No God, No Rights? You betcha.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Last edited:
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:
 
MeekandMild,

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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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...
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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!
 
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
 
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
 
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:
 
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.â€

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.’â€

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!â€

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?â€

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

“...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.â€


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.â€

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.’â€

Jefferson’s “The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedomâ€:
“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.â€

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.â€

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?â€

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

“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.â€

“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.â€

“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.â€

“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.â€

“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.â€

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


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.â€

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


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.â€

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.â€


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.â€

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.â€

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.â€

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

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.â€

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.â€

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


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.â€
 
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.
 
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.â€

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 impiousâ€; 4 Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religionâ€; 5 John Witherspoon said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faithâ€; 6 John Quincy Adams declared that “Mr. Paine has departed altogether from the principles of the Revolution"â€; 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
 
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.
 
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
 
...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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top