religion.

[Marko Kloos]

Marko might be able to shed some light on this, as my cousin's English is minimal and my German is abysmal. But if I understood her correctly, Austria has a state religion and Austrian citizens are taxed to support that church whether they are believers or not.


Germany has a "church tax", a few percent of your income that will come out of every paycheck and then go to either the Catholic Church or the Lutheran Protestant Church, the two "established" religions in Germany. You have to indicate your preference on your tax form, but those taxes get subtracted by default.

You have a choice to opt out of the church tax, but the process is deliberately annoying and requires you to get a notarized declaration form the church in question that you have left that particular church officially. (Your name will be read from the pulpit or displayed on the community billboard if you leave the church officially.)

Sweden has a similar system, I believe.

You know what this system did to organized religion in Germany? It stagnated it. The priests, pastors, deacons, and bishops get their paychecks from the state every month, whether they hold a good sermon or a bad one. They have a guaranteed income, and as a result they are content with inaction, and they seldom "rock the boat" in societal issues, lest they call attention onto themselves and possibly jeopardize their state funding. Most Germans belong to one of the two Christian denominations there by default, but religion has taken a largely ceremonial role; it's all about keeping up social conventions and appearances. You get together for a child's christening or First Communion, but only because everybody does it, and it's an excuse to get gifts and throw a party. Many German "paper Christians" state that they don't believe in God or the divinity of Jesus, and religion ahs largely turned into social lip service.

The reason why religion is so much more lively and active in the US is because all the religions have to compete on the free market, so to speak: they all rely on private funding. The absolute worst thing you can do to your religion is to establish it with the State, and to rely on state funding in any way.

[H Romberg]

As long as there is no religions hierarchy controlling government I really think that if 90% of the taxpayers are XYZ religion it should be none of the business of the 10% who are ABC if 90% of the use of the commons is by XYZ.

I agree with you. I'm not saying your church or any other entity shouldn't be allowed to use public parks for its ice-cream social. (even though parks really ought not to be part of the commons, but don't get me started on the state's land-grabbing tendencies) What I don't want is a situation where anybody not of the majority is excluded from the commons. (What about nudists in the park? They don't hurt anyone, but they are excluded from most parts of the commons because our nation's religions tell us nudity is bad.) Since the Commons are controlled by the state, and the state operates largely on "majority rules", having religions play an active role in the state will tend to cause exactly that.

The state however, is not a standard version of "The Commons". It shares some traits, but the one that makes it different is its inherently violent nature. Because of that, and because of the especially strong opinions we tend to hold about religion, it was thought wise to make the state and its powers off-limits to ALL religions. The Commons are one thing. The power to take resources without asking (taxes) is quite another.

I despair of ever convincing you there is a difference between religion and establishment of religion

You don't have to convince me. I agree that there is a big difference. I have zero desire to keep anyone from his or her religion. OTOH I have a great desire to keep anyone from establishing a state religion in my country. The crux of our disagreement seems to be what constitutes establishing a state religion. I see it as any preferential treatment of any religion or religions by the state. The Tax-free status "recognized" churches enjoy falls within that category for me.

History of Catholic Church:

The Catholic church raped and was in turn raped by the people of England repeatedly over the centuries. That's exactly what I hope to avoid by guarding jealously the segregation of church and state.

[MeekandMild]

Uh, it's LawDog's posts in THIS thread. ??? What he says is pretty self explanatory. This is just a little bit of the whole and I've not focussed on it. There have been several posts through the months elaborating in more detail but I just don't recall enough of the discussion about them to comment.

I tend to be narrow in my disagreements and wide in my agreements and just happen to have been disagreeing with Marko for many months about aspects of what we've been discussing here. Which is interesting because I tend to agree with him on much else and we seldom exchange cross posts other than on this subject.

What about nudists in the park? They don't hurt anyone, but they are excluded from most parts of the commons because our nation's religions tell us nudity is bad.) That's absurd. Nudists are excluded because there is a long history of sexual approach and assault of children and allowing nudism would make rape too easy to accomplish in anything but a chaperoned and heavily armed environment.

It just happens that in this country the majority of parents who want to protect their children happen to speak their political opinions using religious language.

Though I don't think it is coincidence that Hugh Heffner espoused secular humanist dogma when he coached a generation of men in the philosphy that whatever feels good is good...and in the process allowed a generation of women to be molested by their brothers, cousins and the boys down the street. This was such an ubiquitous process that as religious training became more secular and humanistic even priests and clergymen learned the behavior of the playboy philosophy with disastrous results. :eek:

Which brings me to another pet peeve of mine. Irreligious people appear to resent and demean people who use religiously based allegory, illustration and argument to make their points. I don't know why the standard language of public debate should automatically exclude the large numbers of persons who speak in terms of their religious tradition, whether they are Pentecostal Holiness or Hasidic or Gardnerian. Why must we use the foreign language of the agnostic/atheist minority to retain any credibility in public debate? Sounds like raw discrimination to me.

I see it as any preferential treatment of any religion or religions by the state I agree, however I consider Atheism, Humanism and Agnosticism to be religions.

Going back full circle, the problem in developing just law is that either one agrees that there are absolute moral values or one agrees that moral value is relative. With the former comes orderly development of a civilization and with the latter comes chaos and the decline of civilization.

The absolute worst thing you can do to your religion is to establish it with the State, and to rely on state funding in any way. We seem to agree on this.

[Gaiudo]

Hey,

Wow, interesting thread. Its been good to see some people approach this at times highly explosive topic by taking the high road. Which is one of the reasons that I hang around here most of the time.

One thing that I would like to add is that the definition of Tolerance is not that I have to accept your religion or even recognize your religion as having a drop of truth in it. In fact, the truth be told, no matter what your Harvard philosophy prof told you, by definition if I think my religion is right, then I also have to believe that everyone else's religion is wrong. If some of you Athiests believe that you are right, then by definition you believe that anyone who believes in God or a god is also wrong. When I disagree with you because of my religions beliefs, I do indeed think that you are wrong, and if I am a Christian, that means that I believe you are going to suffer the consequences of that error.

This, however, does not give me any liberty to infringe upon your right to err. True Tolerance isn't accepting that everything is right, but accepting that even those who I consider to be wrong in their religious or "epistimological" beliefs are deserving of respect and every God given right that I have.

What really gets me is when people in the name of Tolerance get all rilled up because I happen to think that they are wrong. Well of course I think they are wrong, in the same way that they think that I am three days over the hill and past the coon tree. We can indeed agree to disagree, but that means that one of is is by definition wrong. Heck, maybe both of us are wrong. :D But anyone that tells me that "all ways are the right way" or that "whatever works best for you is best" is just taking the cowards way out. If you believe what you stand for, then have the balls to believe in it and stand for it, rather than selling out in the name of subjective post-modernism.

What this all boils down to is that regardless of our beliefs, those beliefs automatically exclude a large portion of the American society, a society that has just as much right to free access of all the rights and privilages that anyone else has. That means, if a Christian prayer group in Georgia (who might just happen to be in majority) wants to meet on the Commons and have a Bible study, they have just as much right to be there as a Muslim (who might just happen to be in minority) has to spread his carpet and say his daily evening prayers. Those two groups are in direct polarity in beliefs, and both think the other is going to burn for it, but they both have the right to enjoy that Commons. To disregard the rights of any of those beliefs from "past experiences in the locker room" or "a bad experience from Baptists" is to disregard concrete, objective God given rights off of subjective, circumstancial experiences, which, while admittedly wrong and something that should never have happened (like the Spanish Inquisition) do not invalidade the rights of a majority of people to exercise their rights of free speach and freedom of religion.

Ok, that was way too long, and now I'm going to shut up and have another beer (which is my excuse if none of this made sense...:p )

Gaiudo

[Byron Quick]

Why must we use the foreign language of the agnostic/atheist minority to retain any credibility in public debate? Sounds like raw discrimination to me.

Depends on your religion/denomination. I was raised Southern Baptist. I've had discussions with folks from some Christian denominations whose "religious allegories, illustrations, and arguments" were like Babel to me. I had no idea what their arcane allegories, illustrations, and arguments actually meant. So, if you're talking to someone outside of your religion and you wish to actually communicate...maybe it might be a good idea to use allegories, illustrations, and arguments that they have the background to interpret.

On the other hand, if your goal is not to actually communicate...

I think atheism is a belief system that is similar to religion. However, it is not necessary to use the "foreign language of the agnostic/atheist." English will do very well.

[MeekandMild]

Gaiudo, well said.


...maybe it might be a good idea to use allegories, illustrations, and arguments that they have the background to interpret. So, the generic outsider who comes to town and starts to denigrate the good people therein and to demand they change the way they have done things for 200 years to accomodate him should have the duty to make his plea/plaint/argument in the common patois? Or must they adapt to Washington legalese, current PC feelgood talkand DSM-IV-R psychobabble?

Added 7/19 about 8:15 PM Central Time:

The Catholic church raped and was in turn raped by the people of England repeatedly over the centuries. I forgot to ask, what are your specific references for this assertion? (Please, not just single cases but statistics and numbers and major trends.) This sounds like the sort of think I see floating about unchallenged all the time on the internet. People always say they learned such things from their undergraduate history teacher or "everybody knows it" or some other verbage. But to me it sounds like the sort of defamation that would be pretty hard to defend if you said it about a popular and politically correct group.

[Byron Quick]

Just read a history of England. Check out the laws against English Catholics after the split from Rome. Note the religion of the king who was beheaded...you know, things like that.


Or must they adapt to Washington legalese, current PC feelgood talkand DSM-IV-R psychobabble?


And no, you are under no obligation to speak a language that the people you are talking to can understand. As I stated earlier: "On the other hand, if your goal is not to actually communicate..."

If your goal is to actually communicate, then the answer is also no, you do not need to adapt to any of your examples quoted above, as plain, standard English will suffice quite nicely.

It depends on whether your goal is to communicate and have your target audience understand or simply to hear yourself talk while you preach to the choir.

So it's merely a matter of asking,"What's my goal?" and the answer to which type of language you will choose to use becomes crystal clear.

[pax]

Why must we use the foreign language of the agnostic/atheist minority to retain any credibility in public debate? Sounds like raw discrimination to me.
MeekandMild,

If you don't speak the common tongue, it isn't surprising that those who hear you think you are less than literate and not intelligent enough to bother with.

If it's true, it is true in more than one language.

pax

Scintillate, scintillate, globule vivific,
Fain would I fathom thy nature specific,
Loftily poised in ether capacious,
Strongly resembling a gem carbonaceous.

[MeekandMild]

Oh, but the common language IS based on Judeo-Christian customs, beliefs and idiom. (Or at least it WAS before it became politically incorrect.) I don't think it is at all obscure not hard to understand. There are specific basic ethic and moral ideas which don't vary much from Hasidim to Holy Rollers to anything in between. These ideas happen to be the basis for our US culture, government and rules of conduct.

On the other hand the preferred language of debate over church/state issues, like many other issues incited by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party bears a curious resemblence to communist boilerplate idiom. The goal of the left appears to be making Judeo-Christian language, ideas and ethics no longer of use in discussing nor debating. These old ideas are to be defined out of the argument, replaced with atheist/agnostic/humanist idiom.

I was looking for my copy of Mao's Little Red Book, but have lost it somewhere in the move. Perhaps someone could help me in coming up with quotes of his ideas regarding removing the "four olds" from the people: old habits, old customs, old beliefs, old ideas.

[H Romberg]

allowing nudism would make rape too easy to accomplish in anything but a chaperoned and heavily armed environment.

(yellow light flashing) My BS detector just went into overdrive. Are the mechanics of clothing a deterrent to rape? I doubt it. Are people so base that the mere sight of an unclothed human is enough to undo all our socialization and cause us to become slavering rapists? I think not. In fact, the naturist comunity is pretty well known for being nice peacable honest folks that don't want to hurt anybody. I seriously doubt you could point to ANY evidence that the naturist community has an elevated rate of sexual predation. I'd be fascinated to see it, if you can find some. Good luck. Now the Catholic clergy on the other hand.....

As one who is NOT a nudist but spent a fair abount of time in European countries and was exposed to it a good bit, I can't say I really care much for it. OTOH, I stand by my statement that they're a non-harmful peaceful comunity that is being discriminated against on largely religious grounds (aesthetic too, but that's not the part I take issue with). Either one is fine to do on your own property, but in the Commons, I think it's wrong to exclude some people based on religion while you accept others.

It's the same thing you say is happening to Christians.

Notes on the "sexual revolution":
There are costs to any change but on the whole, I think our society is a lot better off for the changes made in the 60's.I'd rather not go back to the days when women couldn't purchase birth control pills without getting married, when half the population was expected to remain barefoot and pregnant, and had to pledge obedience to their husbands. Oh yeah, those were the good old days when rolling queers was an acceptable practice, blue laws ruled, and it was illegal to ship "certain literature" through the mail because a judge somewhere thought it was sinfull. I applaud Heffner, because he pointed out what we should already have learned; that human sexuality isn't something to be ashamed of, but when you repress it it's powerful enough that the effects are more harmfull than whatever you were trying to fix.

England:
How many people died each time the "established" religion changed in GB? I don't have the stats at hand, so I have limited credibility on this, but I do recall reading that it was a pretty dangeroud time for the losers each time it happened. Lots of blood spilled, and lots of property re-distributed. You had a point that you wanted to make about it though. I'd be interested in your take on the phenomenon, especially since you take a different lesson from it than I do.

Linguistics: (never thought I'd get to use this when I took the class)
The general rule is that in the long run usage paterns drive the evolution of language, and are very difficult to control. A term that falls out of use eventually dissappears, and a term misused often enough acquires new meaning. "Assault Weapon" is a good example. (Tag! Now it's gun related again!) Anyway, calling the lack of religion a "religion" is a good tactic for doing an end-run around the Constitution. If the label eventually sticks, the 1st Amendment will be rendered meaningless, and majority rule will put the Christians in charge of all our morals. I hope that doesn't happen, because it will mess up our country and the cults involved.

Definition of the word "CULT" : Any religion stranger than mine. :D

[MeekandMild]

In fact, the naturist comunity is pretty well known for being nice peacable honest folks that don't want to hurt anybody. I would suppose the high membership fees they pay and their joint and several liability might have something to do with that. As opposed to the relative anarchy of a public park.

I also find your European analogy inadequte. As Bill Murrey once said, "We're Americans, we're mongrels, we've been thrown out of every decent country in the world." Seriously, this is the US, a country in which the 'pregressives' have kicked 90% of the schizophrenics out of the mental hospitals in the last 20 years and where child molesters have filed court briefs requesting to be considered discriminated minority members. Puleeze!
Now the Catholic clergy on the other hand.....Was that supposed to be funny?(red light flashing)My chauvanism detector just overloaded and shorted out. :rolleyes:

England: Establishment of religion = State Religion, not majority of population who are religious.

More notes on the sexual revolution: high risk Human Papilloma Virus infection rate is now over 75% with concomittant rise of vulvar and cervical cancer cases. HIV and Hepatitis C virus rates over 50% in some sub-populations, breast cancer (which increases with pill use and abortion) has the same relative death rate as in the 1930's, rape videos and bestiality videos receive top billing, porn star Linda Lovelace dies after a car crash.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/1948196.stm

Concerning atheism as a religion, it wasn't considered one as long as theists had control of the debate. It was only after the it became the state religion of the communist nations that it was redefined as such. You don't have a copy of the Little Red Book, do you? We're going to be stuck on the linguistics problem until we have the arguments available from the greatest atheist thinker of the 20th century.

Gun related? Mao said that political power flows from the barrel of a gun?

[G&R Tactical]

deleted

[Daniel]

G&R Tactical's post above is mine ... how the hell did that happen? (God or the rifle.)

Clicked reply to thread, and was logged on as G&R Tactical. Weird.

[G&R Tactical]

Hey Daniel, I have been noticing that people are posting under my name! I am not sure how that happens! When I see one, I just delete it so you can post your comments again...



Thanks,

Grant

[H Romberg]

Was that supposed to be funny?(red light flashing)My chauvanism detector just overloaded and shorted out.

It was supposed to be a biting commentary on the relative dangers to society posed by the Catholic Church and people who don't wear clothes. From the looks of it, I touched a nerve. :evil: How about we apply the acid test of seeing which group has killed more people? No? How about just putting people on the rack, or burning them alive?

BTW, clothing optional places are all over the world, and a lot of them don't have membership dues, liability issues or any other controls in place. I don't think that's a mitigating factor. It's ironic that something as innocuous as the choice not to "cover up" is capable of carrying so much emotional baggage for folks. I bet Freud would have something to say about that. ;)

England: Establishment of religion = State Religion, not majority of population who are religious.

Whether or not a religion is "established" is a semantic issue. I don't care nearly so much about that as the functional loss of the freedoms those semantics were put there to protect. That's what happens when church and state mix. Applying Majority (read "mob") rule to religion via a democratic state like ours is functionally no different from "establishing" the religion of the majority, and it's something worth fighting to stop. If that means rendering the power of the state off limits to all religions, so be it.

Just for the record, Communists may be atheist as a matter of policy, but the reverse has no basis in fact at all. In fact, while I agree with them on religion in some cases, I view communism as perhaps the most dangerous philosophy yet devised. Tag, you touched a nerve too. :D

You've pointed out some of the more serious costs of the sexual promiscuity that was a part of the social changes of the last few deckades. They are indeed unfortunate, but they are preventable in the future without resorting to the fundamentalist teachings of the far-right. What's more, they pale beside the costs of repressing the sexuality of an entire society.

One last question: Is it really your contention that Heffner and the sexual revolution are responsible for Linda Lovelace's car accident?:confused:

[longeyes]

Let's hear it for Hef, the Stepford Stud. Hef's vision of erotic
paradise is about as naive as expecting 72 virgins to unstrap your
bandoliers after you reach a desert version of Valhalla.

Hey, America, are we having fun yet?

[Alan Smithiee]

" In fact, the truth be told, no matter what your Harvard philosophy prof told you, by definition if I think my religion is right, then I also have to believe that everyone else's religion is wrong."

uh, actualy, no, it seems to mostly be the monothiest religions that hold that they are the "one true way" (tm), quite a few other religions believe that there are many paths to divinity and that all are valid.

[MeekandMild]

It was supposed to be a biting commentary on the relative dangers to society posed by the Catholic Church and people who don't wear clothes. I will withold judgment as to your eating habits. But neither you nor I was here in the 15th century and we are here in the 21st century. In our era the only Catholic clergy who are dangerous are the ones who espouse the free sex philosophy. Their rate of child molestation is roughly equivalent to that of Yale faculty members.

I would wonder, if comparing to other insitutuions of the time, the medieval church was really so harsh. I hear the quote somewhere that no matter how depraved they were there was never a fifth century Frankish leader who forced people to cannibalize their own children as did the Red Chinese of the 1940's.

Applying Majority (read "mob") rule to religion via a democratic state like ours is functionally no different from "establishing" the religion of the majority, and it's something worth fighting to stop. Sort of like allowing the commoners to own guns or the majority ethic group to get into college with equal opportunity, eh?

Whether or not a religion is "established" is a semantic issue. sort of like the issue revolving around the definition of a well regulated militia. What was initially meant to be "state church like the church of england" is now totally turned around by the revisionists, i.e. you. :)

In fact, while I agree with them on religion in some cases, I view communism as perhaps the most dangerous philosophy yet devised Major difference is that for US atheists their religion is generaly a private matter but in the communist countires it was codified as a state religion.

it seems to mostly be the monothiest religions that hold that they are the "one true way" (tm), quite a few other religions believe that there are many paths to divinity and that all are valid. I have several Hindu friends. (As you know, Hinduism is not a monotheistic religion.) They believe that within Hinduism there are many paths to divinity but outside of it is nothing but error. I don't know very many Buddhists (which is a very narrowly constructed form of Atheism) but the ones I have talked religion with tell me The Middle Path is the one true way.

[H Romberg]

1. Are you trying to equate my desire to keep church and state separate (limiting government power) with gun control (increasing government power)? I don't see the correlation.

2. The "well regulated militia" clause of the 2A is indeed a semantic issue, but just like this one, the freedoms protected are a lot more important than the way the passage is worded. I'm not revising jack when I interpret the 1A to mean church and state ought to be two distinct entities. That logic was there and was argued intensely when they wrote the darned thing.

3. Bhuddism may not include a "god" in your sense, but it's a pretty far cry from what I consider Atheism to be. Bhuddism contains a pretty good set of ideas on the supernatural. Since "Atheist" describes a person who has NO THEORY about the supernatural eg, he does not claim to know anything about it, the two don't seem much alike other than the absence of a belief in a god. I freely admit that I don't know much about a lot of the religions of the world, as I'm not a member or inclined to become one. Is it possible you need to revise your definition of what it means to be without theism.

4 Just out of curiousity, would you support legislation that gave unfettered access to the commons and the public trough to ALL religions? How about Satanic cults? Pagans? Muslim Fundamentalists?

5. Under Communism, the state was without religion (good idea). The bad part was that they kept folks from practicing their own religion (very bad idea).

[MeekandMild]

1. Are you trying to equate my desire to keep church and state separate (limiting government power) with gun control (increasing government power)? I don't see the correlation.

The wall of separation between church and state was a private communication and wasn't part of the bill of rights. The bill of rights was designed to control the Federal government. By philosophy I'm a paleofederalist, believing that all powers not expressly given to the federal government should be reserved to the people and the individual states.

Recalling that at least one state Pennsylvania was set up as a quaker theocracy and another (south carolina I believe) was originally a catholic colony and another, Taxachusetts had strong puritan and pilgrim enclaves I think there is a strong historical precident to let the states and local governments alone in such matters.


2. I'm not revising jack when I interpret the 1A to mean church and state ought to be two distinct entities.

You are when you fail to acknowledge the definition of establishment.

3. Bhuddism may not include a "god" in your sense, but it's a pretty far cry from what I consider Atheism to be... Is it possible you need to revise your definition of what it means to be without theism.

Well, try this: http://www.gardendigest.com/zen/ten.htm
and this: http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html
and this: http://www.4degreez.com/free_thought/manifesto.html

Many folk express a natural confusion about the purpose of meditation, contemplation and the quiet mind. Also many folk confuse empiricism with atheism. Finally it seems that most atheists fail to see their own evolution toward codified dogma.

4 Just out of curiousity, would you support legislation that gave unfettered access to the commons and the public trough to ALL religions? How about Satanic cults? Pagans? Muslim Fundamentalists?

If they want to take over California and run it that way they should feel free.

5. Under Communism, the state was without religion (good idea). The bad part was that they kept folks from practicing their own religion (very bad idea).
Communism's state religion was atheism.

[Gaiudo]

Nanaimo Barr...
"uh, actualy, no, it seems to mostly be the monothiest religions that hold that they are the "one true way" (tm), quite a few other religions believe that there are many paths to divinity and that all are valid."


Interesting point that you are trying to make here, but the fact of the matter is that if one of these "many paths to divinity" religions believes in such a manner, and a Baptist believes only in a different Way to Eternal Life, then they are quite simply mutually exclusive.

However, forgive me, I was using one of these "one true way" religions. Examining the alternative, lets say that someone believes in Vishnu, and another believes that Micheal the Archangel is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. Both say the other is out to lunch, but both affirm that there might be "alternative paths." At some level, you must affirm that at least one has to be wrong, at least in their core doctinal beliefs concerning either Vishnu or Micheal the Archangel! There are certain things that cannot be both right and wrong.

Respectfully,

Gaiudo

[Cellar Dweller]

OK, just how much can you twist logic to get:

Recalling that at least one state Pennsylvania was set up as a quaker theocracy and another (south carolina I believe) was originally a catholic colony and another, Taxachusetts had strong puritan and pilgrim enclaves I think there is a strong historical precident to let the states and local governments alone in such matters.
and
If they want to take over California and run it that way they should feel free.

:confused:

Obviously, if California's hypothetical STATE religion is Christian, then it is IMPOSSIBLE for any other religion to "take over."

It is IMPOSSIBLE for a local pocket of Non-Acceptable Religions to establish themselves as they can be declared offensive, immoral and illegal by the State at any time (torture and conversion optional, seizure of worldly possessions mandatory, expulsion optional, see history for examples).

Let's say there is some "tolerance" for those poor unwashed fringies.
What if the town religion is in conflict with the county? The county with the State? The State with the Fed?
What if your personal religion prohibits everything, but a bazillion "lunatics" move into your state and the new "Official" religion says "everyone must consume alcohol while gambling every Sunday after 5pm."
Oh, that's right, you could just move...:scrutiny: What if the surrounding religious majority is Amish? Pack only what you can carry on your back? Move as far as you can walk? Charter a horse and buggy? What if they refuse to deal with nonbelievers? :banghead:

There's a very good reason there is no Official Religion of the United States (I'm waiting for the NASCAR-licensed version).

[H Romberg]

The bill of rights was designed to control the Federal government. I think there is a strong historical precident to let the states and local governments alone in such matters.

We don't live our lives under Federal law for the most part unless we live in DC. We live under state laws that are constrained by having to obey the Constitutions of both the applicable state, and the US. Is it your contention that the states are not required to adhere to federal Constitiution after having ratified it? I hesitate to imagine the effects of that logic on our beloved gun rights. I wonder how Prohibition happened if states don't have to obey the Constitution. I believe we fought a war over this once back in the 1860's, and IIRC, the Feds won.

most atheists fail to see their own evolution toward codified dogma.

It might be worthwhile to refrain from lumping everyone who doesn't happen to believe in a god together. Whether or not you acknowledge it, there are at least as many different beliefs and philosophies that don't believe in magic as there are that do. Some of them have a lot in common. That commonality isn't dogma. It's just commonality.

Communism's state religion was atheism.

Communism as implimented, included a specific form of atheism on the part of the state, and mandated the same for the individual. That's NOT what separation of church and state is about. It's actually 180 off.

The 1A does two things. It prohibits a state religion, mandating a state that operates without religion. It also protects the right of the individual to practice his religion, whatever that may be.

We've come full circle to the difference between rights of the state and rights of the individual. The BOR protects the rights of the individual by limiting the powers of the state. If it annoys people not to be able to have the state reflect their own personal religion, too bad.

You know, this is depressing. On one hand, we've got liberals that will defend your personal liberties to the death while using the state to force compliance with thier idea of economic fairness. On the other hand we've got conservatives who will defend your property rights to the death while using the state to force compliance with their idea of virtue.

Neither one realizes that as correct as they might be, it's the use of the state to force compliance that causes most of our real problems.

[MeekandMild]

Neither one realizes that as correct as they might be, it's the use of the state to force compliance that causes most of our real problems. This looks like a good note to eject on. (Insert smilicon for the Martin Baker Face Curtain sign) See you on THR!