Childress's contributions
Herman
been Jewish.
In the bible God said he'd reveal the secrets to his people.
Just a thought...
C'ya
Herm
buc...@exis.net wrote in message ...
>
>Hmmm. Well, I can certainly tell an anti-religious bias when I read it.
>
>
>While there has certainly been repression of scientists by the church in
>the past, most of the great scientific minds of the past were very
>religious. Many were Christian, but by no means all.
>
>Read "Five Equations that changed the World" for a brief introduction to
>the contribution devoutly religious scientists have made.
>
>
>Where's Mr. Curtis whining about name calling?
>
>Actually, you need to actually study some history without your blatant
>anti-religion bias. Despite your dislike of religion, I'd say that
>religion and religious people have contributed far more to society over
>the years than atheists have.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Kenneth Childress
Herman <Her...@monster.org> wrote:
>Unless I'm off the mark on this alot of the leading scientists have also
>been Jewish.
>In the bible God said he'd reveal the secrets to his people.
Of course. If you reread what I wrote, you'll notice I did not restrict
my comments to any particular religion.
--
Kenneth Childress
<buc...@exis.net> wrote:
I see Mr. Allison has not much else to do but repost my comments totally
void of any context. I guess he needs practice for when he can use his
dishonesty in a more personal context.
For all his claims of not wanting to bother with me, he sure is fixated
on what I wrote. Post away, Mr. Allison. It's all the better for
people to see you demostrate your hypocrisy and dishonesty and petty
tactics. You demonstrate that far better on your own.
--
Rick Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >Al Klein wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 19:09:07 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Al Klein wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >Actually, you need to actually study some history without your blatant
> >> >> >anti-religion bias. Despite your dislike of religion, I'd say that
> >> >> >religion and religious people have contributed far more to society over
> >> >> >the years than atheists have.
> >>
> >>
> >> >"I have found no better expression than "religious" for confidence in the
> >> >rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason.
> >> >Whenever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired
> >> >empiricism."
> >>
> >> >ALBERT EINSTEIN
> >>
> >> Einstein didn't mean "god" or "religious" in the same way as theists
> >> mean the words.
>
> >That's not the point. The point is that he meant "uninspired empiricism" in
> >reference to the position of atheists.
>
> And if I said my profession is best performed by those who judiciously
> use a certain methodology, do you think that means we are all judges?
> Einstein's quote does not imply anything about atheists at all.
"Science without religion is lame" --A.E.
> >Einstein was quite rignt. The Newton's, Copernicus's, and Leibniz' of the world
> >were all intensely religious.
>
> But Einstein was not intensely religious, except to the extent he was
> intensely devoted to physics, if you want to call that a religion.
How about "profoundly religious"? That is what he said all good scientists are:
"I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest
motive for scientific research... in this materialistic age of ours the
serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."
Albert Einstein The Life and Times by Ronald W. Clark, The World Publishing
Company, New York and Cleveland, 1971.
Einstein simply wasn't the atheist hero that you wish he was. Was he a
Christian. Not really at all. An atheist?? Definitely not.
RG
Jeff/addesign
>Al Klein wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 19:09:07 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Al Klein wrote:
>>
>> >> >Actually, you need to actually study some history without your blatant
>> >> >anti-religion bias. Despite your dislike of religion, I'd say that
>> >> >religion and religious people have contributed far more to society over
>> >> >the years than atheists have.
>>
>> >> What scientist has ever used religion to produce anything scientific?
>>
>> >"I have found no better expression than "religious" for confidence in the
>> >rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason.
>> >Whenever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired
>> >empiricism."
>>
>> >ALBERT EINSTEIN
>>
>> Einstein didn't mean "god" or "religious" in the same way as theists
>> mean the words.
>That's not the point. The point is that he meant "uninspired empiricism" in
>reference to the position of atheists.
And if I said my profession is best performed by those who judiciously
use a certain methodology, do you think that means we are all judges?
Einstein's quote does not imply anything about atheists at all. But
you never were much at understanding context or substance.
>That's why Einstein also said "You will hardly find one among the profounder
>sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own."
>(Einstein, The World As I See It, New York: Philosophical Library, 1949, p.
>28-29)
>Einstein was quite rignt. The Newton's, Copernicus's, and Leibniz' of the world
>were all intensely religious.
But Einstein was not intensely religious, except to the extent he was
intensely devoted to physics, if you want to call that a religion.
Einsteins parents were apathetic about religion. Einstein tried being
religious at about 12, but then he dropped it.
His only statements of his belief are on the order of believing in
Spinoza's god, as revealed in nature, and not any personal god, as
found in most organized religions. Is that a peculiar religious
feeling? Well, yes, it could be peculiar.
Looks like you are trying to distort the historical view of Einstein.
Jeff/addesign a.a #1063
****************************************************************
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum--Lucretius, 1st c. BC
"So vast is the sum of the iniquities that religion has induced."
****************************************************************
If the religion of any Church become, therefore, true and saving,
because the head of that sect, the prelates and priests, and
those of that tribe, do all of them, with all their might, extol
and praise it, what religion can ever be accounted erroneous,
false, and destructive?--John Locke, Letters on Toleration
Jeff Sinclair
adde...@interaccess.com (Jeff/addesign) wrote:
<<Snip of good points by Jeff>>
> But Einstein was not intensely religious, except to the extent he was
> intensely devoted to physics, if you want to call that a religion.
> Einsteins parents were apathetic about religion. Einstein tried being
> religious at about 12, but then he dropped it.
> His only statements of his belief are on the order of believing in
> Spinoza's god, as revealed in nature, and not any personal god, as
> found in most organized religions. Is that a peculiar religious
> feeling? Well, yes, it could be peculiar.
>
> Looks like you are trying to distort the historical view of Einstein.
What discipline do you suppose that Gardiner will attempt to distort
next? My money is on astrophysics. He has already tried to build a
telephone between Madison and Luther, I would not be surprised to see
him try and scientifically argue that God could have created a wormhole
through which the two could have chatted cordially over the tele.
--
"I have always been here" - Kosh
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Al Klein
<Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>How about "profoundly religious"? That is what he said all good scientists are:
>"I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest
>motive for scientific research... in this materialistic age of ours the
>serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."
Why don't you read what you post. His definition of "religious", in
this context, was "confidence in the rational nature of reality,
insofar as it is accessible to human reason". That's not the theistic
"religious" that you claim he was.
>Einstein simply wasn't the atheist hero that you wish he was. Was he a
>Christian. Not really at all.
Not really by any stretch. He was born and raised Jewish. then he
gave up Judaism. He was as Christian as the Pope is Muslim.
> An atheist?? Definitely not.
Then why did he claim that he was?
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com
Rick Gardiner
>
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 20:06:20 -0600, Rick Gardiner
> <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >How about "profoundly religious"? That is what he said all good scientists are:
>
> >"I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest
> >motive for scientific research... in this materialistic age of ours the
> >serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."
>
> Why don't you read what you post. His definition of "religious", in
> this context, was "confidence in the rational nature of reality,
> insofar as it is accessible to human reason". That's not the theistic
> "religious" that you claim he was.
Are you an idiot or what? I haven't claimed anything about what Einstein was.
All I have done is posted his words in response to the claim that scientists
have never been inspired by religion.
> >Einstein simply wasn't the atheist hero that you wish he was. Was he a
> >Christian. Not really at all.
>
> Not really by any stretch. He was born and raised Jewish. then he
> gave up Judaism. He was as Christian as the Pope is Muslim.
>
> > An atheist?? Definitely not.
>
> Then why did he claim that he was?
Citation please. Atheists don't believe in a God. Einstein talked about his
God all the time.
RG
buc...@exis.net
>:|Are you an idiot or what?
Typical Gardiner in action.
Hey Kenny, this is your hero, he pays a lot of attention to your opinions,
huh?
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
buc...@exis.net
>:|Are you an idiot or what?
Would you mind re-posting what Al Klein said to you in any post of his that
caused you to lose control of your normal civilized senses that you
developed in 35 plus years of living and learning.. That you learned and
cultivated at the various schools you attended. That you learned and
developed as a minister in training or whatever it was that you were, and
that you have continued to develop as a school teacher?
Would you mind re-post whatever it was that Al Klein said to you that
caused to abandon all of that and resort to the above attack on him?
Was it really only that he disagreed with you?
Jeff/addesign
>Jeff/addesign wrote:
>>
>> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Al Klein wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 19:09:07 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Al Klein wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >Actually, you need to actually study some history without your blatant
>> >> >> >anti-religion bias. Despite your dislike of religion, I'd say that
>> >> >> >religion and religious people have contributed far more to society over
>> >> >> >the years than atheists have.
>> >>
>> >> >> What scientist has ever used religion to produce anything scientific?
>> >>
>> >> >"I have found no better expression than "religious" for confidence in the
>> >> >rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason.
>> >> >Whenever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired
>> >> >empiricism."
>> >>
>> >> >ALBERT EINSTEIN
>> >>
>> >> Einstein didn't mean "god" or "religious" in the same way as theists
>> >> mean the words.
>>
>> >That's not the point. The point is that he meant "uninspired empiricism" in
>> >reference to the position of atheists.
>>
>> And if I said my profession is best performed by those who judiciously
>> use a certain methodology, do you think that means we are all judges?
>> Einstein's quote does not imply anything about atheists at all.
>"Science without religion is lame" --A.E.
His exact words? I don't think so.
>> >Einstein was quite rignt. The Newton's, Copernicus's, and Leibniz' of the world
>> >were all intensely religious.
>>
>> But Einstein was not intensely religious, except to the extent he was
>> intensely devoted to physics, if you want to call that a religion.
>How about "profoundly religious"? That is what he said all good scientists are:
>"I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest
>motive for scientific research... in this materialistic age of ours the
>serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."
>Albert Einstein The Life and Times by Ronald W. Clark, The World Publishing
>Company, New York and Cleveland, 1971.
>Einstein simply wasn't the atheist hero that you wish he was. Was he a
>Christian. Not really at all. An atheist?? Definitely not.
I never said he was an atheist. I said that HE said he beleived in
Spinoza's god, not a personal god, not YOUR god.
Don't beleive me? Ask the man himself. Here is what he said about
people like Gardiner distorting his religious views:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world so far as our science can reveal it."
AE, in a March 24, 1954 letter.
_Albert Einstein: The Human Side_ (edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh
Hoffman, Princeton University Press, publisher)
Jeff/addesign
>On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 20:06:20 -0600, Rick Gardiner
><Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>>How about "profoundly religious"? That is what he said all good scientists are:
>>"I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest
>>motive for scientific research... in this materialistic age of ours the
>>serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."
>Why don't you read what you post. His definition of "religious", in
>this context, was "confidence in the rational nature of reality,
>insofar as it is accessible to human reason". That's not the theistic
>"religious" that you claim he was.
>>Einstein simply wasn't the atheist hero that you wish he was. Was he a
>>Christian. Not really at all.
>Not really by any stretch. He was born and raised Jewish. then he
>gave up Judaism. He was as Christian as the Pope is Muslim.
Actually, he was raised by irreligious Jews, although he tried to be
religious when he was young. His pursuit of science and math caused
him to question much of what he was trying to believe in religion at
that time:
"Thus I came -- despite the fact that I was the son of entirely
irreligious (Jewish) parents -- to a deep religiosity, which, however,
found an abrupt ending at the age of 12. Through the reading of
popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in
the stories of the bible could not be true. The consequence was a
positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression
that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies;
it was a crushing impression. Suspicion against every kind of
authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude towards
the convictions which were alive in any specific social environment
... " AE, autobiographical notes (translated from German)
Jeff/addesign
>Al Klein wrote:
>>
>> >Actually, you need to actually study some history without your blatant
>> >anti-religion bias. Despite your dislike of religion, I'd say that
>> >religion and religious people have contributed far more to society over
>> >the years than atheists have.
>>
>> What scientist has ever used religion to produce anything scientific?
>"I have found no better expression than "religious" for confidence in the
>rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason.
>Whenever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired
>empiricism."
>ALBERT EINSTEIN
>Letter to Maurice Solovine, I January 1, 1951; Einstein Archive 21-174, 80-871,
>published in Letters to Solovine, p. 119.
I found the rest of that quote. It's amazing how easily someone's
statements can be distorted, by taking it out of context. AS I
suspected, Einstein's use of "religious" is not consistent with your
implication:
It began when Cardinal O'Connell of Boston, who had attacked
Einstein's General Theory on previous occasions, told a group of
Catholics that it "cloaked the ghastly apparition of atheism" and
"befogged speculation, producing universal doubt about God and His
Creation." Einstein, who had often reiterated his remark of 1921 to
Archbishop Davidson-"It makes no difference. It is purely abstract
science"-was at first uninterested. Then, on April 24, Rabbi Herbert
Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, faced Einstein
with the simple five-word cablegram: "Do you believe in God?"
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly
harmony of what exists," he replied, "not in a God who concerns
himself with fates and actions of human beings." Years later he
expanded this in a letter to Solovine, the survivor of the Olympia
Academy.
"I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion'
to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows
itself most clearly in Spinoza," he wrote. "[But] I have not found a
better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational
nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to
human reason."
Ronald W. Clark_ Albert Einstein The Life and Times_
(The World Publishing Company, New York and Cleveland,
1971, pp 413-414)
Rick Gardiner
>
> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|Are you an idiot or what?
>
Oh, yeah? Why did you claim that Einstein was a Wiccan?
RG
Rick Gardiner
>
> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|Are you an idiot or what?
>
> caused you to lose control of your normal civilized senses that you
> developed in 35 plus years of living and learning.. That you learned and
> cultivated at the various schools you attended. That you learned and
> developed as a minister in training or whatever it was that you were, and
> that you have continued to develop as a school teacher?
>
> Would you mind re-post whatever it was that Al Klein said to you that
> caused to abandon all of that and resort to the above attack on him?
>
> Was it really only that he disagreed with you?
Klein refered to "the theistic 'religious' that you claim he [einstein] was."
This was about as idiotic as me accusing you of calling Einstein a Wiccan. Get
the point? Probably not.
RG
Rick Gardiner
>
> His exact words? I don't think so.
Yes.
From The Private Albert Einstein by Peter A. Bucky with Allen G. Weakland,
Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City, 1992, pp 85 - 87. This book contains the
record of various conversations between Bucky and Einstein over a thirty year period.
> >> >Einstein was quite rignt. The Newton's, Copernicus's, and Leibniz' of the world
> >> >were all intensely religious.
> >>
> >> But Einstein was not intensely religious, except to the extent he was
> >> intensely devoted to physics, if you want to call that a religion.
>
> >How about "profoundly religious"? That is what he said all good scientists are:
>
> >"I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest
> >motive for scientific research... in this materialistic age of ours the
> >serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."
>
> >Albert Einstein The Life and Times by Ronald W. Clark, The World Publishing
> >Company, New York and Cleveland, 1971.
>
> >Einstein simply wasn't the atheist hero that you wish he was. Was he a
> >Christian. Not really at all. An atheist?? Definitely not.
>
> I never said he was an atheist.
You might want to talk this over with Klein, who said
GARDINER-
> > An atheist?? Definitely not.
KLEIN-
> Then why did he claim that he was?
> I said that HE said he beleived in
> Spinoza's god, not a personal god, not YOUR god.
Who the heck is my God?
> Don't beleive me? Ask the man himself. Here is what he said about
> people like Gardiner distorting his religious views:
>
> "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
> convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
> believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
> expressed it clearly.
Put up, Jeff. Show me where I claimed that Einstein believed in a personal
God. You can't do it because you are simply babbling. If you had followed this
thread more carefully, you would have found that I was answering the challenge
put forth to show where any important scientist had been inspired religiously.
Einstein said that he was, Einstein said that Newton was, Einstein said that
Kepler was.
This whole "personal God" monkey wrench is your own invention. Go argue in
Alt.born-again or something.
RG
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|Are you an idiot or what?
>:|
And that was the trigger that caused you to resort to your usual name
calling personal attack style that has made you so famous?
The fact is, IYO that was idiotic.
Facts are, he didn't attack you. he made a comment.
Might have been a valid comment, might have been invalid. Might have been
based on correct understanding, or incorrect understanding of something you
said or perhaps implied, but the fact still remains, he did NOT ATTACK you.
He did not resort to personal attack, name calling, etc. YOU DID.
Al Klein
<Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>Klein refered to "the theistic 'religious' that you claim he [einstein] was."
>This was about as idiotic as me accusing you of calling Einstein a Wiccan. Get
>the point? Probably not.
You implied that Einstein was theistically religious. That's as
idiotic as claiming that Einstein was Wiccan.
Jeff/addesign
>Jeff/addesign wrote:
>>
>> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Science without religion is lame" --A.E.
>>
>> His exact words? I don't think so.
>Yes.
>From The Private Albert Einstein by Peter A. Bucky with Allen G. Weakland,
>Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City, 1992, pp 85 - 87. This book contains the
>record of various conversations between Bucky and Einstein over a thirty year period.
Yes, I found it. But as uusual, you quote out of context in order to
mislead.
The conext was:
Bucky: It's ironic that your namc has been synonymous with science in
the twentieth century, and yet there has always been a lot of
controversy surrounding you in relation to religious questions. How do
you account for this unusual circumstance, since science and religion
are usually thought to be at odds?
EINSTEIN: Well, I do not think that it is necessarily the case
that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that
there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think
that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion
without science is blind. Both are important and should work
hand-in-hand. It seems to mc that whoever doesn't wonder about
the truth in religion and in science might as well be dead.
And later:
EINSTEIN: . . . -how could he possibly believe in one God who would be
capable of disturbing the paths of these great orbiting masses? No,
the natural laws of science have not only been worked out
theoretically but have been proven also in practice. I cannot then
believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers
of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most
beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience
is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of
all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a
subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their
minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for
this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight
details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds .
BUCKY: Do you think perhaps that most people need religion to keep
them in check, so to speak?
EINSTEIN: No, clearly not. I do not believe that a man should be
restrained in his daily actions by being afraid of punishment after
death or that he should do things only because in this way he will be
rewarded after he dies. This does not make sense.
<snip>
>> >Einstein simply wasn't the atheist hero that you wish he was. Was he a
>> >Christian. Not really at all. An atheist?? Definitely not.
>>
>> I never said he was an atheist.
>You might want to talk this over with Klein, who said
Why would I want to do that? I don't speak for Klein, nor he for me.
>> I said that HE said he beleived in
>> Spinoza's god, not a personal god, not YOUR god.
>Who the heck is my God?
My guess would be the God of Calvin, since you obsess over Calvinism.
>> Don't beleive me? Ask the man himself. Here is what he said about
>> people like Gardiner distorting his religious views:
>>
>> "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
>> convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
>> believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
>> expressed it clearly.
>Put up, Jeff. Show me where I claimed that Einstein believed in a personal
Right, like your whole obsession over Calivinist influences in the
revolution is not inspired by your religious conviction.
Al Klein
<Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>GARDINER-
>> > An atheist?? Definitely not.
>KLEIN-
>> Then why did he claim that he was?
>> I said that HE said he beleived in
>> Spinoza's god, not a personal god, not YOUR god.
>Who the heck is my God?
A personal gods, which Einstein SPECIFICALLY STATED he did not believe
in.
>> Don't beleive me? Ask the man himself. Here is what he said about
>> people like Gardiner distorting his religious views:
>> "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
>> convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
>> believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
>> expressed it clearly.
>Put up, Jeff. Show me where I claimed that Einstein believed in a personal
>God. You can't do it because you are simply babbling. If you had followed this
>thread more carefully, you would have found that I was answering the challenge
>put forth to show where any important scientist had been inspired religiously.
>Einstein said that he was
He wasn't using the word "religious" in the same manner you are - his
definition of "religious" was more "in awe of the universe".
>This whole "personal God" monkey wrench is your own invention.
It's your implication, since you're equating Einstein's "religiosity"
with your idea of what "religious" means.
I say again, Einstein was an atheist, in that he didn't believe in any
entity that anyone would call a god.
Gardiner
>
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 16:27:00 -0600, Rick Gardiner
> <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >Klein refered to "the theistic 'religious' that you claim he [einstein] was."
> >This was about as idiotic as me accusing you of calling Einstein a Wiccan. Get
> >the point? Probably not.
>
> You implied that Einstein was theistically religious. That's as
> idiotic as claiming that Einstein was Wiccan.
I didn't "imply" anything. I quoted Einstein, period.
Einstein was not an atheist. Period.
You are.
Einstein was a great scientist who, like many great scientists, believed in a
God. That was the answer to the challenge you laid out. You have tried to turn
it into an argument over what specific religious doctrines Einstein believed.
You did that because you lost on the main point. Oh well, keep arguing your
tangential issues.
RG
Gardiner
>
> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >Jeff/addesign wrote:
> >>
> >> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Science without religion is lame" --A.E.
> >>
> >> His exact words? I don't think so.
>
> >Yes.
>
> >From The Private Albert Einstein by Peter A. Bucky with Allen G. Weakland,
> >Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City, 1992, pp 85 - 87. This book contains the
> >record of various conversations between Bucky and Einstein over a thirty year period.
>
> Yes, I found it.
> >> >Einstein simply wasn't the atheist hero that you wish he was. Was he a
> >> >Christian. Not really at all. An atheist?? Definitely not.
> >>
> >> I never said he was an atheist.
>
> >You might want to talk this over with Klein, who said
>
> Why would I want to do that? I don't speak for Klein, nor he for me.
Klein is the one who initiated this discussion and you tried to come to his
rescue in making his claims against scientists being religious.
> >> I said that HE said he beleived in
> >> Spinoza's god, not a personal god, not YOUR god.
>
> >Who the heck is my God?
>
> My guess would be the God of Calvin, since you obsess over Calvinism.
Your guess would definitely be wrong. I don't think Calvin rightly understood
the grace of God.
> >> Don't beleive me? Ask the man himself. Here is what he said about
> >> people like Gardiner distorting his religious views:
> >>
> >> "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
> >> convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
> >> believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
> >> expressed it clearly.
>
> >Put up, Jeff. Show me where I claimed that Einstein believed in a personal
>
> Right, like your whole obsession over Calivinist influences in the
> revolution is not inspired by your religious conviction.
It is inspired by my disappointment about the fact that high school history
courses fear telling the truth of American history because they are scared of
people like Jim Alison. History should not be used as a tool to confirm our 21st
century sensibilities about diversity and multi-culturalism. Religion was a
formative influence in the early life of America and too many educators are
either embarrassed or afraid of it.
Many people in this group, such as Alison and Sinclair, attempt to avoid it with
sleight of hand logic which attempts to minimize the dominant Protestant
influences and make the formative influences of the 18th century appear to be
anti-religious philosophes or deists. It is an entertaining magic show, but deep
down we all know it is just an illusion.
Gardiner
Gardiner
>
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 16:35:29 -0600, Rick Gardiner
> <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >GARDINER-
> >> > An atheist?? Definitely not.
> >KLEIN-
> >> Then why did he claim that he was?
>
> >> Spinoza's god, not a personal god, not YOUR god.
>
> >Who the heck is my God?
>
> in.
And where is it, friend, that Einstein claimed to be an atheist, as you say he
did above?
> >Put up, Jeff. Show me where I claimed that Einstein believed in a personal
> >God. You can't do it because you are simply babbling. If you had followed this
> >thread more carefully, you would have found that I was answering the challenge
> >put forth to show where any important scientist had been inspired religiously.
> >Einstein said that he was
>
> He wasn't using the word "religious" in the same manner you are
I wasn't using the word. I was simply quoting Einstein. My point was that he was
not an atheist, he was religious.
> >This whole "personal God" monkey wrench is your own invention.
>
> It's your implication, since you're equating Einstein's "religiosity"
> with your idea of what "religious" means.
Implication schmimplication. I quoted Einstein saying that scientists were
inspired by religion; the very thing you challenged someone to do. Now to save
face you want to falsely assert that I somehow asserted that Einstein was a
Christian or something.
I guess it's too embarassing to admit your mistake, huh?
> I say again, Einstein was an atheist, in that he didn't believe in any
> entity that anyone would call a god.
LOL. Spinoza was not anyone, was he??
RG
Dr Sinister
>Al Klein wrote:
(snip)
>> You implied that Einstein was theistically religious. That's as
>> idiotic as claiming that Einstein was Wiccan.
>
>I didn't "imply" anything. I quoted Einstein, period.
>
>Einstein was not an atheist. Period.
>
>You are.
>
>Einstein was a great scientist who, like many great scientists, believed
>in a God. That was the answer to the challenge you laid out. You have
>tried to turn it into an argument over what specific religious doctrines
>Einstein believed. You did that because you lost on the main point. Oh
>well, keep arguing your tangential issues.
>
>RG
Concerning Einstein's god, perhaps you will find these of some interest:
http://x42.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=568012833
http://x42.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=568734677
http://x42.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=568987407
--
"Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad
would amount to another form of madness" - Pascal
Jeff Sinclair
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> Jeff/addesign wrote:
> >
> > Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Who the heck is my God?
> >
> > My guess would be the God of Calvin, since you obsess over
Calvinism.
>
> Your guess would definitely be wrong. I don't think Calvin rightly
understood
> the grace of God.
Actually more accurate here would be that Gardiner obsesses over
Calvin/Luther, since it would seem that he tries to tie all religious,
social, moral, scientific, economic, philosophical, and political
development back to either one of these two (with an occasional nod to
Blackstone). For Gardiner, God created the world on October 31, 1517.
> > >> Don't beleive me? Ask the man himself. Here is what he said about
> > >> people like Gardiner distorting his religious views:
> > >>
> > >> "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
> > >> convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do
not
> > >> believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
> > >> expressed it clearly.
> >
> > >Put up, Jeff. Show me where I claimed that Einstein believed in a
personal
> >
> > Right, like your whole obsession over Calivinist influences in the
> > revolution is not inspired by your religious conviction.
>
> It is inspired by my disappointment about the fact that high school
history
> courses fear telling the truth of American history because they are
scared of
> people like Jim Alison. History should not be used as a tool to
confirm our 21st
> century sensibilities about diversity and multi-culturalism. Religion
was a
> formative influence in the early life of America and too many
educators are
> either embarrassed or afraid of it.
Wrong. It is inspired by a concern that people like Gardiner takes
selected quotes out of context and misuses primary and secondary
sources in order to misrepresent history as it actually happened in
support of an insidious political ideology which is attemting to impose
itself on the American political and social scene by stealth.
Professional historians who are bound by standards of honsety in
presenting history in context have shown that Gardiner's pseudohistory
is not accurate and is biased by his demonstrated political and social
agenda. The fact that he has not presented his "history" book for
professional peer review speaks volumes on this issue.
> Many people in this group, such as Alison and Sinclair, attempt to
avoid it with
> sleight of hand logic which attempts to minimize the dominant
Protestant
> influences and make the formative influences of the 18th century
appear to be
> anti-religious philosophes or deists. It is an entertaining magic
show, but deep
> down we all know it is just an illusion.
But no one, myself, Mike Curtis, Jim Allison, or anyone else who has
posted, has denied that religion did not have some effect on American
political thinking. Based upon the historical evidence which we have
presented in detail, we have shown that it was not "the most important
influence" as Gardiner contends. Once again, Gardiner has deliberately
misrepresented the positions of those who disagree with him. What has
proven to be an illusion is Gardiner's "scholarship", especially in
that he has been shown to misrepresent historical sources, present half-
truths, warp other people's arguments, and outright lie when it suits
his purposes. _That_ has not proven to be "magical" nor
very "entertaining".
mscu...@my-deja.com
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> Jeff/addesign wrote:
> >
> > Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> > Right, like your whole obsession over Calivinist influences in the
> > revolution is not inspired by your religious conviction.
>
> It is inspired by my disappointment about the fact that high school
history
> courses fear telling the truth of American history because they are
scared of
> people like Jim Alison.
This isn't the fear presented in alt.education when I posed the
questions to them. Many teachers there said they really had no problems
teaching religious aspects of history. They tended to put things in
perspective which is something you do not do. If there is a fear it
isn't from people like Jim Alison. It's from relgious and non-religious
parents squabbling.
> History should not be used as a tool to confirm our 21st
> century sensibilities about diversity and multi-culturalism.
What is wrong with diversity? Is it wrong to look into the natives who
met with the Europeans who would win the war for the land? I don't
think so.
Is it wrong to look at the lives of slaves brought over to this country
and bred and sold? I don't think so.
Is it wrong to look at the history of women and how they interacted in
the colonial world? I don't think so.
All you seem to care about are rich white guys.
> Religion was a
> formative influence in the early life of America and too many
educators are
> either embarrassed or afraid of it.
I'm obviously not worried about it at all. You and I used to disagree
on emphasis, but now, since you've been caught distorting primary
sources and other texts, our disagreement is also with your methods.
> Many people in this group, such as Alison and Sinclair, attempt to
avoid it with
> sleight of hand logic which attempts to minimize the dominant
Protestant
> influences and make the formative influences of the 18th century
appear to be
> anti-religious philosophes or deists. It is an entertaining magic
show, but deep
> down we all know it is just an illusion
This is how you see it. But then you aren't reading anything they write
so you really don't have a clue what they are saying. They are not
dismissing religion at all.
Mike Curtis
--
Mike Curtis
Kenneth Childress
<buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>
>Hey Kenny, this is your hero, he pays a lot of attention to your opinions,
>huh?
As do you apparently, given your obsession with reposting my words
devoid of context to practice your dishonesty.
FYI, what I replied wrt to scientist's religious views was not an
opinion, but a fact. A fact, you'll note, no one has refuted. There's
just a quibble over how religious Einstein was. Do learn the difference.
--
Al Klein
wrote:
>Al Klein wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 16:27:00 -0600, Rick Gardiner
>> <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>> >Klein refered to "the theistic 'religious' that you claim he [einstein] was."
>> >This was about as idiotic as me accusing you of calling Einstein a Wiccan. Get
>> >the point? Probably not.
>> You implied that Einstein was theistically religious. That's as
>> idiotic as claiming that Einstein was Wiccan.
>I didn't "imply" anything. I quoted Einstein, period.
And you assumed that by "religious" he meant the same thing you mean
by it. He didn't, so your claim doesn't hold.
>Einstein was not an atheist. Period.
Except that he claimed that he was. You know his thoughts better than
he did?
>Einstein was a great scientist who, like many great scientists, believed in a
>God.
He believed in the awesomeness of the universe, and stated exactly
that - that he believed in Spinoza's god.
Since you obviously have never read Spinoza, you think that means that
he believed in the same class of god that you believe in. He didn't.
> That was the answer to the challenge you laid out. You have tried to turn
>it into an argument over what specific religious doctrines Einstein believed.
He didn't believe in ANY "religious" (as you mean the word) doctrines.
>You did that because you lost on the main point.
I didn't know it was a contest. I was just pointing out that, since
you had no idea what Spinoza's god is, you can't know what Einstein
believed in, since the ONLY god he believed in was Spinoza's god - as
he stated.
Face it - you're arguing a point you don't understand, and WON'T
understand until you read Spinoza. How can you possibly know what
"Spinoza's God" means without reading him? And Einstein very clearly
stated that Spinoza's god was the ONLY god he believed in.
buc...@exis.net
>:|In article <a5rj8s0l0ku9992ts...@4ax.com>,
A fact?
This has meaning?
Actually, I do think someone did make a refuting comment.
What does scientists have to do with my original comments in this?
==============================================================
Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|Are you an idiot or what?
Typical Gardiner in action.
Hey Kenny, this is your hero, he pays a lot of attention to your opinions,
huh?
=============================================================
Remember the above? I was addressing that you say you have objected to
Gardiner about his attacks etc. Remember?
Guess he doesn't follow your advice very well when someone dares disagree
with him.
Typical Gardiner.
Herman
intentionally omitted anything.
The bible reference was also to add snd for no other reason.
C'ya
Kenneth Childress wrote in message <3885e63d$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
>In article <s8bkal...@corp.supernews.com>,
>Herman <Her...@monster.org> wrote:
>>Unless I'm off the mark on this alot of the leading scientists have also
>>been Jewish.
>>In the bible God said he'd reveal the secrets to his people.
>
>Of course. If you reread what I wrote, you'll notice I did not restrict
>my comments to any particular religion.
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>
Kenneth Childress
<buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>
>>:|In article <a5rj8s0l0ku9992ts...@4ax.com>,
>>:| <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>>:|>
>>:|>Hey Kenny, this is your hero, he pays a lot of attention to your opinions,
>>:|>huh?
>>:|
>>:|As do you apparently, given your obsession with reposting my words
>>:|devoid of context to practice your dishonesty.
>>:|
>>:|FYI, what I replied wrt to scientist's religious views was not an
>>:|opinion, but a fact. A fact, you'll note, no one has refuted. There's
>>:|just a quibble over how religious Einstein was. Do learn the difference.
>
>A fact?
Absolutely.
>This has meaning?
Most definitely.
>Actually, I do think someone did make a refuting comment.
No, I don't believe anyone did. At least, not a factual one. :-)
>What does scientists have to do with my original comments in this?
I addressed your comment above. I'm sorry if it upsets you that I don't
address your petty beefs. Maybe when you clean up your own act, then
I'll put more credence behind your whining about Mr. Gardiner. Yours,
and others, whine fests about Mr. Gardiner are boring. They do show
what you like to fuss about, though.
--
Al Klein
wrote:
>Religion was a formative influence in the early life of America
But Christianity had no part in it. The founders even stated that
this is NOT a Christian nation. Most of them had open contempt for
Christianity and its bible.
>Many people in this group, such as Alison and Sinclair, attempt to avoid it with
>sleight of hand logic which attempts to minimize the dominant Protestant
>influences
The dominant religious influence of the early US was deism, not any
form of Christianity.
> and make the formative influences of the 18th century appear to be
>anti-religious philosophes or deists.
Maybe that's because they WERE deists? After all, they should have
known what they were better than you do, right?
> It is an entertaining magic show, but deep
>down we all know it is just an illusion.
Oh, you know that they were Protestants because you know it -
regardless of what the men themselves said, huh?
Kenneth Childress
Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:07:27 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Religion was a formative influence in the early life of America
>
>But Christianity had no part in it. The founders even stated that
>this is NOT a Christian nation. Most of them had open contempt for
>Christianity and its bible.
Which ones made such a statement that this is "NOT a Christian nation"?
Please list the ones, that would comprise most, had open contempt for
Christianity and the Bible?
>>Many people in this group, such as Alison and Sinclair, attempt to avoid it with
>>sleight of hand logic which attempts to minimize the dominant Protestant
>>influences
>
>The dominant religious influence of the early US was deism, not any
>form of Christianity.
Which founders were deists?
>> and make the formative influences of the 18th century appear to be
>>anti-religious philosophes or deists.
>
>Maybe that's because they WERE deists? After all, they should have
>known what they were better than you do, right?
Which ones were deists?
>> It is an entertaining magic show, but deep
>>down we all know it is just an illusion.
>
>Oh, you know that they were Protestants because you know it -
>regardless of what the men themselves said, huh?
Generally speaking, by reading what the men wrote is how we determine
their religious beliefs. In fact, that is exactly how we know that your
statements are totally bogus.
--
Therion Ware
in alt.atheism:
>In article <3i6p8scj0844h1bru...@4ax.com>,
>Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote:
>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:07:27 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Religion was a formative influence in the early life of America
>>
>>But Christianity had no part in it. The founders even stated that
>>this is NOT a Christian nation. Most of them had open contempt for
>>Christianity and its bible.
>
>Which ones made such a statement that this is "NOT a Christian nation"?
>
>Please list the ones, that would comprise most, had open contempt for
>Christianity and the Bible?
>
>>>Many people in this group, such as Alison and Sinclair, attempt to avoid it with
>>>sleight of hand logic which attempts to minimize the dominant Protestant
>>>influences
>>
>>The dominant religious influence of the early US was deism, not any
>>form of Christianity.
>
>Which founders were deists?
>
>>> and make the formative influences of the 18th century appear to be
>>>anti-religious philosophes or deists.
>>
>>Maybe that's because they WERE deists? After all, they should have
>>known what they were better than you do, right?
>
>Which ones were deists?
Britannica:
By the end of the 18th century, Deism had become a dominant religious
attitude among intellectual and upper class Americans. Benjamin
Franklin, the great sage of the Colonies and then of the new republic,
summarized in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale College, a
personal creed that almost literally reproduced Herbert's five
fundamental beliefs. The first three presidents of the United States
also held Deistic convictions, as is amply evidenced in their
correspondence. "The ten commandments and the sermon on the mount
contain my religion," John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1816.
>>> It is an entertaining magic show, but deep
>>>down we all know it is just an illusion.
>>
>>Oh, you know that they were Protestants because you know it -
>>regardless of what the men themselves said, huh?
>
>Generally speaking, by reading what the men wrote is how we determine
>their religious beliefs. In fact, that is exactly how we know that your
>statements are totally bogus.
Erm, no it isn't. It is, however, important to realise that "deism"
means something rather difference today than it did in the 18th
century. This is to say that to someone like Adams or Franklin, a
deistic outlook presupposes that there exists a "natural religion,
[i.e.] the acceptance of a certain body of religious knowledge that is
inborn in every person or that can be acquired by the use of reason,
as opposed to knowledge acquired through either revelation or the
teaching of any church."
These days the "the word Deism [is] used theologically in
contradistinction to theism, the belief in an immanent God who
actively intervenes in the affairs of men. In this sense Deism was
represented as the view of those who reduced the role of God to a mere
act of creation in accordance with rational laws discoverable by man
and held that, after the original act, God virtually withdrew and
refrained from interfering in the processes of nature and the ways of
man. "
(again, quotations from Britannica]
It may well be that they were not deists in this second sense, but in
the first - they subscribed to the idea of a natural, intrinsic
religion. Which in some senses is about as far from Christianity,
particularly Protestant Christianity, as you can get.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
.......
HELL? <http://www.city-of-dis.co.uk/entry/hell.html>
Inexpensive video to mpeg-1 conversion? See: <http://www.video2cd.co.uk>
Rick Gardiner
>
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 19:52:00 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I didn't "imply" anything. I quoted Einstein, period.
>
> And you assumed that by "religious" he meant the same thing you mean
> by it. He didn't, so your claim doesn't hold.
Kindly refer me to any post where I "assumed" anything about what Einstein
"meant" by religious?
> >Einstein was not an atheist. Period.
>
> Except that he claimed that he was. You know his thoughts better than
> he did?
Kindly refer me to the reference where Einstein claimed he was an Atheist.
I find it quite odd that Addesign isn't "correcting" you in this regard.
> >Einstein was a great scientist who, like many great scientists, believed in a
> >God.
>
> He believed in the awesomeness of the universe, and stated exactly
> that - that he believed in Spinoza's god.
>
> Since you obviously have never read Spinoza,
Not only have a read extensively in Spinoza, I've taken college courses on
Spinoza, Graduate courses on Spinoza, written extensively on Spinoza, and
teach courses dealing with Spinoza. How many Graduate seminars on spinoza have
you taken?
> you think that means that
> he believed in the same class of god that you believe in. He didn't.
You know very little about the God I believe in.
> >You did that because you lost on the main point.
>
> I didn't know it was a contest.
You threw the gauntlet when you challenged someone to cite a scientist who was
inspired by religion.
> I was just pointing out that, since
> you had no idea what Spinoza's god is, you can't know what Einstein
> believed in, since the ONLY god he believed in was Spinoza's god - as
> he stated.
>
> Face it - you're arguing a point you don't understand, and WON'T
> understand until you read Spinoza. How can you possibly know what
> "Spinoza's God" means without reading him? And Einstein very clearly
> stated that Spinoza's god was the ONLY god he believed in.
I get the sense that you really have no clue what "god" spinoza believed in. I
have a feeling that you have never read the ETHICS, or you would know that
Spinoza was the extreme opposite of an atheist: Spinoza not only believed in
God, but he believed in nothing BUT god. For spinoza, God is the only being
who exists:
http://frank.mtsu.edu/~rbombard/RB/Spinoza/ethica1.html#Prop. XIV.
Gardiner
>
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:07:27 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Religion was a formative influence in the early life of America
>
> But Christianity had no part in it.
Granted, your view is widely embraced by public school history teachers, in
spite of Curtis, Sinclair, and Alison's assertion to the contrary.
The problem with your view, however, is that it is simply wrong.
Where should one start?
Perhaps you should see the information published by the Federal Library of
Congress http://lcweb.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9805/religion.html
Accompanied by the Library of Congress display at
http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html
Then you might want to take a look at whether the U.S. Supreme Court thought
that "Christianity had no part in early America" as you claim above:
http://www.universitylake.org/history/supreme.html
Then you should probably consider the work of a few present day scholars:
http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/erelrev.htm
http://www.prawica.px.pl/johnson.htm
http://americanrevolution.org/gaustad.html
http://www.fac.org/publicat/cground/ch03_1.html
> The founders even stated that
> this is NOT a Christian nation. Most of them had open contempt for
> Christianity and its bible.
Most of them had contempt for Deism, and its prophet, Thomas Paine:
http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/deism.htm
> >Many people in this group, such as Alison and Sinclair, attempt to avoid it with
> >sleight of hand logic which attempts to minimize the dominant Protestant
> >influences
>
> The dominant religious influence of the early US was deism, not any
> form of Christianity.
That is absurdity
http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/deism.htm
> > and make the formative influences of the 18th century appear to be
> >anti-religious philosophes or deists.
>
> Maybe that's because they WERE deists? After all, they should have
> known what they were better than you do, right?
I would think so.
http://www.universitylake.org/history/denom.html
> > It is an entertaining magic show, but deep
> >down we all know it is just an illusion.
>
> Oh, you know that they were Protestants because you know it -
> regardless of what the men themselves said, huh?
I know what The Declaration Signer, Benjamin Rush, said. Do you?
http://www.universitylake.org/history/rush.html
> Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
And you know what Franklin said about the presence of atheists in early america,
right?
"[B]ad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be comfortable
consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious religion,
under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and
practiced. Atheism is unknown there; infidelity rare and secret; so that persons
may live to a great age in that country, without having their piety shocked by
meeting with either an atheist or an infidel."
Benjamin Franklin, Two Tracts: Information to Those Who Would Remove to America
and Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America (London: John Stockdale,
1784), p.24.
Gardiner
>
> >>> and make the formative influences of the 18th century appear to be
> >>>anti-religious philosophes or deists.
> >>
> >>Maybe that's because they WERE deists? After all, they should have
> >>known what they were better than you do, right?
> >
>
> Britannica:
>
> By the end of the 18th century, Deism had become a dominant religious
> attitude among intellectual and upper class Americans.
Hardly. http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/deism.htm
> Benjamin
> Franklin, the great sage of the Colonies and then of the new republic,
> summarized in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale College, a
> personal creed that almost literally reproduced Herbert's five
> fundamental beliefs.
http://www.universitylake.org/history/franklin-stiles.html
> The first three presidents of the United States
> also held Deistic convictions, as is amply evidenced in their
> correspondence. "The ten commandments and the sermon on the mount
> contain my religion," John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1816.
http://www.universitylake.org/history/adamsdiary.html
http://www.universitylake.org/history/adamsletters.html
> >>> It is an entertaining magic show, but deep
> >>>down we all know it is just an illusion.
> >>
> >>Oh, you know that they were Protestants because you know it -
> >>regardless of what the men themselves said, huh?
> >
> >Generally speaking, by reading what the men wrote is how we determine
> >their religious beliefs. In fact, that is exactly how we know that your
> >statements are totally bogus.
>
> ...they subscribed to the idea of a natural, intrinsic
> religion. Which in some senses is about as far from Christianity,
> particularly Protestant Christianity, as you can get.
Really?
http://www.universitylake.org/history/adamsprinciples.html
LOL
drmonk...@my-deja.com
:> <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
:>
:> >GARDINER-
:> >> > An atheist?? Definitely not.
:> >KLEIN-
:> >> Then why did he claim that he was?
:>
:> >> I said that HE said he beleived in
:> >> Spinoza's god, not a personal god, not YOUR god.
:> >Who the heck is my God?
:>
:> A personal gods, which Einstein SPECIFICALLY STATED he did not believe
:> in.
: And where is it, friend, that Einstein claimed to be an atheist, as you say he
: did above?
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever....
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
Lest you twist what he means by "religous",
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied
this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it."
[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human
Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton
University Press]
:> He wasn't using the word "religious" in the same manner you are
: I wasn't using the word. I was simply quoting Einstein. My point was that
: he was not an atheist, he was religious.
It is clear he was both, and that his religious nature had zilch to do with
his lack of belief but instead with his understanding of the
physical laws of nature. Do not be so simplistic as to equate religiousness
with theistic belief.
: Implication schmimplication. I quoted Einstein saying that scientists were
: inspired by religion; the very thing you challenged someone to do.
Yeah, never mind what the words he used actually means... as long as you can
redefine them to suit your argument, that's fine with you!
--
------------------------ Dr. Monkeyspank ---------------------------
Simian Disciplinary | Sam Lopez: This is a Christian? -->
Systems Institute | http://come.to/SamLopez
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff/addesign
>Al Klein wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 19:52:00 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
>> wrote:
>> Since you obviously have never read Spinoza,
>Not only have a read extensively in Spinoza, I've taken college courses on
>Spinoza, Graduate courses on Spinoza, written extensively on Spinoza, and
>teach courses dealing with Spinoza. How many Graduate seminars on spinoza have
>you taken?
I find this really hard to believe. How did you ever find the time to
become such an expert on Spinoza, with all your other important
studies.
>> you think that means that
>> he believed in the same class of god that you believe in. He didn't.
>You know very little about the God I believe in.
We can guess. We could be wrong. Your obsession with Calvin and Luther
suggests we'd be right. Your hostility to non-theists suggests we'd be
right.
>> >You did that because you lost on the main point.
>>
>> I didn't know it was a contest.
>You threw the gauntlet when you challenged someone to cite a scientist who was
>inspired by religion.
Which Einstein, by his own words, flatly was not. If you don't see
that, you are imposing your understanding of "religious" upon
Einstein, even though Einstein himself carefully explained what he
meant. He was inspired by the pysical universe, and he had a diligence
and obsession about learning the mysteries of the physical universe,
which he described as religious. This is not at all the same as being
"inspired by religion."
You have once again, either completely misunderstood or misinterpreted
Einstein, or you are deliberately distorting or misrepresenting his
words.
buc...@exis.net
>:|In article <3i6p8scj0844h1bru...@4ax.com>,
>:|Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote:
>:|>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:07:27 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
>:|>wrote:
>:|>
>:|>>Religion was a formative influence in the early life of America
>:|>
>:|>But Christianity had no part in it. The founders even stated that
>:|>this is NOT a Christian nation. Most of them had open contempt for
>:|>Christianity and its bible.
>:|
>:|Which ones made such a statement that this is "NOT a Christian nation"?
Again? How many times have you asked this question over the years and had
it answered?
SEE:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/linksidx.htm#tripoli
or
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
[sometimes the top link doesn't work, so if you have trouble with it try
the bottom.]
>:|
>:|Please list the ones, that would comprise most, had open contempt for
>:|Christianity and the Bible?
Oh brother.
For someone who frequently has been chided for using "absolute" comments
you have room to challenge someone else on such.
The poster should have said many did, or some did.
I do believe I posted and cited something very recently in one of these
threads that said the same thing. Didn't you read it?
Should I go and try and find it for you?
==============================================================
At the time of the Revolution most of the founding fathers had not put
much emotional stock in religion, even when they were regular churchgoers.
As enlightened gentlemen, they abhorred "that gloomy superstition
disseminated by ignorant illiberal preachers" and looked forward to the day
when "the phantom of darkness will be dispelled by the rays of science, and
the bright charms of rising civilization." At best, most of the
revolutionary gentry only passively believed in organized Christianity and,
at worst, privately scorned and ridiculed it. Jefferson hated orthodox
clergymen, and he repeatedly denounced the "priestcraft" for having
converted Christianity into "an engine for enslaving mankind, . . . into a
mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves." Although few of
them were outright deists, most like David Ramsay described the Christian
church as "the best temple of reason." Even puritanical John Adams thought
that the argument for Christ's divinity was an "awful blasphemy" in this
new enlightened age. When Hamilton was asked why the members of the
Philadelphia Convention had not recognized God in the Constitution, he
allegedly replied, speaking for many of his liberal colleagues, "We
forgot."(11)
FOOTNOTE
(11) Nicholas Collins, "An Essay on those inquiries in Natural Philosophy
which at present are most beneficial to the United States of America,"
American Philosophical Society, Trans., II (1793), vii; George H. Knoles,
"The Religious Ideas of Thomas Jefferson," Mississippi Valley Historical
Review, XXX (1943-44), '94·: He"'y May, The Enlightenment in America (New
York, 1976), 72-73; Butler, Awash in a Sea of Faith, 195-96, 214-15; Trevor
Colbourn, ed., Fame and the Founding Fathers: Essays by Douglass Adair (New
York, 1974), 147n.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Radicalism of the American Revolution, by
Gordon S. Wood, Alfred A. Knopf, N Y (1992) pp 330)
>:|>>Many people in this group, such as Alison and Sinclair, attempt to avoid it with
>:|>>sleight of hand logic which attempts to minimize the dominant Protestant
>:|>>influences
>:|>
>:|>The dominant religious influence of the early US was deism, not any
>:|>form of Christianity.
>:|
>:|Which founders were deists?
In all the times you have lurked around here, you have never read anything?
Sheesh.
Well here is some of the things that have ben posted in the past on this
subject:
=================================================================
From: "Paul Browning" <ps...@home.com>
Washington, like many of our founding fathers was a Deist,
not a Christian.
Unlike Thomas Jefferson--and Thomas Paine, for that
matter--Washington never even got around to recording his belief that
Christ was a great ethical teacher.
His reticence on the subject was truly remarkable. Washington frequently
alluded to Providence in his private correspondence. But the name of
Christ, in any correspondence whatsoever, does not appear anywhere in his
many letters to friends and associates throughout his life. (Paul F.
Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University
Press, 1963, pp. 74-75.)
... if to believe in the divinity and resurrection of Christ
and his atonement for the sins of man and to participate in the sacrament
of the Lord's Supper are requisites for the Christian faith, then
Washington, on the evidence which we have examined, can hardly be
considered a Christian, except in the most nominal
sense. (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion,
Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, p. 90.)
As President, Washington regularly attended Christian
services, and he was friendly in his attitude toward Christian values.
However, he repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take
communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the
sanctuary.... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered
no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His
representative.
George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial
because he was not himself a Christian. In the enlightened tradition of his
day, he was a devout Deist--just as many of the clergymen who knew him
suspected.
(Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, New
York: The Free Press, 1987, pp. 174-175.)
================================================================
[me]
>:|> Actually, Adams was considered to be a Universalist, with some Deist
>:|> leanings. He began as a Calvinist.
>:|
[Gardiner]
>:|Citations?
>:|
[me]
Ok,
Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper
& Row, (1987) pp 85 - 97 should be good.
For Washington:
Well the book I have been citing:
George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller, Southern Methodist
University Press: Dallas TX (1962)
Then:
Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper
& Row, (1987) pp 71 - 85 has some good material
And don't forget this:
"Though the cool deism of Washington can hardly be distinguished in broad
outline from that of Jefferson, the public reaction to the two men and
their religious views differed sharply. Only Jefferson was denounced as the
'howling atheist,' never Washington. Only Jefferson was attacked as the
enemy of the churches and the clergy, never Washington. A curious public
probed and punches Adams, Franklin and Jefferson regarding their Christian
convictions, but never Washington."
Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper
& Row, (1987) pp 77
[me]
>:|> There is at least one letter where he gets down on his son for being such a
>:|> orthodox Christian.
>:|
[Gardiner]
>:|Sounds like a distortion. Citations?
>:|
[me]
LOL
The founders were not as easy to classify as you would like to think and
try so hard to tell others.
They were complex, as most humans are, and that complexity extended to
their religious beliefs and thoughts as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And to his son a few months later, Adams expressed amazement that, after
all that had been written by samuel Clarke, Daniel Waterland, and Joseph
Priestly, John Quincy persisted in holding to the Athanasian creed.(18)
FOOTNOTE:
(18) JA to John Quincy Adams, November 3, 1815; Adams Papers, reel 122 On
January 3, 1817, John Quincy Adams wrote his father that all his "hopes
of a future life" were "founded upon the Gospel of Christ." Nor, he added,
would he "cavil or quibble away" was seemed to him clear assertions by
Jesus that he was God."You see my orthodoxy grows upon me." Adrienne Koch
and William Peden, eds., The Selected Writings of John and John Quincy
Adams (New York, 1946), 291-92
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation,
Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper and Row, (1987) pp 90
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the last years of Washington's Presidency, Thomas Paine published The
Age of Reason, his extended attack on orthodox religious beliefs and on the
Bible. In doing so, he spoke for the most advanced liberal thinkers of his
day. Eight American editions of his book appeared the first year. Though
stating their opinions less bluntly, Franklin and Jefferson and perhaps a
majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence basically
agreed with Paine. Paine was not the atheist he has been called, but a
deist, believing in God the First Cause, who worked solely through the laws
of nature.
For ordinary folk the idea of God the Great Watchmaker frozen in the
immutable laws of His clockwork universe was not enough. They felt the need
of a comforting and personal God attainable beyond the reasoning mind.
Where intellectuals turned to Unitarianism--a polite amalgam of deism and
Congregationalism--the masses sought the heady evangelism of the Baptists
and the Methodists, which itself seemed a democratic form of religion.
Itinerant preachers carried the gospel message beyond the Appalachians to
the remote and lonely regions of the frontier. At camp meetings, in the
light of flaring bonfires, they prayed and sang the gospel hymns and
shouted their simple message of sin and repentance until the more fervent
among them fell to the ground in spasms of emotion.
While New England was shifting from the rigidities of Calvinism to
Unitarianism, the South, under the influence of its "peculiar institution,"
was moving toward a revival of Calvinist theology, buttressed by
evangelism, in which there was no room for deviation or ranging thought.
I,iberalism in theology could lead to embarrassing questions about slavery,
and the South, in sensing this danger, closed theological ranks. As for the
Negroes, by the time of the Revolution they had begun to drift into
separate churches conducted with primitive evangelistic zeal by their own
clergy.
The religiousness of the century's end, known as the Second Awakening--the
first, or Great Awakening, had been initiated by Jonathan Edwards fifty
years earlier-- though in a sense the ordinary man's reaction to the
detached intellectuals of the Enlightenment, was above all an indication
that the United States was in the main still religious-minded.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The American Heritage, History of Making the Nation
1783-1860, American Heritage/Bonanza Books N.Y. (1987) pp 77-78)
>:|
>:|>> and make the formative influences of the 18th century appear to be
>:|>>anti-religious philosophes or deists.
>:|>
>:|>Maybe that's because they WERE deists? After all, they should have
>:|>known what they were better than you do, right?
>:|
>:|Which ones were deists?
Deist, or Unitarian, or Quaker, or indifferent, it is a general accepted
fact that four, maybe as many five or six of the first presidents were not
all that orthodox in their religious convictions.
The same can be said for a fair numbor of other leaders or influential men
of the founding period and periods that immediately followed.
By the late 1820s and there was real concern by many of the religious
conservatives/tradionalists about the rapid secularization of the nation
and its institutions. Men such as the Rev Jasper Adams, Supreme Court
Justice Joseph Story and others published material in the early 1830s
designed, in part, to try and reverse the trends they saw taking place.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, disestablishment was an accomplished fact, a social
symptom of declining interest in organized Christianity. Church-going in
Virginia had long been on the decline as communicants found more reasons
for attending Sunday horse races or code fights than for being in pews. In
1784 a foreign traveler in Richmond noted that the village had only "one
small church, but [it was] spacious enough for all the pious souls of the
place and the region. If the Virginians themselves did not freely and
openly admit that zeal for religion, and religion generally, is now very
faint among them, the fact might easily be divined from other
circumstances" (Schoepf, Travels in the Confederation, 11, 62).
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The papers of James Madison, Volume 8, March 10,
1784- March 28, 1786. Edited by Robert A. Rutland, William M.E. Rachal.
The University of Chicago Press, (1973) pp 295-298
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . While at least thirteen of JM's petitions were circulated (and in
time bore 1,552 signatures), another (and still anonymous) petition writer
found that his attack on the "Teachers of Christian Religion" measure
gained more widespread support. Twenty-nine petitions, signed by 4,899
Virginians, came from the pen of this unknown opponent of a church-state
tie. These petitions were based on an argument that carries beyond JM's-the
General Assessment bill was not only contrary to the Virginia Declaration
of Rights and to the enlightened republicanism pronounced there, but the
proposed act was in conflict with "the Spirit of the Gospel." Whoever wrote
this petition, which was easily the most popular of the several circulating
protests, was clearly an active Christian who believed the General
Assessment bill would do nothing to check "that Deism with its banefull
Influence [which] is spreading itself over the state" (Vi: Westmoreland
County petition).
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The papers of James Madison, Volume 8, March 10,
1784- March 28, 1786. Edited by Robert A. Rutland, William M.E. Rachal.
The University of Chicago Press, (1973) pp 295-298
>:|
>:|>> It is an entertaining magic show, but deep
>:|>>down we all know it is just an illusion.
>:|>
>:|>Oh, you know that they were Protestants because you know it -
>:|>regardless of what the men themselves said, huh?
>:|
>:|Generally speaking, by reading what the men wrote is how we determine
>:|their religious beliefs. In fact, that is exactly how we know that your
>:|statements are totally bogus.
Well, then you need to read more then, because while the poster, like
Gardiner overstating his case in many respects, what he did say is far
from being "totally bogus."
Incorrect by being overstated in some instances, yes, but totally bogus,
no.
Kenneth Childress
<buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>
>>:|In article <3i6p8scj0844h1bru...@4ax.com>,
>>:|Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote:
>>:|>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:07:27 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
>>:|>wrote:
>>:|>
>>:|>>Religion was a formative influence in the early life of America
>>:|>
>>:|>But Christianity had no part in it. The founders even stated that
>>:|>this is NOT a Christian nation. Most of them had open contempt for
>>:|>Christianity and its bible.
>>:|
>>:|Which ones made such a statement that this is "NOT a Christian nation"?
>
>Again? How many times have you asked this question over the years and had
>it answered?
WOW!! I'm surprised to see you chime in in defense of one who made
quite a number of stupid claims in his post.
>SEE:
>http://members.tripod.com/~candst/linksidx.htm#tripoli
And you should know as well as anyone how bogus this particular claim
is. Sheesh.
or
>http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
>
>[sometimes the top link doesn't work, so if you have trouble with it try
>the bottom.]
>
>>:|
>>:|Please list the ones, that would comprise most, had open contempt for
>>:|Christianity and the Bible?
>
>Oh brother.
Oh brother yourself. He said most. That would mean that is should be
easy to list about 30 or 40 or so founders that had open contempt. I'm
not even expecting quotes, because I know that his claim can't be
substantiated.
You would have been better to have chimed in with your "your
unsubstantiated claim is noted" rather than trying to defend stupid
statements.
[...]
>>:|>>Many people in this group, such as Alison and Sinclair, attempt to avoid it with
>>:|>>sleight of hand logic which attempts to minimize the dominant Protestant
>>:|>>influences
>>:|>
>>:|>The dominant religious influence of the early US was deism, not any
>>:|>form of Christianity.
>>:|
>>:|Which founders were deists?
>
>In all the times you have lurked around here, you have never read anything?
>
>Sheesh.
The claim about Washington is dubious at best. Franklin, probably.
Jefferson, maybe. Where's the rest of this big list?
Come on, Mr. Allison, you're really hurting in this one.
[...]
>The founders were not as easy to classify as you would like to think and
>try so hard to tell others.
No kidding. Then why are you getting on my case for asking one to
backup their stupid claims?
>They were complex, as most humans are, and that complexity extended to
>their religious beliefs and thoughts as well.
So, jump on the original poster's case for making such ridiculous
statements rather than me for calling him on it.
[cut and paste fest]
>>:|>> It is an entertaining magic show, but deep
>>:|>>down we all know it is just an illusion.
>>:|>
>>:|>Oh, you know that they were Protestants because you know it -
>>:|>regardless of what the men themselves said, huh?
>>:|
>>:|Generally speaking, by reading what the men wrote is how we determine
>>:|their religious beliefs. In fact, that is exactly how we know that your
>>:|statements are totally bogus.
>
>Well, then you need to read more then, because while the poster, like
>Gardiner overstating his case in many respects, what he did say is far
>from being "totally bogus."
No, his claims are totally bogus. There were a couple of Deists among
the Founders, and there was some Deistic influence, but no where near
tha degree the poster claimed.
>Incorrect by being overstated in some instances, yes, but totally bogus,
>no.
Yes, absolutely bogus.
--
mscu...@my-deja.com
ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
> In article <jd0u8s0pcr8u7d6hp...@4ax.com>,
> <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
> >ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
> >
> >>:|In article <3i6p8scj0844h1bru...@4ax.com>,
> >>:|Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote:
> >>:|>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:07:27 -0600, Gardiner
<Gard...@pitnet.net>
> >>:|>wrote:
> >>:|>
> >>:|>>Religion was a formative influence in the early life of America
> >>:|>
> >>:|>But Christianity had no part in it. The founders even stated
that
> >>:|>this is NOT a Christian nation. Most of them had open contempt
for
> >>:|>Christianity and its bible.
> >>:|
> >>:|Which ones made such a statement that this is "NOT a Christian
nation"?
> >
> >Again? How many times have you asked this question over the years
and had
> >it answered?
>
> quite a number of stupid claims in his post.
>
> >SEE:
> >http://members.tripod.com/~candst/linksidx.htm#tripoli
>
> And you should know as well as anyone how bogus this particular claim
> is. Sheesh.
What's bogus? Be specific.
or
> >http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
What's bogus? Be specific.
> >[sometimes the top link doesn't work, so if you have trouble with it
try
> >the bottom.]
> >
> >>:|
> >>:|Please list the ones, that would comprise most, had open contempt
for
> >>:|Christianity and the Bible?
> >
> >Oh brother.
>
> Oh brother yourself. He said most.
Then accept the corrective that Alison offerred and quite squabbling
with *everyone* simply because you don't agree with them. Sometimes
those you disagree are correct.
> That would mean that is should be
> easy to list about 30 or 40 or so founders that had open contempt.
I'm
> not even expecting quotes, because I know that his claim can't be
> substantiated.
Sort of goes along with many of the claims you make and won't
substantiate. Seems there may be more than 1 person not substantiating
their claims and I place you in that crowd. But oyu are willing to
throw the first stone.
> You would have been better to have chimed in with your "your
> unsubstantiated claim is noted" rather than trying to defend stupid
> statements.
I do think he supplied a corrective.
> >>:|>>Many people in this group, such as Alison and Sinclair, attempt
to avoid it with
> >>:|>>sleight of hand logic which attempts to minimize the dominant
Protestant
> >>:|>>influences
> >>:|>
> >>:|>The dominant religious influence of the early US was deism, not
any
> >>:|>form of Christianity.
> >>:|
> >>:|Which founders were deists?
> >
> >In all the times you have lurked around here, you have never read
anything?
> >
> >Sheesh.
>
> The claim about Washington is dubious at best.
What dubious about the claim?
> Franklin, probably.
Definately. He was familiar with European deism and presented his views
after that fashion. One scholar of American deism called Franklin a
tacit deist.
> Jefferson, maybe. Where's the rest of this big list?
Pretty much an American Deist. He beleived strongly in reason when it
came to God and religion. Try reading some of his writings. Then you'll
learn something.
> Come on, Mr. Allison, you're really hurting in this one.
Bwahahahahahaha!
I guess that is why you snipped all the evidence.
> >The founders were not as easy to classify as you would like to think
and
> >try so hard to tell others.
>
> No kidding. Then why are you getting on my case for asking one to
> backup their stupid claims?
Why should anyone at all jump through hoops for you when you don't
bother to do the same thing where your assertions are concerned?
> [cut and paste fest]
Try reading the material.
> >>:|>> It is an entertaining magic show, but deep
> >>:|>>down we all know it is just an illusion.
> >>:|>
> >>:|>Oh, you know that they were Protestants because you know it -
> >>:|>regardless of what the men themselves said, huh?
> >>:|
> >>:|Generally speaking, by reading what the men wrote is how we
determine
> >>:|their religious beliefs. In fact, that is exactly how we know
that your
> >>:|statements are totally bogus.
> >
> >Well, then you need to read more then, because while the poster, like
> >Gardiner overstating his case in many respects, what he did say is
far
> >from being "totally bogus."
>
> No, his claims are totally bogus. There were a couple of Deists among
> the Founders, and there was some Deistic influence, but no where near
> tha degree the poster claimed.
Founders? What does that mean? What were the religious beliefs of the
founders. I'll bet you don't know.
Framers? What does that mean?
> >Incorrect by being overstated in some instances, yes, but totally
bogus,
> >no.
>
> Yes, absolutely bogus.
Stomp those feet, Childress.
Kenneth Childress
That the wording in this treaty, which is subject at best, is any
"proof" to the claim.
or
>> >http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
>
>What's bogus? Be specific.
>
>> >[sometimes the top link doesn't work, so if you have trouble with it
>try
>> >the bottom.]
>> >
>> >>:|
>> >>:|Please list the ones, that would comprise most, had open contempt
>for
>> >>:|Christianity and the Bible?
>> >
>> >Oh brother.
>>
>> Oh brother yourself. He said most.
>
>Then accept the corrective that Alison offerred and quite squabbling
>with *everyone* simply because you don't agree with them. Sometimes
>those you disagree are correct.
Mr. Allison corrected nothing.
>> That would mean that is should be
>> easy to list about 30 or 40 or so founders that had open contempt.
>I'm
>> not even expecting quotes, because I know that his claim can't be
>> substantiated.
>
>Sort of goes along with many of the claims you make and won't
>substantiate. Seems there may be more than 1 person not substantiating
>their claims and I place you in that crowd. But oyu are willing to
>throw the first stone.
Whine, whine, whine.
>> You would have been better to have chimed in with your "your
>> unsubstantiated claim is noted" rather than trying to defend stupid
>> statements.
>
>I do think he supplied a corrective.
No he didn't.
[Mr. Curtis' love fest with Mr. Allison's defense of the indefensible]
--
mscu...@my-deja.com
ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
> In article <86ncfl$kkm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <mscu...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> "proof" to the claim.
What wording is bogus. Are you suggesting the treating is a fraud?
Can't you be a little more clear?
or
> >> >http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
> >
> >What's bogus? Be specific.
Same question.
> >> >[sometimes the top link doesn't work, so if you have trouble with
it
> >try
> >> >the bottom.]
> >> >
> >> >>:|
> >> >>:|Please list the ones, that would comprise most, had open
contempt
> >for
> >> >>:|Christianity and the Bible?
> >> >
> >> >Oh brother.
> >>
> >> Oh brother yourself. He said most.
> >
> >Then accept the corrective that Alison offerred and quite squabbling
> >with *everyone* simply because you don't agree with them. Sometimes
> >those you disagree are correct.
>
> Mr. Allison corrected nothing.
Then you fail to read very well. He said "some" and not "most." Two
different words and the correction is implied.
> >> That would mean that is should be
> >> easy to list about 30 or 40 or so founders that had open contempt.
> >I'm
> >> not even expecting quotes, because I know that his claim can't be
> >> substantiated.
> >
> >Sort of goes along with many of the claims you make and won't
> >substantiate. Seems there may be more than 1 person not
substantiating
> >their claims and I place you in that crowd. But oyu are willing to
> >throw the first stone.
>
> Whine, whine, whine.
Your just here to be a total waste of time. Call my pointing out what
do in any way your like. It doesn't take away from the truth of my
statement.
> >> You would have been better to have chimed in with your "your
> >> unsubstantiated claim is noted" rather than trying to defend stupid
> >> statements.
> >
> >I do think he supplied a corrective.
>
> No he didn't.
You are, as usual, wrong.
> [Mr. Curtis' love fest with Mr. Allison's defense of the indefensible]
Allow me to suggest that you grow up.
Kenneth Childress
>In article <388f44f3$0$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
> ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>> In article <86ncfl$kkm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <mscu...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>> "proof" to the claim.
>
>What wording is bogus. Are you suggesting the treating is a fraud?
>Can't you be a little more clear?
Have you never read the treaty? The part of the treaty that "says" the
US is not a Christian nation, Article 11. That is the part of the
treaty that is suspect. In any case, it is meaningless to the
original poster's claims. Mr. Allison should know that, as should you.
[Defend Mr. Allison to someone else]
It is too funny watching you and Mr. Allison take me to task for calling
the original poster on his bogus statements. You guys should be
criticizing him rather than me. But, since his views obviously agree
more with yours than mine no matter how stupid his statements are, you
jump on my case.
--
Kenneth Childress
[...]
>Allow me to suggest that you grow up.
Who is the juvenile that spends his day reposting what I write out
of context? Most people consider that quite dishonest. Seems to me
there are others that deserve that admonition far more than I.
--
Mike Curtis
>In article <86nn12$tbq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <mscu...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>In article <388f44f3$0$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
>> ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>>> In article <86ncfl$kkm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <mscu...@my-deja.com>
>>wrote:
>>> That the wording in this treaty, which is subject at best, is any
>>> "proof" to the claim.
>>
>>What wording is bogus. Are you suggesting the treating is a fraud?
>>Can't you be a little more clear?
>
>Have you never read the treaty? The part of the treaty that "says" the
>US is not a Christian nation, Article 11.
Yes. It was written in the Adams administration. It's in the treaty.
It's a statement accepted by one or more of the framers. So what's
your problem?
> That is the part of the
>treaty that is suspect. In any case, it is meaningless to the
>original poster's claims. Mr. Allison should know that, as should you.
I can read what the treaty says. You seem to be the one with the
problem.
>[Defend Mr. Allison to someone else]
I'm not defending Alison at this point. I'm reading the treaty.
>It is too funny watching you and Mr. Allison take me to task for calling
>the original poster on his bogus statements. You guys should be
>criticizing him rather than me. But, since his views obviously agree
>more with yours than mine no matter how stupid his statements are, you
>jump on my case.
You don't have a clue what my views are Childress. You're too busy
making assumptions about people you don't know. You basically want to
fight rather than learn.
Mike Curtis
Mike Curtis
Rick Gardiner
>
> >:|Please list the ones, that would comprise most, had open contempt for
> >:|Christianity and the Bible?
>
> Oh brother.
>
> For someone who frequently has been chided for using "absolute" comments
> you have room to challenge someone else on such.
> The poster should have said many did, or some did.
I agree that the poster may have been best off saying "some did," but even
then it would be a major challenge to demonstrate it.
> I do believe I posted and cited something very recently in one of these
> threads that said the same thing. Didn't you read it?
>
> Should I go and try and find it for you?
> ==============================================================
>
> At the time of the Revolution most of the founding fathers had not put
> much emotional stock in religion, even when they were regular churchgoers.
If they were regular churchgoers, then the poster's claim that "the founders
had open contempt for Christianity" is unsupportable. Why you go out on a limb
in attempt to defend these radical claims is beyond me. Over the last year or
so you have shown that you know better than to try to defend these
indefensible claims.
> As enlightened gentlemen, they abhorred "that gloomy superstition
> disseminated by ignorant illiberal preachers" and looked forward to the day
> when "the phantom of darkness will be dispelled by the rays of science, and
> the bright charms of rising civilization." At best, most of the
> revolutionary gentry only passively believed in organized Christianity and,
> at worst, privately scorned and ridiculed it.
I would think that you should know that "openly" (cf, the poster youre
defending), and "privately" (cf your source here) are two very different things.
> Jefferson hated orthodox
> clergymen,
Too broad. Unsupportable. Both of Jefferson's tutors as a young man were
clergymen. Jefferson supported the pastor of his Ablemarle church in starting
a new church when he was defrocked from the anglican church. Jefferson
certainly demonstrated no hatred toward his Continental Congress colleague,
J.Witherspoon.
> and he repeatedly denounced the "priestcraft" for having
> converted Christianity into "an engine for enslaving mankind, . . . into a
> mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves."
If you look at this whole quote you will find that Jefferson was saying that
the Pure Christianity of Jesus was excellent, but that clerics latter
corrupted it. This is not a rejection of the Christian religion, per se, but a
rejection of the corruptions within it.
> Although few of
> them were outright deists, most like David Ramsay described the Christian
> church as "the best temple of reason." Even puritanical John Adams thought
> that the argument for Christ's divinity was an "awful blasphemy" in this
> new enlightened age. When Hamilton was asked why the members of the
> Philadelphia Convention had not recognized God in the Constitution, he
> allegedly replied, speaking for many of his liberal colleagues, "We
> forgot."
alledgedly.
> "Though the cool deism of Washington can hardly be distinguished in broad
> outline from that of Jefferson, the public reaction to the two men and
> their religious views differed sharply. Only Jefferson was denounced as the
> 'howling atheist,' never Washington. Only Jefferson was attacked as the
> enemy of the churches and the clergy, never Washington. A curious public
> probed and punches Adams, Franklin and Jefferson regarding their Christian
> convictions, but never Washington."
> Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper
> & Row, (1987) pp 77
You have repeatedly cited this secondary source citation. I have never seen
you post any direct evidence from Washington's writings themselves, which give
firm proof that he was a deist.
And if anyone would have those writings archived away and ready to fling into
this newsgroup, you would.
So let's face it, they aren't out there, are they?
> [me]
> >:|> There is at least one letter where he gets down on his son for being such a
> >:|> orthodox Christian.
> >:|
>
> [Gardiner]
> >:|Sounds like a distortion. Citations?
> >:|
>
> [me]
> LOL
>
> The founders were not as easy to classify as you would like to think and
> try so hard to tell others.
>
> They were complex, as most humans are, and that complexity extended to
> their religious beliefs and thoughts as well.
Indeed they were complex. So to say that they were all "openly comtemptuous of
Christianity" is a tremendously erroneous assertion. This is what the poster
you are defending said. And in spite of your insistence to the contrary, the
poster's assertion is TOTALLY BOGUS.
RG
Gardiner
>
> >>What wording is bogus. Are you suggesting the treating is a fraud?
> >>Can't you be a little more clear?
> >
> >Have you never read the treaty? The part of the treaty that "says" the
> >US is not a Christian nation, Article 11.
>
> Yes. It was written in the Adams administration. It's in the treaty.
> It's a statement accepted by one or more of the framers. So what's
> your problem?
Since when did John Adams become one of the framers of the constitution?
> >That is the part of the
> >treaty that is suspect. In any case, it is meaningless to the
> >original poster's claims. Mr. Allison should know that, as should you.
>
> I can read what the treaty says. You seem to be the one with the
> problem.
It is also a "treaty" in which the U.S. encouraged native americans to build
churches and learn the religion of Jesus Christ.
In that regard, Alison is sure to say that the status of a treaty does not have
constitutional import.
"You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the
religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than
you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise
intention."
George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John Fitzpatrick, ed.
(Washington: U.S. Gov't Printing Office, 1932).
It's incredible the way you fellows talk out of both sides of your mouth.
buc...@exis.net
>:|In article <jd0u8s0pcr8u7d6hp...@4ax.com>,
>:| <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>:|>ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>:|>
>:|>>:|In article <3i6p8scj0844h1bru...@4ax.com>,
>:|>>:|Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote:
>:|>>:|>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:07:27 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
>:|>>:|>wrote:
>:|>>:|>
>:|>>:|>>Religion was a formative influence in the early life of America
>:|>>:|>
>:|>>:|>But Christianity had no part in it. The founders even stated that
>:|>>:|>this is NOT a Christian nation. Most of them had open contempt for
>:|>>:|>Christianity and its bible.
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|Which ones made such a statement that this is "NOT a Christian nation"?
>:|>
>:|>Again? How many times have you asked this question over the years and had
>:|>it answered?
>:|
>:|WOW!! I'm surprised to see you chime in in defense of one who made
>:|quite a number of stupid claims in his post.
In reading over you reply I don't see where you have supplied anything,
either in the form of evidence, facts or even opinion that proves he made a
number of stupid claims.
he made claims that he got carried away with, that is true and over stated
them. he made claims that you obviously disagree with, that is true as
well.
A number of stupid claims? That seems to rest pretty much in your own
thinking.
>:|
>:|>SEE:
>:|>http://members.tripod.com/~candst/linksidx.htm#tripoli
>:|
>:|And you should know as well as anyone how bogus this particular claim
>:|is. Sheesh.
I should know better then anyone how bogus this particular claim is?
I fail to see anything that would show me the 'truth 'of your reply?
Did you forget to provide your evidence?
Why should I better then anyone know that--in your opinion-- it is a bogus
claim?
Are you saying that article 11 did not appear in the treaty that the Senate
ratified and President John Adams signed into law?
-------------------------------------------------------
JUNE 10, 1797
ARTICLE 11. As the government of the United States of America is
not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself
no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
Mussulmans; and, as the said States never entered into any was, or act of
hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that
no pretext, arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: TREATY OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE BEY AND SUBJECTS OF BARBARY
Communicated to the Senate, May 26, 179, American State Papers, Class I,
Foreign Relations, Volume, II, Page 154) (The treaty was made under the
administration of George Washington, and was signed and sealed at Tripoli
on the fourth Day of November, 1796, and at Algiers the third day of
January, 1797, by Hassan Bashaw, Dey of Algiers, and Joel Barlow, Counsul-
General of the United States
AMERICAN STATE PAPERS Bearing On Sunday Legislation, Revised and Enlarged
Edition, Compiled and Annotated by William Addison Blakely, Revised Edition
Edited by Willard Allen Colcord, The Religious Liberty Association,
Washington D.C. 1911, pp 153)
*It was ratified by the U.S. Senate June 7, 1797 and signed into law by
President John Adams June 10, 1797.*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now what is bogus about it?
>:| or
>:|>http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
>:|>
>:|>[sometimes the top link doesn't work, so if you have trouble with it try
>:|>the bottom.]
>:|>
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|Please list the ones, that would comprise most, had open contempt for
>:|>>:|Christianity and the Bible?
>:|>
>:|>Oh brother.
>:|
>:|Oh brother yourself. He said most. That would mean that is should be
>:|easy to list about 30 or 40 or so founders that had open contempt. I'm
>:|not even expecting quotes, because I know that his claim can't be
>:|substantiated.
Well as usual, you do you standard and delete all evidence that supports
the material you disagree with.
Let's se what you felt threatened by. (there was a observation I read by
someone who loved de ja news because he said that there were ways that you
could combine various posts, thus putting back that which someone deleted
when he or she replied to the original post. He stated that it was far more
educational and revealing to see what a person deletes then it was to read
what they left in. I tend to agree with that. People tend to delete that
which damages them far more then retain it.)
==============================================================
At the time of the Revolution **most** of the founding fathers had not
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There you go. that is what you deleted. Now, there are no numbers given
there but gee I do see the word **most** used.
Two things I know for certain, Gordon S Wood is more qualified then you,
for certain, and more so then I am, in this area. I also know that where
and when there evidence to back it up he has no problem giving credit to
religion, etc in his publications.
>:|
>:|You would have been better to have chimed in with your "your
>:|unsubstantiated claim is noted" rather than trying to defend stupid
>:|statements.
The only one coming across stupid is you. In addition, I don't have to
insert the unsubstantiated claim, because you know full well you are
supplying nothing to back up your claims and I see Mike has already noted
you are providing nothing but your usual.
>:|
>:|[...]
Returned deleted material.
>:|
>:|>>:|>>Many people in this group, such as Alison and Sinclair, attempt to avoid it with
>:|>>:|>>sleight of hand logic which attempts to minimize the dominant Protestant
>:|>>:|>>influences
>:|>>:|>
>:|>>:|>The dominant religious influence of the early US was deism, not any
>:|>>:|>form of Christianity.
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|Which founders were deists?
>:|>
>:|>In all the times you have lurked around here, you have never read anything?
>:|>
>:|>Sheesh.
>:|
>:|The claim about Washington is dubious at best.
Dubious, says who? You? You have anything to offer to show it is dubious?
you have read the various books cited?
==========================================================
[Gardiner]
>:|Citations?
>:|
[me]
Ok,
For Washington:
==============================================================
Franklin, probably.
>:|Jefferson, maybe. Where's the rest of this big list?
>:|
>:|Come on, Mr. Allison, you're really hurting in this one.
LOL, I'm hurting, why because you proclaim me to be hurting? Yea right.
Opinion and arguments may lead to evidence and facts but arguments and
opinions are not evidence or fact.
I still don't see you providing anything outside of yourself to refute what
I have given or even what the original poster has given. I know after five
years, that your knowledge level in this area put a lot of value to your
unsubstantiated opinions.
>:|
>:|[...]
>:|
>:|>The founders were not as easy to classify as you would like to think and
>:|>try so hard to tell others.
>:|
>:|No kidding. Then why are you getting on my case for asking one to
>:|backup their stupid claims?
You make the same mistake that Gardiner is always making. You both seem to
get confused about who I am responding to. I am addressing your comments,
not the other fella.
Why am I "getting on" your "case" I can answer that two ways.
(1) I actually didn't se the other fella's post before I saw your reply to
it. I actually corrected him in the process of replying to you
(2) ask yourself why you respond with your --I don't approve-- public
comments to those who disagree with Gardiner but are never seen to take
Gardiner to task or hold Gardiner to the same standard in your public
posting.publc posting.
You see your comments to those who disagree with Gardiner are there in the
public for all to see, but people only have you saying you have climbed
Gardiner's frame and him saying you have climbed his frame about some of
his posts. problem is, there are none in the public for anyone to see.
Now maybe if you asked yourself that question and was perfectly honest with
yourself when you answered, maybe you would gain great insight into a lot
of things, but probably not.
>:|
>:|>They were complex, as most humans are, and that complexity extended to
>:|>their religious beliefs and thoughts as well.
>:|
>:|So, jump on the original poster's case for making such ridiculous
>:|statements rather than me for calling him on it.
I didn't't find his statements ridiculous, A bit over said, but then, I
provided information from people far more knowledgable that tended to agree
with him, at least a lot more then you are willing to concede.
>:|
>:|[cut and paste fest]
Readers will note that what Childress has deleted disagrees with his
comments, damages his position. That what was deleted came from several
sources, including words of men who actually lived at that time and was
concerned about the spread of Deism, for example.
In other words what was deleted by Childless was material that shown
without a doubt that the very things he claims are bogus and stupid are far
less bogus and stupid then he wants to have people believe.
So, who here is really interested in facts and truth and who is interested
in trying to protect at all costs what they want to believe and have you,
the readers believe?
Do you note the similarities between Childress's tactics and those of
Gardiner's. No wonder they echo each other.
>:|
>:|>>:|>> It is an entertaining magic show, but deep
>:|>>:|>>down we all know it is just an illusion.
>:|>>:|>
>:|>>:|>Oh, you know that they were Protestants because you know it -
>:|>>:|>regardless of what the men themselves said, huh?
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|Generally speaking, by reading what the men wrote is how we determine
>:|>>:|their religious beliefs. In fact, that is exactly how we know that your
>:|>>:|statements are totally bogus.
>:|>
>:|>Well, then you need to read more then, because while the poster, like
>:|>Gardiner overstating his case in many respects, what he did say is far
>:|>from being "totally bogus."
>:|
>:|No, his claims are totally bogus. There were a couple of Deists among
>:|the Founders, and there was some Deistic influence, but no where near
>:|tha degree the poster claimed.
Some of the experts disagree with you.
>:|
>:|>Incorrect by being overstated in some instances, yes, but totally bogus,
>:|>no.
>:|
>:|Yes, absolutely bogus.
Cant; be absolutely bogus when even you concede there was influence. When
there was fear on the part of some from the religious community in 1784-86
of the spreading Deism, as they saw it into Virginia.
Why didn't you leave the evidence and then under each portion of evidence
just say, I Ken Childress say this is bogus! LOL
You are doing just that, only you are smart enough to delete all the
evidence that was provided because even you know how silly you would have
looked had you done that. so you do it by proxy and hope no one bothers to
look back at my original reply to you.
buc...@exis.net
ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
So there is no misunderstanding, are you going on record as claiming the
following?
SEE:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/linksidx.htm#tripoli
or
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
The information found at either site is
>:|absolutely bogus.
==============================================================
=================================================================
The above is
>:|absolutely bogus.
------------------------------------------------
The above is
>:|absolutely bogus.
---------------------------------------------
For Washington:
Well the book I have been citing:
George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller, Southern Methodist
University Press: Dallas TX (1962)
Then:
Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper
& Row, (1987) pp 71 - 85 has some good material
And don't forget this:
"Though the cool deism of Washington can hardly be distinguished in broad
outline from that of Jefferson, the public reaction to the two men and
their religious views differed sharply. Only Jefferson was denounced as the
'howling atheist,' never Washington. Only Jefferson was attacked as the
enemy of the churches and the clergy, never Washington. A curious public
probed and punches Adams, Franklin and Jefferson regarding their Christian
convictions, but never Washington."
Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper
& Row, (1987) pp 77
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And to his son a few months later, Adams expressed amazement that, after
all that had been written by samuel Clarke, Daniel Waterland, and Joseph
Priestly, John Quincy persisted in holding to the Athanasian creed.(18)
FOOTNOTE:
(18) JA to John Quincy Adams, November 3, 1815; Adams Papers, reel 122 On
January 3, 1817, John Quincy Adams wrote his father that all his "hopes
of a future life" were "founded upon the Gospel of Christ." Nor, he added,
would he "cavil or quibble away" was seemed to him clear assertions by
Jesus that he was God."You see my orthodoxy grows upon me." Adrienne Koch
and William Peden, eds., The Selected Writings of John and John Quincy
Adams (New York, 1946), 291-92
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation,
Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper and Row, (1987) pp 90
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is
>:|absolutely bogus.
---------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
The above is
>:|absolutely bogus.
---------------------------------------------
Deist, or Unitarian, or Quaker, or indifferent, it is a general accepted
fact that four, maybe as many five or six of the first presidents were not
all that orthodox in their religious convictions.
The same can be said for a fair numbor of other leaders or influential men
of the founding period and periods that immediately followed.
By the late 1820s and there was real concern by many of the religious
conservatives/tradionalists about the rapid secularization of the nation
and its institutions. Men such as the Rev Jasper Adams, Supreme Court
Justice Joseph Story and others published material in the early 1830s
designed, in part, to try and reverse the trends they saw taking place.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is
>:|absolutely bogus.
---------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, disestablishment was an accomplished fact, a social
symptom of declining interest in organized Christianity. Church-going in
Virginia had long been on the decline as communicants found more reasons
for attending Sunday horse races or code fights than for being in pews. In
1784 a foreign traveler in Richmond noted that the village had only "one
small church, but [it was] spacious enough for all the pious souls of the
place and the region. If the Virginians themselves did not freely and
openly admit that zeal for religion, and religion generally, is now very
faint among them, the fact might easily be divined from other
circumstances" (Schoepf, Travels in the Confederation, 11, 62).
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The papers of James Madison, Volume 8, March 10,
1784- March 28, 1786. Edited by Robert A. Rutland, William M.E. Rachal.
The University of Chicago Press, (1973) pp 295-298
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is
>:|absolutely bogus.
---------------------------------------------
. . . While at least thirteen of JM's petitions were circulated (and in
time bore 1,552 signatures), another (and still anonymous) petition writer
found that his attack on the "Teachers of Christian Religion" measure
gained more widespread support. Twenty-nine petitions, signed by 4,899
Virginians, came from the pen of this unknown opponent of a church-state
tie. These petitions were based on an argument that carries beyond JM's-the
General Assessment bill was not only contrary to the Virginia Declaration
of Rights and to the enlightened republicanism pronounced there, but the
proposed act was in conflict with "the Spirit of the Gospel." Whoever wrote
this petition, which was easily the most popular of the several circulating
protests, was clearly an active Christian who believed the General
Assessment bill would do nothing to check "that Deism with its banefull
Influence [which] is spreading itself over the state" (Vi: Westmoreland
County petition).
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The papers of James Madison, Volume 8, March 10,
1784- March 28, 1786. Edited by Robert A. Rutland, William M.E. Rachal.
The University of Chicago Press, (1973) pp 295-298
------------------------------------------
The above is
>:|absolutely bogus.
---------------------------------------------
buc...@exis.net
>:|In article <86ncfl$kkm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <mscu...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>:|>In article <388f231c$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
>:|
>:|That the wording in this treaty, which is subject at best, is any
>:|"proof" to the claim.
subject at best to what?
It is a legal document debated and ratified by the U S Senate. It was
signed by the president of the U S.
It is far more "proof" to his claim then anything you have offered,
especially since you have offered nothing other then what you say.
>:|>> >>:|Please list the ones, that would comprise most, had open contempt
>:|>for
>:|>> >>:|Christianity and the Bible?
>:|>> >
>:|>> >Oh brother.
>:|>>
>:|>> Oh brother yourself. He said most.
>:|>
>:|>Then accept the corrective that Alison offerred and quite squabbling
>:|>with *everyone* simply because you don't agree with them. Sometimes
>:|>those you disagree are correct.
>:|
>:|Mr. Allison corrected nothing.
I said:
----------------------------------
Oh brother.
For someone who frequently has been chided for using "absolute" comments
you have room to challenge someone else on such.
The poster should have said many did, or some did.
--------------------------------------------
>:|
>:|>> That would mean that is should be
>:|>> easy to list about 30 or 40 or so founders that had open contempt.
>:|>I'm
>:|>> not even expecting quotes, because I know that his claim can't be
>:|>> substantiated.
>:|>
>:|>Sort of goes along with many of the claims you make and won't
>:|>substantiate. Seems there may be more than 1 person not substantiating
>:|>their claims and I place you in that crowd. But oyu are willing to
>:|>throw the first stone.
>:|
>:|Whine, whine, whine.
>:|
Irrelevant
It is noted that there was no denial offered by Childress.
>:|>> You would have been better to have chimed in with your "your
>:|>> unsubstantiated claim is noted" rather than trying to defend stupid
>:|>> statements.
>:|>
>:|>I do think he supplied a corrective.
>:|
>:|No he didn't.
I said:
----------------------------------
Oh brother.
For someone who frequently has been chided for using "absolute" comments
you have room to challenge someone else on such.
The poster should have said many did, or some did.
--------------------------------------------
AND
Well, then you need to read more then, because while the poster, like
Gardiner overstating his case in many respects, what he did say is far
from being "totally bogus."
Incorrect by being overstated in some instances, yes, but totally bogus,
no.
----------------------
>:|
>:|[Mr. Curtis' love fest with Mr. Allison's defense of the indefensible]
Still looking for al that evidence that is going to "prove" your comments
and disagreement true.
But then, any one knowing your history knows that is rare in coming.
Kenneth Childress
>>>In article <388f44f3$0$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
>>>Can't you be a little more clear?
>>
>>Have you never read the treaty? The part of the treaty that "says" the
>>US is not a Christian nation, Article 11.
>
>Yes. It was written in the Adams administration. It's in the treaty.
>It's a statement accepted by one or more of the framers. So what's
>your problem?
Actually, it was written during the Washington administration, but
signed by Adams.
Article 11 - Inserted by the translator, Barlow. Article 11 doesn't
appear in the Arabic original. It was also removed from the translated
version when the treaty was renewed. So what does that all mean?
I'll say it means that when the treaty was renewed they realized their
mistake and that the US really is founded on the Christian religion, so
they removed Article 11, which shouldn't have been there in the first
place.
What? You don't like that interpretation? Why not? It's every bit as
valid as the original poster's claim.
>> That is the part of the
>>treaty that is suspect. In any case, it is meaningless to the
>>original poster's claims. Mr. Allison should know that, as should you.
>
>I can read what the treaty says. You seem to be the one with the
>problem.
Explain how Article 11 got in the treaty. Why was it removed later?
Why should any significance be attributed to Article 11 in the first
place?
>>[Defend Mr. Allison to someone else]
>
>I'm not defending Alison at this point. I'm reading the treaty.
Not very well, apparently.
[snip personal attack]
At least, that's what you'd say if I wrote your words. :-)
Maybe I should just post this without your comments to save Mr. Allison
the trouble of editing them out? Naw, he needs a hobby. :-)
--
mscu...@my-deja.com
Fine. Who wrote it?
> Article 11 - Inserted by the translator, Barlow. Article 11 doesn't
> appear in the Arabic original. It was also removed from the
translated
> version when the treaty was renewed. So what does that all mean?
I don't know, you tell me. This isn't my subject area.
> I'll say it means that when the treaty was renewed they realized their
> mistake and that the US really is founded on the Christian religion,
so
> they removed Article 11, which shouldn't have been there in the first
> place.
And this speculation is based on what? Who are "they?"
> What? You don't like that interpretation? Why not? It's every bit
as
> valid as the original poster's claim.
Substantiate it.
> >> That is the part of the
> >>treaty that is suspect. In any case, it is meaningless to the
> >>original poster's claims. Mr. Allison should know that, as should
you.
> >
> >I can read what the treaty says. You seem to be the one with the
> >problem.
>
> Explain how Article 11 got in the treaty.
You tell me. I'm asking. I don't speak Arabic either and you must, so
I'm depending upon you.
> Why was it removed later?
You tell me.
> Why should any significance be attributed to Article 11 in the first
> place?
Beats me. Why do you think that is?
Maybe Mr. Alison can explain it to me. Or maybe there is someone who
complained about historical discussion not happening and would like to
step in?
Kenneth Childress
<buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>
>ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>
>
>So there is no misunderstanding, are you going on record as claiming the
>following?
No, I'm stating that the following is bogus. Attempts to justify the
following may or may not have some validity in and of themselves.
However, they make the following no less bogus.
------
In article <3i6p8scj0844h1bru...@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:07:27 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Religion was a formative influence in the early life of America
>
>But Christianity had no part in it. The founders even stated that
>this is NOT a Christian nation. Most of them had open contempt for
>Christianity and its bible.
------
--
Kenneth Childress
>In article <38906b7d$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
> ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>> In article <2v4v8s8eft2s2cgsf...@4ax.com>,
>wrote:
>> >>>In article <388f44f3$0$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
>> >>> ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>> >>>> In article <86ncfl$kkm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <mscu...@my-deja.com>
>> >>>wrote:
>> >>>> >In article <388f231c$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
>> >>>> > ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>> >>>> >> <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>> >>>> >> >ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>> >>>> >> >
>> >>>> >> >>:|Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote:
>> >>>> >> >>:|>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:07:27 -0600, Gardiner
>> >>>> ><Gard...@pitnet.net>
>> >>>> >> >>:|>wrote:
>> >>>> >> >>:|>
>> >>>> >> >>:|>>Religion was a formative influence in the early life of
>> >>>America
>> >>>> >> >>:|>
>> >>>> >> >>:|>But Christianity had no part in it. The founders even
>stated
>> >>>> >that
>> >>>> >> >>:|>this is NOT a Christian nation. Most of them had open
>> >>>contempt
>> >>>> >for
>> >>>> >> >>:|>Christianity and its bible.
>> >>>> >> >>:|Which ones made such a statement that this is "NOT a
>Christian
I don't recall. The original was Arabic. The point is, it wasn't
written by Washington or Adams.
>> Article 11 - Inserted by the translator, Barlow. Article 11 doesn't
>> appear in the Arabic original. It was also removed from the
>translated
>> version when the treaty was renewed. So what does that all mean?
>
>I don't know, you tell me. This isn't my subject area.
It wasn't as important as some want to make it out to be.
>> I'll say it means that when the treaty was renewed they realized their
>> mistake and that the US really is founded on the Christian religion,
>so
>> they removed Article 11, which shouldn't have been there in the first
>> place.
>
>And this speculation is based on what? Who are "they?"
It is something I made up to illustrate a counter point to the original
poster's claim. I don't recall the specifics of why the Article was
removed.
>> What? You don't like that interpretation? Why not? It's every bit
>as
>> valid as the original poster's claim.
>
>Substantiate it.
After the original claim is substantiated.
>> >> That is the part of the
>> >>treaty that is suspect. In any case, it is meaningless to the
>> >>original poster's claims. Mr. Allison should know that, as should
>you.
>> >
>> >I can read what the treaty says. You seem to be the one with the
>> >problem.
>>
>> Explain how Article 11 got in the treaty.
>
>You tell me. I'm asking. I don't speak Arabic either and you must, so
>I'm depending upon you.
It was inserted by the translator. Why exactly I'm not sure is known.
>> Why was it removed later?
>
>You tell me.
I don't recall. I don't think it is a significant issue.
>> Why should any significance be attributed to Article 11 in the first
>> place?
>
>Beats me. Why do you think that is?
Why what is? Personally, I don't think there is much significance to
the Article. It certainly doesn't show universal disdain for
Christianity by the founders ala the original claim. It certainly
doesn't invalidate or neutralize the influence of religion and
Christianity to the foundation of this country as any number of
organizations like to claim.
--
buc...@exis.net
>:|In article <jd0u8s0pcr8u7d6hp...@4ax.com>,
>:| <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>:|>ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>:|>
>:|>>:|In article <3i6p8scj0844h1bru...@4ax.com>,
>:|>>:|Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote:
>:|>>:|>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:07:27 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
>:|>>:|>wrote:
>:|>>:|>
>:|>>:|>>Religion was a formative influence in the early life of America
>:|>>:|>
>:|>>:|>But Christianity had no part in it. The founders even stated that
>:|>>:|>this is NOT a Christian nation. Most of them had open contempt for
>:|>>:|>Christianity and its bible.
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|Which ones made such a statement that this is "NOT a Christian nation"?
>:|>
>:|>Again? How many times have you asked this question over the years and had
>:|>it answered?
>:|
>:|WOW!! I'm surprised to see you chime in in defense of one who made
>:|quite a number of stupid claims in his post.
In reading over you reply I don't see where you have supplied anything,
either in the form of evidence, facts or even opinion that proves he made a
number of stupid claims.
he made claims that he got carried away with, that is true and over stated
them. he made claims that you obviously disagree with, that is true as
well.
A number of stupid claims? That seems to rest pretty much in your own
thinking.
>:|
>:|>SEE:
>:|>http://members.tripod.com/~candst/linksidx.htm#tripoli
>:|
>:|And you should know as well as anyone how bogus this particular claim
>:|is. Sheesh.
-------------------------------------------------------
JUNE 10, 1797
>:| or
>:|>http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
>:|>
>:|>[sometimes the top link doesn't work, so if you have trouble with it try
>:|>the bottom.]
>:|>
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|Please list the ones, that would comprise most, had open contempt for
>:|>>:|Christianity and the Bible?
>:|>
>:|>Oh brother.
>:|
>:|Oh brother yourself. He said most. That would mean that is should be
>:|easy to list about 30 or 40 or so founders that had open contempt. I'm
>:|not even expecting quotes, because I know that his claim can't be
>:|substantiated.
Well as usual, you do you standard and delete all evidence that supports
the material you disagree with.
Let's se what you felt threatened by. (there was a observation I read by
someone who loved de ja news because he said that there were ways that you
could combine various posts, thus putting back that which someone deleted
when he or she replied to the original post. He stated that it was far more
educational and revealing to see what a person deletes then it was to read
what they left in. I tend to agree with that. People tend to delete that
which damages them far more then retain it.)
==============================================================
At the time of the Revolution **most** of the founding fathers had not
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There you go. that is what you deleted. Now, there are no numbers given
there but gee I do see the word **most** used.
Two things I know for certain, Gordon S Wood is more qualified then you,
for certain, and more so then I am, in this area. I also know that where
and when there evidence to back it up he has no problem giving credit to
religion, etc in his publications.
>:|
>:|You would have been better to have chimed in with your "your
>:|unsubstantiated claim is noted" rather than trying to defend stupid
>:|statements.
The only one coming across stupid is you. In addition, I don't have to
insert the unsubstantiated claim, because you know full well you are
supplying nothing to back up your claims and I see Mike has already noted
you are providing nothing but your usual.
>:|
>:|[...]
Returned deleted material.
>:|
>:|>>:|>>Many people in this group, such as Alison and Sinclair, attempt to avoid it with
>:|>>:|>>sleight of hand logic which attempts to minimize the dominant Protestant
>:|>>:|>>influences
>:|>>:|>
>:|>>:|>The dominant religious influence of the early US was deism, not any
>:|>>:|>form of Christianity.
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|Which founders were deists?
>:|>
>:|>In all the times you have lurked around here, you have never read anything?
>:|>
>:|>Sheesh.
>:|
>:|The claim about Washington is dubious at best.
Dubious, says who? You? You have anything to offer to show it is dubious?
you have read the various books cited?
==========================================================
From: "Paul Browning" <ps...@home.com>
[Gardiner]
>:|Citations?
>:|
[me]
Ok,
For Washington:
==============================================================
Franklin, probably.
>:|Jefferson, maybe. Where's the rest of this big list?
>:|
>:|Come on, Mr. Allison, you're really hurting in this one.
LOL, I'm hurting, why because you proclaim me to be hurting? Yea right.
Opinion and arguments may lead to evidence and facts but arguments and
opinions are not evidence or fact.
I still don't see you providing anything outside of yourself to refute what
I have given or even what the original poster has given. I know after five
years, that your knowledge level in this area put a lot of value to your
unsubstantiated opinions.
>:|
>:|[...]
>:|
>:|>The founders were not as easy to classify as you would like to think and
>:|>try so hard to tell others.
>:|
>:|No kidding. Then why are you getting on my case for asking one to
>:|backup their stupid claims?
You make the same mistake that Gardiner is always making. You both seem to
get confused about who I am responding to. I am addressing your comments,
not the other fella.
Why am I "getting on" your "case" I can answer that two ways.
(1) I actually didn't se the other fella's post before I saw your reply to
it. I actually corrected him in the process of replying to you
(2) ask yourself why you respond with your --I don't approve-- public
comments to those who disagree with Gardiner but are never seen to take
Gardiner to task or hold Gardiner to the same standard in your public
posting.publc posting.
You see your comments to those who disagree with Gardiner are there in the
public for all to see, but people only have you saying you have climbed
Gardiner's frame and him saying you have climbed his frame about some of
his posts. problem is, there are none in the public for anyone to see.
Now maybe if you asked yourself that question and was perfectly honest with
yourself when you answered, maybe you would gain great insight into a lot
of things, but probably not.
>:|
>:|>They were complex, as most humans are, and that complexity extended to
>:|>their religious beliefs and thoughts as well.
>:|
>:|So, jump on the original poster's case for making such ridiculous
>:|statements rather than me for calling him on it.
I didn't't find his statements ridiculous, A bit over said, but then, I
provided information from people far more knowledgable that tended to agree
with him, at least a lot more then you are willing to concede.
>:|
>:|[cut and paste fest]
Readers will note that what Childress has deleted disagrees with his
comments, damages his position. That what was deleted came from several
sources, including words of men who actually lived at that time and was
concerned about the spread of Deism, for example.
In other words what was deleted by Childless was material that shown
without a doubt that the very things he claims are bogus and stupid are far
less bogus and stupid then he wants to have people believe.
So, who here is really interested in facts and truth and who is interested
in trying to protect at all costs what they want to believe and have you,
the readers believe?
Do you note the similarities between Childress's tactics and those of
Gardiner's. No wonder they echo each other.
>:|
>:|>>:|>> It is an entertaining magic show, but deep
>:|>>:|>>down we all know it is just an illusion.
>:|>>:|>
>:|>>:|>Oh, you know that they were Protestants because you know it -
>:|>>:|>regardless of what the men themselves said, huh?
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|Generally speaking, by reading what the men wrote is how we determine
>:|>>:|their religious beliefs. In fact, that is exactly how we know that your
>:|>>:|statements are totally bogus.
>:|>
>:|>Well, then you need to read more then, because while the poster, like
>:|>Gardiner overstating his case in many respects, what he did say is far
>:|>from being "totally bogus."
>:|
>:|No, his claims are totally bogus. There were a couple of Deists among
>:|the Founders, and there was some Deistic influence, but no where near
>:|tha degree the poster claimed.
Some of the experts disagree with you.
>:|
>:|>Incorrect by being overstated in some instances, yes, but totally bogus,
>:|>no.
>:|
>:|Yes, absolutely bogus.
Cant; be absolutely bogus when even you concede there was influence. When
there was fear on the part of some from the religious community in 1784-86
of the spreading Deism, as they saw it into Virginia.
Why didn't you leave the evidence and then under each portion of evidence
just say, I Ken Childress say this is bogus! LOL
You are doing just that, only you are smart enough to delete all the
evidence that was provided because even you know how silly you would have
looked had you done that. so you do it by proxy and hope no one bothers to
look back at my original reply to you.
**********************************************
buc...@exis.net
ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
So there is no misunderstanding, are you going on record as claiming the
following?
SEE:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/linksidx.htm#tripoli
or
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
The information found at either site is
>:|absolutely bogus.
==============================================================
=================================================================
The above is
>:|absolutely bogus.
------------------------------------------------
From: "Paul Browning" <ps...@home.com>
The above is
>:|absolutely bogus.
---------------------------------------------
For Washington:
Well the book I have been citing:
George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller, Southern Methodist
University Press: Dallas TX (1962)
Then:
Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper
& Row, (1987) pp 71 - 85 has some good material
And don't forget this:
"Though the cool deism of Washington can hardly be distinguished in broad
outline from that of Jefferson, the public reaction to the two men and
their religious views differed sharply. Only Jefferson was denounced as the
'howling atheist,' never Washington. Only Jefferson was attacked as the
enemy of the churches and the clergy, never Washington. A curious public
probed and punches Adams, Franklin and Jefferson regarding their Christian
convictions, but never Washington."
Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper
& Row, (1987) pp 77
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And to his son a few months later, Adams expressed amazement that, after
all that had been written by samuel Clarke, Daniel Waterland, and Joseph
Priestly, John Quincy persisted in holding to the Athanasian creed.(18)
FOOTNOTE:
(18) JA to John Quincy Adams, November 3, 1815; Adams Papers, reel 122 On
January 3, 1817, John Quincy Adams wrote his father that all his "hopes
of a future life" were "founded upon the Gospel of Christ." Nor, he added,
would he "cavil or quibble away" was seemed to him clear assertions by
Jesus that he was God."You see my orthodoxy grows upon me." Adrienne Koch
and William Peden, eds., The Selected Writings of John and John Quincy
Adams (New York, 1946), 291-92
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation,
Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper and Row, (1987) pp 90
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is
>:|absolutely bogus.
---------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
The above is
>:|absolutely bogus.
---------------------------------------------
Deist, or Unitarian, or Quaker, or indifferent, it is a general accepted
fact that four, maybe as many five or six of the first presidents were not
all that orthodox in their religious convictions.
The same can be said for a fair numbor of other leaders or influential men
of the founding period and periods that immediately followed.
By the late 1820s and there was real concern by many of the religious
conservatives/tradionalists about the rapid secularization of the nation
and its institutions. Men such as the Rev Jasper Adams, Supreme Court
Justice Joseph Story and others published material in the early 1830s
designed, in part, to try and reverse the trends they saw taking place.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is
>:|absolutely bogus.
---------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, disestablishment was an accomplished fact, a social
symptom of declining interest in organized Christianity. Church-going in
Virginia had long been on the decline as communicants found more reasons
for attending Sunday horse races or code fights than for being in pews. In
1784 a foreign traveler in Richmond noted that the village had only "one
small church, but [it was] spacious enough for all the pious souls of the
place and the region. If the Virginians themselves did not freely and
openly admit that zeal for religion, and religion generally, is now very
faint among them, the fact might easily be divined from other
circumstances" (Schoepf, Travels in the Confederation, 11, 62).
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The papers of James Madison, Volume 8, March 10,
1784- March 28, 1786. Edited by Robert A. Rutland, William M.E. Rachal.
The University of Chicago Press, (1973) pp 295-298
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is
>:|absolutely bogus.
---------------------------------------------
. . . While at least thirteen of JM's petitions were circulated (and in
time bore 1,552 signatures), another (and still anonymous) petition writer
found that his attack on the "Teachers of Christian Religion" measure
gained more widespread support. Twenty-nine petitions, signed by 4,899
Virginians, came from the pen of this unknown opponent of a church-state
tie. These petitions were based on an argument that carries beyond JM's-the
General Assessment bill was not only contrary to the Virginia Declaration
of Rights and to the enlightened republicanism pronounced there, but the
proposed act was in conflict with "the Spirit of the Gospel." Whoever wrote
this petition, which was easily the most popular of the several circulating
protests, was clearly an active Christian who believed the General
Assessment bill would do nothing to check "that Deism with its banefull
Influence [which] is spreading itself over the state" (Vi: Westmoreland
County petition).
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The papers of James Madison, Volume 8, March 10,
1784- March 28, 1786. Edited by Robert A. Rutland, William M.E. Rachal.
The University of Chicago Press, (1973) pp 295-298
------------------------------------------
The above is
>:|absolutely bogus.
---------------------------------------------
**********************************************
buc...@exis.net
>:|In article <86ncfl$kkm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <mscu...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>:|>In article <388f231c$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
>:|
>:|That the wording in this treaty, which is subject at best, is any
>:|"proof" to the claim.
subject at best to what?
It is a legal document debated and ratified by the U S Senate. It was
signed by the president of the U S.
It is far more "proof" to his claim then anything you have offered,
especially since you have offered nothing other then what you say.
>:|>> >>:|Please list the ones, that would comprise most, had open contempt
>:|>for
>:|>> >>:|Christianity and the Bible?
>:|>> >
>:|>> >Oh brother.
>:|>>
>:|>> Oh brother yourself. He said most.
>:|>
>:|>Then accept the corrective that Alison offerred and quite squabbling
>:|>with *everyone* simply because you don't agree with them. Sometimes
>:|>those you disagree are correct.
>:|
>:|Mr. Allison corrected nothing.
I said:
----------------------------------
Oh brother.
For someone who frequently has been chided for using "absolute" comments
you have room to challenge someone else on such.
The poster should have said many did, or some did.
--------------------------------------------
>:|
>:|>> That would mean that is should be
>:|>> easy to list about 30 or 40 or so founders that had open contempt.
>:|>I'm
>:|>> not even expecting quotes, because I know that his claim can't be
>:|>> substantiated.
>:|>
>:|>Sort of goes along with many of the claims you make and won't
>:|>substantiate. Seems there may be more than 1 person not substantiating
>:|>their claims and I place you in that crowd. But oyu are willing to
>:|>throw the first stone.
>:|
>:|Whine, whine, whine.
>:|
Irrelevant
It is noted that there was no denial offered by Childress.
>:|>> You would have been better to have chimed in with your "your
>:|>> unsubstantiated claim is noted" rather than trying to defend stupid
>:|>> statements.
>:|>
>:|>I do think he supplied a corrective.
>:|
>:|No he didn't.
I said:
----------------------------------
Oh brother.
For someone who frequently has been chided for using "absolute" comments
you have room to challenge someone else on such.
The poster should have said many did, or some did.
--------------------------------------------
AND
Well, then you need to read more then, because while the poster, like
Gardiner overstating his case in many respects, what he did say is far
from being "totally bogus."
Incorrect by being overstated in some instances, yes, but totally bogus,
no.
----------------------
>:|
>:|[Mr. Curtis' love fest with Mr. Allison's defense of the indefensible]
Still looking for al that evidence that is going to "prove" your comments
and disagreement true.
But then, any one knowing your history knows that is rare in coming.
Jeff Sinclair
ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
> In article <86q2pl$jlr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <mscu...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >In article <38906b7d$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
> > ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
> >> In article <2v4v8s8eft2s2cgsf...@4ax.com>,
> >> Mike Curtis <time...@flash.net> wrote:
<<snip>>
Wrong.
I have reproduced the following short essay in full as the full article
bears on the questions being bandied about.
From http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/tripoli.html
===============
Was and is the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli an official treaty of the USA?
Yes, all 12 articles as printed in English. See Treaties and Other
International Acts of the United States of America , Hunter Miller,
ed., 2:349-385:
“Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4,
1796, . . . and at Algiers January 3, 1797, . . . . Original in Arabic.
Submitted [in English] to the Senate May 29, 1797. (Message of May 26,
1797.) Resolution of advice and consent June 7, 1797. Ratified by the
United States June 10, 1797. . . . Proclaimed June 10, 1797” (p. 349).
“Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America
and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary” (p. 364).
“Article 11. As the government of the United States of America is not
in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no
character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of
Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or
act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the
parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever
produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two
countries” (p. 365).
“Thus the proclamation [June 10, 1797] was immediate with the
ratification and did not await any such formality as notice to the Bey
of Tripoli of the ratification of the treaty by the United States. The
treaty . . . had been bought; and, as much of the purchase price had
already been paid, any subsequent item of procedure was doubtless
considered to be of comparatively little importance.
“Note Regarding the Barlow Translation. The translation is that of
Barlow as written in the original treaty book, including not only the
twelve articles of the treaty proper, but also the receipt” (p. 383).
“It is to be remembered that the Barlow translation is that which was
submitted to the Senate . . . and which is printed in the Statutes at
Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text
which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the
treaty.
“The Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or
summary of the sense of the Arabic . . . . Most extraordinary (and
wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow
translation, with its famous phrase, ‘the government of the United
States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian
Religion,’ does not exist at all [in the Arabic]. There is no Article
11 [in the Arabic]. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12
is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant,
from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came
to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as
Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly
must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time
throws any light whatever on the point.
“A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the
Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the
just equivalent of the Arabic. Its text was not only formally
proclaimed as such but has been continuously printed and reprinted as
such . . . . The Italian translation of the Arabic text . . . presents
its own linguistic difficulties . . . it is none the less in essence a
reasonable translation of the Arabic. Indeed, allowing for the
crudeness of the original Arabic and the changes which always result
from a retranslation, it may be said . . . that the Barlow
translation . . . was ‘extremely erroneous’; but nothing indicating
that the Italian translation was even consulted has been found, and it
does not appear that it was ever before 1930 put into English” (p. 384).
Page 385: “When [James Leander] Cathcart, as the American Consul,
arrived at Tripoli on April 5, 1799, . . . ‘a ratified copy of the
Treaty with Tripoli’ [in the English language] was one of the
enclosures with the instructions to Cathcart . . . very likely the
ratification embraced the copy certified by Barlow under date of
January 4, 1797, . . . [and] was delivered upon the settlement of April
10, 1799.”
Conclusion: History revisionists of the so-called “religious right”
strain to repudiate the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli as irrelevant and
unofficial; they make much ado about the fact that Barlow’s version in
English was a poor paraphrase of the version in Arabic; and they grind
their teeth over the fact that it was the only English version in
existence and the only one considered when the Senate of the United
States read, accepted, approved, and ratified the 1797 Treaty with
Tripoli. The fact which completely destroys their argument is that none
of the Senators who read, accepted, approved, and ratified the Treaty
could read Arabic. The official and only 1797 Treaty with Tripoli which
was read, accepted, approved, and ratified by the Senate of the United
States was the one penned by Joel Barlow in the English language. And,
whether the so-called “religious right” revisionists like it or not,
Article 11 of the official 1797 Treaty with Tripoli was in the Treaty
in 1797 and is appropriately recorded in the official treaty book: “The
government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded
on the Christian Religion” (p. 365).
The 1797 Treaty with Tripoli was officially signed by President John
Adams, and “before the testimonium clause is this paragraph of
ratification and proclamation:
“Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of
America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same,
and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said
Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the
United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do
hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military
within the United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants
thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfil the said Treaty and every
clause and article thereof” (p. 383).
The official 1797 Treaty with Tripoli which President John Adams signed
and “ordered the premises [propositions] to be made public” included
Article 11 in the English language. As for the Treaty in Arabic, not
one Senator read it. The only Treaty which mattered to the Senators and
the President was the one in English. God bless America where all
citizens can accept whatever religion they choose and can practice it
freely--as long as they obey the laws of society.
===============
<<snip>>
> >> Why should any significance be attributed to Article 11 in the
first
> >> place?
> >
> >Beats me. Why do you think that is?
>
> Why what is? Personally, I don't think there is much significance to
> the Article. It certainly doesn't show universal disdain for
> Christianity by the founders ala the original claim. It certainly
> doesn't invalidate or neutralize the influence of religion and
> Christianity to the foundation of this country as any number of
> organizations like to claim.
While the article does not show a "universal disdain for Christianity
by the founders", it does support the assertion that this country is
not and never has been officially Christian, especially if one sees its
consistency with Article 6, Section 3 of the US Constitution, the
establishment clause of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, such
documents as Madison's _Memorial and Remonstrance_ (1785), Jefferson's
_Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom_ (1786), His letter to the
Danbury Baptist Association (1802), Madison's Vetoes of 1811, and
Madison's _Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, and Ecclesiastical
Endowments_. There are a number of later Supreme Court decisions also
echoing the fact that this is not officially a Christian nation (i.e.
Reynolds vs. U.S (1879), Everson vs. Board of Education (1947),
McCollum vs. Board of Education (1948), etc.).
This is important because it is consistent with these other precedent
setting documents and expresses concisely the intentions of those
constitutional clauses that these documents address.
--
"I have always been here" - Kosh
buc...@exis.net
>:|In article <msm09sc8d044q99vu...@4ax.com>,
>:| <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|>ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>:|>
>:|>
>:|>So there is no misunderstanding, are you going on record as claiming the
>:|>following?
>:|
>:|No, I'm stating that the following is bogus. Attempts to justify the
>:|following may or may not have some validity in and of themselves.
>:|However, they make the following no less bogus.
>:|
>:|------
>:|
>:|In article <3i6p8scj0844h1bru...@4ax.com>,
>:|Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote:
>:|>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:07:27 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
>:|>wrote:
>:|>
>:|>>Religion was a formative influence in the early life of America
>:|>
>:|>But Christianity had no part in it. The founders even stated that
>:|>this is NOT a Christian nation. Most of them had open contempt for
>:|>Christianity and its bible.
>:|
Well, I will be honest and say I am not sure what he meant with the first
sentence
>:|>But Christianity had no part in it.
I don't know if he thinking one thing and wrote another or not.
I suspect that he was meaning that the Christian religion was not
foundation of the government nor was Christianity incorporated into the
government, into the Constitution, etc.
In that he is correct.
Like it or not, evidence has been provided that supports this:
>:| The founders even stated that
>:|>this is NOT a Christian nation.
and some evidence has been provided that supports this are well:
>:| Most of them had open contempt for
>:|>Christianity and its bible.
Now, you on the other hand have only presented your opinion, which you keep
repeating over and over again, after you delete the evidence that has been
provided.
That does not constitute making your case.
(Of course, the other fella didn't make his case either I had to provide
evidence that did end up supporting his comments.)
buc...@exis.net
>:|In article <2v4v8s8eft2s2cgsf...@4ax.com>,
>:|Mike Curtis <time...@flash.net> wrote:
>:|>ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>:|>
>:|>>In article <86nn12$tbq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <mscu...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>:|>>>In article <388f44f3$0$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
>:|>>> ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>:|>>>> In article <86ncfl$kkm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <mscu...@my-deja.com>
>:|>>>wrote:
>:|>>>> >In article <388f231c$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
>:|>>>> > ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>:|>>>> >> In article <jd0u8s0pcr8u7d6hp...@4ax.com>,
>:|>>>> >> <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>:|>>>> >> >ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>:|>>>> >> >
>:|>>>> >> >>:|In article <3i6p8scj0844h1bru...@4ax.com>,
>:|>>>> >> >>:|Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote:
>:|>>>> >> >>:|>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:07:27 -0600, Gardiner
>:|>>>> ><Gard...@pitnet.net>
>:|>>>> >> >>:|>wrote:
>:|>>>> >> >>:|>
>:|>>>> >> >>:|>>Religion was a formative influence in the early life of
>:|>>>America
>:|>>>> >> >>:|>
>:|>>>> >> >>:|>But Christianity had no part in it. The founders even stated
>:|>>>> >that
>:|>>>> >> >>:|>this is NOT a Christian nation. Most of them had open
>:|>>>contempt
>:|>>>> >for
>:|>>>> >> >>:|>Christianity and its bible.
>:|>>>> >> >>:|
>:|>>>> >> >>:|Which ones made such a statement that this is "NOT a Christian
>:|>>>> >nation"?
>:|>>>> >> >
>:|>>>> >> >Again? How many times have you asked this question over the years
>:|>>>> >and had
>:|>>>> >> >it answered?
>:|>>>> >>
>:|>>>> >> WOW!! I'm surprised to see you chime in in defense of one who made
>:|>>>> >> quite a number of stupid claims in his post.
>:|>>>> >>
>:|>>>> >> >SEE:
>:|>>>> >> >http://members.tripod.com/~candst/linksidx.htm#tripoli
>:|>>>> >>
>:|>>>> >> And you should know as well as anyone how bogus this particular
>:|>>>claim
>:|>>>> >> is. Sheesh.
>:|>>>> >
>:|>>>> >What's bogus? Be specific.
>:|>>>>
>:|>>>> That the wording in this treaty, which is subject at best, is any
>:|>>>> "proof" to the claim.
>:|>>>
>:|>>>What wording is bogus. Are you suggesting the treating is a fraud?
>:|>>>Can't you be a little more clear?
>:|>>
>:|>>Have you never read the treaty? The part of the treaty that "says" the
>:|>>US is not a Christian nation, Article 11.
>:|>
>:|>Yes. It was written in the Adams administration. It's in the treaty.
>:|>It's a statement accepted by one or more of the framers. So what's
>:|>your problem?
>:|
>:|Actually, it was written during the Washington administration, but
>:|signed by Adams.
>:|
>:|Article 11 - Inserted by the translator, Barlow. Article 11 doesn't
>:|appear in the Arabic original. It was also removed from the translated
>:|version when the treaty was renewed. So what does that all mean?
>:|
>:|I'll say it means that when the treaty was renewed they realized their
>:|mistake and that the US really is founded on the Christian religion, so
>:|they removed Article 11, which shouldn't have been there in the first
>:|place.
>:|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUNE 10, 1797
ARTICLE 11. As the government of the United States of America is
not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself
no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
Mussulmans; and, as the said States never entered into any was, or act of
hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that
no pretext, arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: TREATY OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE BEY AND SUBJECTS OF BARBARY
Communicated to the Senate, May 26, 179, American State Papers, Class I,
Foreign Relations, Volume, II, Page 154)
(The treaty was made under the administration of George Washington, and was
signed and sealed at Tripoli on the fourth Day of November, 1796, and at
Algiers the third day of January, 1797, by Hassan Bashaw, Dey of Algiers,
and Joel Barlow, Counsul- General of the United States
AMERICAN STATE PAPERS Bearing On Sunday Legislation, Revised and Enlarged
Edition, Compiled and Annotated by William Addison Blakely, Revised Edition
Edited by Willard Allen Colcord, The Religious Liberty Association,
Washington D.C. 1911, pp 153)
*It was ratified by the U.S. Senate June 7, 1797 and signed into law by
President John Adams June 10, 1797.*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL 1806
ARTICLE XIV. AS the government of the United States of
America has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or
tranquillity of Mussulmen, and as the said States never have entered into
any voluntary war or act of hostility against any Mahometan except in
defense of their just rights to freely navigate the high seas, it is
declared by t he contracting parties that no pretext arising from religious
opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between
the two nations. And the consuls and agents of both nations respectively
shall have liberty to exercise his religion in his own house. All slaves of
the same religion shall not be impeded in going to said consul's house at
hours of prayer.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: TREATY OF PEACE, AMITY, AND COMMERCE BETWEEN THE
PRESIDENT AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE BASHA, BEY,
AND SUBJECTS OF TRIPOLI, IN BOMBAY, CONCLUDED JUNE 4, 1805; RATIFIED BY THE
SENATE APRIL 12, 1806, " Treaties and Conventions Concluded between the
United States of America and other Powers, Since July 4, 1776," published
by the
Department of State, 1889, page 1084, AMERICAN STATE PAPERS Bearing On
Sunday Legislation, Revised and Enlarged Edition, Compiled and Annotated by
William Addison Blakely, Revised Edition Edited by Willard Allen Colcord,
The Religious Liberty Association, Washington D.C. 1911, pp 164-165)
* Like the treaty of 1797, this treaty showed the government of the United
States to be impartial in matters of religion,--that it had no established
religion, and that the question of religion and religious opinion was not
to be considered in national affairs. It showed that it was not the policy
of this government to compel those within its jurisdiction, who are not
Christians, to act as though they were. *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|What? You don't like that interpretation? Why not? It's every bit as
>:|valid as the original poster's claim.
Actually it isn't all that valid.
Why not, because it leavers out the most important aspect. Article 11 (as
reproduced above) was in the treaty that was debated, ratified by the
Senate and signed by Adams.
So, how it got there and if it was or wasn't in the copy that ended up with
the other side becomes a bit irrelevant.
The American Senate saw it and ratified it with it in there, and the
American President saw it and signed it with it in there.
>:|
>:|>> That is the part of the
>:|>>treaty that is suspect. In any case, it is meaningless to the
>:|>>original poster's claims. Mr. Allison should know that, as should you.
>:|>
>:|>I can read what the treaty says. You seem to be the one with the
>:|>problem.
How dos he have a problem, because he doesn't agree with you, he has a
problem?
>:|
>:|Explain how Article 11 got in the treaty.
See above.
>:|Why was it removed later?
See Article 16 of the 1806.
Article 16 of the 1806 treaty accomplished the same thing. having said once
that this nation was not founded on the Christain religion (which it wasn't
and isn't) how many more times should those particular words be used in any
future treaty? Did they put anything in the 1806 treaty that reversed or
repealed the phrase in the earlier treaty?
No they didn't.
Now here we have a case of some wanting to have their cake and eat it to.
Some of these same people want to say that an official legal document
ratified by the U S Senate and signed into law by a U S President has not
meaning or importance, and that phrase in that document has should be
overlooked, while saying that the U S Supreme Court declared this is a
Christian Nation.
LOL, how ironic. They want to take dicta from a Supreme Court opinion and
claim it has official meaning , some even say it has legal meaning, while
wanting to ignore an article in an official and what was then legal
document.
(and might I add, a document that was debated, ratified and signed by men
of the founding generation, perhaps even some who did in fact attend the
Constitutional convention and or state ratifying conventions. Something
that Justice [this is a Christian nation] Brewer never did.
>:|Why should any significance be attributed to Article 11 in the first
>:|place?
Because it was an official and legal document?
It was binding and law?
Because the phrase was part of that official, legal, binding document?
>:|>I'm not defending Alison at this point. I'm reading the treaty.
>:|
>:|Not very well, apparently.
In your opinion, what is he missing? LOL
buc...@exis.net
>:|In article <86q2pl$jlr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <mscu...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>:|>In article <38906b7d$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
>:|> ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>:|>> In article <2v4v8s8eft2s2cgsf...@4ax.com>,
>:|>> Mike Curtis <time...@flash.net> wrote:
>:|>> >ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>:|>> >
>:|>> Actually, it was written during the Washington administration, but
>:|>> signed by Adams.
>:|>
>:|>Fine. Who wrote it?
>:|
>:|I don't recall. The original was Arabic. The point is, it wasn't
>:|written by Washington or Adams.
Didn't have to be written by either Washington or Adam. It was actually
written by the people who framed it. However, it was ratified by the U S
senate and signed by Adams.
>:|
>:|>> Article 11 - Inserted by the translator, Barlow. Article 11 doesn't
>:|>> appear in the Arabic original. It was also removed from the
>:|>translated
>:|>> version when the treaty was renewed. So what does that all mean?
>:|>
>:|>I don't know, you tell me. This isn't my subject area.
>:|
It doesn't mean anything. See my previous reply.
>:|It wasn't as important as some want to make it out to be.
>:|
It is part of a official document that had legal importance at that time.
In short it was law.
it is far more important then the dicta of Holy trinity that some want to
trot out to support their incorrect claims.
Its importance lies in the fact that it exists, and that it was debated and
ratified by men of the founding generation. That no one felt strongly
enough to object to it being there nor to demand it be removed.
That they allowed it to become part of the law. Like it or not, it was
legally an official declaration of fact regarding this nation at one time.
That is its importance.
>:|>> I'll say it means that when the treaty was renewed they realized their
>:|>> mistake and that the US really is founded on the Christian religion,
>:|>so
>:|>> they removed Article 11, which shouldn't have been there in the first
>:|>> place.
>:|>
>:|>And this speculation is based on what? Who are "they?"
>:|
>:|It is something I made up to illustrate a counter point to the original
>:|poster's claim. I don't recall the specifics of why the Article was
>:|removed.
The specifics are it wasn't required to be there, there is a article
pertaining to religion in the later treaty and that wording didn't repeal
or alter what had been said in the first.
>:|
>:|>> What? You don't like that interpretation? Why not? It's every bit
>:|>as
>:|>> valid as the original poster's claim.
>:|>
>:|>Substantiate it.
>:|
>:|After the original claim is substantiated.
>:|
cop out.
>:|>> >> That is the part of the
>:|>> >>treaty that is suspect. In any case, it is meaningless to the
>:|>> >>original poster's claims. Mr. Allison should know that, as should
>:|>you.
>:|>> >
>:|>> >I can read what the treaty says. You seem to be the one with the
>:|>> >problem.
>:|>>
>:|>> Explain how Article 11 got in the treaty.
>:|>
>:|>You tell me. I'm asking. I don't speak Arabic either and you must, so
>:|>I'm depending upon you.
>:|
>:|It was inserted by the translator. Why exactly I'm not sure is known.
Hmmmm, so you really don't have much or know much to back up your bogus
claims then, do you?
>:|
>:|>> Why was it removed later?
>:|>
>:|>You tell me.
Nope you sure don't seem to know a lot about this at all.
>:|
>:|I don't recall. I don't think it is a significant issue.
Isn't it amazing how easy it is to be down on something you aren't up on
This is a great example.
its significance is that it is one of those things your side likes to
forget when you want to attack such things as separation of church and
state, etc.
When you try and argue that history and facts don't support separation but
does support your views. When you try and say the Supreme Court is wrong in
all its separation decisions, etc.
That is its significance, which I don';t expect you to ever acknowledge.
>:|
>:|>> Why should any significance be attributed to Article 11 in the first
>:|>> place?
>:|>
>:|>Beats me. Why do you think that is?
>:|
>:|Why what is? Personally, I don't think there is much significance to
>:|the Article. It certainly doesn't show universal disdain for
>:|Christianity by the founders ala the original claim.
He made more then one claim, did you forget that,
>>:|>But Christianity had no part in it.
>>:|>The founders even stated that this is NOT a Christian nation.
>>:|>Most of them had open contempt for Christianity and its bible.
and this particular bit of information does support one of those claims.
>It certainly
>:|doesn't invalidate or neutralize the influence of religion and
>:|Christianity to the foundation of this country as any number of
>:|organizations like to claim.
I know of no organization that claims that religion (i.e. Protestant
Christianity) did not have influence on some or even most of the men who
founded this country.
The problem begins to arise when people like Gardiner try and claim it was
the most important influence on both the men who founded this country and
also on the country itself, i.e. the nation, its government, its
institutions, etc., being or are based on the Bible and or Christianity
(i.e. Protestant Christianity)
There are people and organizations that strongly and correctly disagree
with that.
Kenneth Childress
Jeff Sinclair <jeffrey...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <38909c80$0$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
> ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
[Garman reprint]
Which doesn't really say anything contrary to what I've been saying.
>> >> Why should any significance be attributed to Article 11 in the
>first
>> >> place?
>> >
>> >Beats me. Why do you think that is?
>>
>> Why what is? Personally, I don't think there is much significance to
>> the Article. It certainly doesn't show universal disdain for
>> Christianity by the founders ala the original claim. It certainly
>> doesn't invalidate or neutralize the influence of religion and
>> Christianity to the foundation of this country as any number of
>> organizations like to claim.
>
>While the article does not show a "universal disdain for Christianity
>by the founders",
Of course it doesn't. But that was why it was cited in the first place,
to give backing to that bogus argument. It doesn't even support the
argument, contrary to what Mr. Allison claims.
>it does support the assertion that this country is
>not and never has been officially Christian, especially if one sees its
I've never claimed nor argued this. However, it doesn't really discount
the notion either. I'd put more credence behind comments from Supreme
Court justices than a comment inserted by a traslator of a treaty.
However, those promoting the separationist propoganda love to get
whatever mileage they can from this particular passage.
>consistency with Article 6, Section 3 of the US Constitution, the
>establishment clause of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, such
>documents as Madison's _Memorial and Remonstrance_ (1785), Jefferson's
>_Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom_ (1786), His letter to the
>Danbury Baptist Association (1802), Madison's Vetoes of 1811, and
>Madison's _Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, and Ecclesiastical
>Endowments_. There are a number of later Supreme Court decisions also
>echoing the fact that this is not officially a Christian nation (i.e.
>Reynolds vs. U.S (1879), Everson vs. Board of Education (1947),
>McCollum vs. Board of Education (1948), etc.).
None of this, as has been clearly demonstrated in numerous posts, negates
the influence and importants of religion, particularly Christianity, to
the foundation and success of this country.
We are not "officially" a Christian nation in the sense that that is our
official religion. We have no official religion, nor should we. We are
"officially" a Christian nation in the sense that that is the culture
that we have adopted by our national holiday and other ceremonial
events. Which, of course, prevents no one from choosing whatever
religion, or none, that they wish to participate in. It just gives
certain idiots something to complain about when it comes to our national
motto, the Pledge of Allegiance, or congressional prayers, etc.
>This is important because it is consistent with these other precedent
>setting documents and expresses concisely the intentions of those
>constitutional clauses that these documents address.
But, none of it justifies the revisionist propoganda being supported and
spread by Mr. Allison and others.
--
Eagle753
numerous posts, negates the influence and importants of religion,
particularly Christianity, to the foundation and success of this
country."
What is uniquely Christian about our country's foundation and success?
If Christianity was the deciding factor, why did it take over 1700
years after Christ's appearance on earth for a Christian nation like
ours to come about? Why did Christianity fail to have the same effect
at an earlier time in history, when it seemingly had much more
influence over people's lives?
Of course most if not all of the founders were at least nominally
Christian (the way most people today say they are Christian, but barely
know their Bible) -- and some of course are more earnest about it than
others. What makes a true "Christian"? Because you say you are, no
matter how you act or truly believe in your heart? What criteria do
you use for saying someone is "Christian" outside of an accident of
birth and saying you are one in order to follow the path of least
resistence?
If Christianity, specifically and uniquely, is of more importance to
our country than other influences, then what aspect(s) about our
country's FOUNDATION and SUCCESS can you find ONLY in Christianity, as
opposed to other religions or philosophical/political ideas and ideals?
(I'm not talking about some non-essential like proclaiming Christmas a
national holiday).
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
buc...@exis.net
>:|In article <msm09sc8d044q99vu...@4ax.com>,
>:| <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|>ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>:|>
>:|>
>:|>So there is no misunderstanding, are you going on record as claiming the
>:|>following?
>:|
>:|No, I'm stating that the following is bogus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[context]
Religion was a formative influence in the early life of America
---- ------ -------- ------ ------- ------
[according to Childress, the following is bogus]
But Christianity had no part in it.
The founders even stated that this is NOT a Christian nation.
Most of them had open contempt for Christianity and its bible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:| Attempts to justify the following may or may not have some validity in and of themselves.
>:|However, they make the following no less bogus.
>:|
[the following referred to directly above is talking about the highlighted
list of what he feels is bogus]
Do you realize the contradiction that exists in what you said above?
You claim "that the following (see list above) is bogus"
You claim "attempts to justify the following (see list above) may or may
not have some validity in and of themselves"
You claim "however, they make the following (see list above) no less bogus.
Aside from the mumble jumble you have worked into those three claims, what
you are saying is something is bogus (not true)
yet providing evidence that supports what you claim to be bogus may or may
not have some validity. This is the mumble jumble wording, because of the
working in words such as attempts to justify. That just makes the water
muddy, maybe gives you wiggle room. If one provides evidence and that
evidence is valid then attempts to justify doesn't really apply and
something can't be both bogus and valid at the same time.
If one were to provide evidence that was false, then and only then would
the comments attempts to justify apply.
So back to the drawing board.
======================================================================
>:|In article <3i6p8scj0844h1bru...@4ax.com>,
>:|Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote:
>:|>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:07:27 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
>:|>wrote:
>:|>
>:|>>Religion was a formative influence in the early life of America
>:|>
>:|>But Christianity had no part in it. The founders even stated that
>:|>this is NOT a Christian nation. Most of them had open contempt for
>:|>Christianity and its bible.
>:|
Well, I will be honest and say I am not sure what he meant with the first
sentence
>:|>But Christianity had no part in it.
I don't know if he thinking one thing and wrote another or not.
I suspect that he was meaning that the Christian religion was not
foundation of the government nor was Christianity incorporated into the
government, into the Constitution, etc.
In that he is correct.
---- ----- ----- ----- ------ ----
Next:
Like it or not, evidence has been provided that supports this:
>:| The founders even stated that
>:|>this is NOT a Christian nation.
----- ------ ----- ------ ------ ---
Next:
and some evidence has been provided that supports this are well:
>:| Most of them had open contempt for
>:|>Christianity and its bible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, you on the other hand have only presented your opinion, which you keep
repeating over and over again, after you delete the evidence that has been
provided.
That does not constitute making your case.
(Of course, the other fella didn't make his case either I had to provide
evidence that did end up supporting his comments.)
**********************************************
buc...@exis.net
>:|In article <2v4v8s8eft2s2cgsf...@4ax.com>,
>:|Mike Curtis <time...@flash.net> wrote:
>:|>ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>:|>
>:|Article 11 - Inserted by the translator, Barlow. Article 11 doesn't
>:|appear in the Arabic original.
Was Article 11 in the version that was ratified by the U S Senate and
Signed into law by President John Adams?
>:| It was also removed from the translated
>:|version when the treaty was renewed.
Was it needed in the next treaty?
Would anything be gained by repeating those same words?
Was anything in the 1806 treaty repealing those words?
Was there anything in the 1806 treaty that mentioned religion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUNE 10, 1797
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL 1806
declared by the contracting parties that no pretext arising from religious
opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between
the two nations. And the consuls and agents of both nations respectively
shall have liberty to exercise his religion in his own house. All slaves of
the same religion shall not be impeded in going to said consul's house at
hours of prayer.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: TREATY OF PEACE, AMITY, AND COMMERCE BETWEEN THE
PRESIDENT AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE BASHA, BEY,
AND SUBJECTS OF TRIPOLI, IN BOMBAY, CONCLUDED JUNE 4, 1805; RATIFIED BY THE
SENATE APRIL 12, 1806, " Treaties and Conventions Concluded between the
United States of America and other Powers, Since July 4, 1776," published
by the
Department of State, 1889, page 1084, AMERICAN STATE PAPERS Bearing On
Sunday Legislation, Revised and Enlarged Edition, Compiled and Annotated by
William Addison Blakely, Revised Edition Edited by Willard Allen Colcord,
The Religious Liberty Association, Washington D.C. 1911, pp 164-165)
* Like the treaty of 1797, this treaty showed the government of the United
States to be impartial in matters of religion,--that it had no established
religion, and that the question of religion and religious opinion was not
to be considered in national affairs. It showed that it was not the policy
of this government to compel those within its jurisdiction, who are not
Christians, to act as though they were. *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|So what does that all mean?
>:|
>:|I'll say it means that when the treaty was renewed they realized their
>:|mistake and that the US really is founded on the Christian religion, so
>:|they removed Article 11, which shouldn't have been there in the first
>:|place.
LOL, really? WOW!
Do you have anything at all that you can provide that might move the above
out of the realm of pure speculation and opinion on your part and actually
try and show, with documented evidence, that what you said might be true?
Let me list what you have said:
(1) they realized their mistake
can you document this?
(2) the US really is founded on the Christian religion
can you document this?
(3) they removed Article 11
and added article 16
(4) which shouldn't have been there in the first place.
can you document this.
buc...@exis.net
>:|In article <86r22s$bhv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>:|Jeff Sinclair <jeffrey...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>:|>In article <38909c80$0$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
>:|> ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>:|
>:|[Garman reprint]
>:|
>:|Which doesn't really say anything contrary to what I've been saying.
>:|
>:|>> >> Why should any significance be attributed to Article 11 in the
>:|>first
>:|>> >> place?
>:|>> >
>:|>> >Beats me. Why do you think that is?
>:|>>
>:|>> Why what is? Personally, I don't think there is much significance to
>:|>> the Article. It certainly doesn't show universal disdain for
>:|>> Christianity by the founders ala the original claim. It certainly
>:|>> doesn't invalidate or neutralize the influence of religion and
>:|>> Christianity to the foundation of this country as any number of
>:|>> organizations like to claim.
>:|>
>:|>While the article does not show a "universal disdain for Christianity
>:|>by the founders",
>:|
>:|Of course it doesn't. But that was why it was cited in the first place,
>:|to give backing to that bogus argument. It doesn't even support the
>:|argument, contrary to what Mr. Allison claims.
There were three things that were cited, you seem to keep forgetting that.
Remember this:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
#1
>:|>But Christianity had no part in it.
#2
>:| The founders even stated that
>:|>this is NOT a Christian nation.
#3
>:| Most of them had open contempt for
>:|>Christianity and its bible.
The treaty of Tripoli was offered as support for #2 primarily
What you keep trying to do is ignore that and say it doesn't apply to
>:|>While the article does not show a "universal disdain for Christianity
>:|>by the founders",
>:|
>:|Of course it doesn't. But that was why it was cited in the first place,
It was cited because it directly applied to one of the claims and only
somewhat indirectly to the others.
However, additional information was provided that applied to all the claims
the original poster made.
>:|
>:|>it does support the assertion that this country is
>:|>not and never has been officially Christian, especially if one sees its
>:|
>:|I've never claimed nor argued this. However, it doesn't really discount
>:|the notion either.
Well, you are incorrect here.
>:|I'd put more credence behind comments from Supreme
>:|Court justices than a comment inserted by a traslator of a treaty.
Of course you would.
But you are leaving out some very major facts in choosing to go with
whichever Supreme Court Justices you might be referring to here. The fact
that you are so willing to overlook those facts shows just how closed
minded you are in this matter.
The facts you are willing to over look:
(1) The treaty under discussion was negotiated , ratified and signed into
law within approx 10 years of the framing, of the Constitution, approx 9
years of its ratifying, approx 8 years of the framing of the BORs and
finally six years of same BORs being ratified and added to the
Constitution.
(2) Article VI. - The United States
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
(3) It is part of a official document that had legal importance at that
time. In short it was law.
(4) It is far more important then the **DICTA** of Holy trinity that some
want to trot out to support their incorrect claims. Especially since the
**dicta** of Holy Trinity has no importance, legally or in any other
official manner.
(4) Its importance lies in the fact that it exists, and that it was debated
and ratified by men of the founding generation. That no one felt strongly
enough to object to it being there nor to demand it be removed.
(5) That they allowed it to become part of the law. Like it or not, it was
legally an official declaration of fact regarding this nation at one time.
That is its importance.
(6) Now here we have a case of some wanting to have their cake and eat it
to. Some of these same people want to say that an official legal document
ratified by the U S Senate and signed into law by a U S President has not
meaning or importance, and that phrase in that document has should be
overlooked, while saying that the U S Supreme Court declared this is a
Christian Nation.
LOL, how ironic. They want to take dicta from a Supreme Court opinion and
claim it has official meaning , some even say it has legal meaning, while
wanting to ignore an article in an official and what was then legal
document. (and might I add, a document that was debated, ratified and
signed by men of the founding generation, perhaps even some who did in fact
attend the Constitutional convention and or state ratifying conventions.
Something that Justice [this is a Christian nation] Brewer never did.
>:|However, those promoting the separationist propoganda love to get
>:|whatever mileage they can from this particular passage.
They don't have to get mileage out it silly, it exists. See above.
>:|
>:|>consistency with Article 6, Section 3 of the US Constitution, the
>:|>establishment clause of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, such
>:|>documents as Madison's _Memorial and Remonstrance_ (1785), Jefferson's
>:|>_Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom_ (1786), His letter to the
>:|>Danbury Baptist Association (1802), Madison's Vetoes of 1811, and
>:|>Madison's _Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, and Ecclesiastical
>:|>Endowments_. There are a number of later Supreme Court decisions also
>:|>echoing the fact that this is not officially a Christian nation (i.e.
>:|>Reynolds vs. U.S (1879), Everson vs. Board of Education (1947),
>:|>McCollum vs. Board of Education (1948), etc.).
>:|
>:|None of this, as has been clearly demonstrated in numerous posts, negates
>:|the influence and importants of religion, particularly Christianity, to
>:|the foundation and success of this country.
The debate that has been going on here, in case you might have missed them
pertained to degree.
We have had one person, basically, since last Feb/March. claiming that
Christanity was the MOST important influence on the founders and founding
of this nation.
That same person has gone so far as to claim that Christiantiy flowed
through the founders veins, even if they didn't realize it. That, in
reality the real founders of this country was Luther and Calvin.
That the Constitution and BORs is full of Christianity
That Christianity permeated every aspect of the founding of this nation and
the people who lived in its land.
Some of the above is paraphrased but those are some of those claims.
That is what these arguments have been about for the past approx 11 months
in these threads.
That person is incorrect.
Did religion have influence, yes, was it the only influence, no, was it
even the most important influence, no.
Was this nation founded on any aspect of the Christian religion, no
Were the citizens of this country, ranging from the 1600s to today, and who
were religious, mostly members of some form of Christianity, yes.
Does that make this a Christian country, meaning that the government and
its institutions were founded as Christian based on Christianity, no.
Does that mean that only Christians should be in the government, no.
Does that mean that the government should support Christianity, so long as
all forms of it are treated equally, no
Does that mean the government should support any and all religions, so long
as any and all are treated equally, no
>:|
>:|We are not "officially" a Christian nation in the sense that that is our
>:|official religion.
Protestant Christianity has been the de facto established religion for a
very long time in this country.
That is the biggest gripe that is coming from the religious right. They see
that they are loosing more and more of that special status they have
enjoyed by and large since the first half of the 1800s. (they have been
loosing that status more and more since the late 1800s but in the past 60
years or so it has increased as the playing field is being leveled for all
religion and non religions as well.)
>:|We have no official religion, nor should we.
See above.
I don't recall you spending a great deal of time arguing for equality for
religions that are not yours, I have seen you say on more then one time
**that equality is stupid.** (paraphrased)
I have seen you ask **who says there has to be equal times to other
religions, that's stupid.**
Don't even try to go there and claim your concerns and interests do not lie
with your own religious beliefs.
>:|We are
>:|"officially" a Christian nation in the sense that that is the culture
>:|that we have adopted by our national holiday and other ceremonial
>:|events.
Yes, one of the holdovers from the past, but which is also changing.
>:| Which, of course, prevents no one from choosing whatever
>:|religion, or none, that they wish to participate in. It just gives
>:|certain idiots something to complain about when it comes to our national
>:|motto,
What is the national motto and when did it become the national motto?
>:| the Pledge of Allegiance, or congressional prayers, etc.
LOL, yes, that is in part what it is about, the disenfranchised , the
dissenters, those left out of the process and expected to shut up and do as
they are told have always had this knack of bring about change, of making
the rules apply to all equally. I know from far too many past discussions
with you and reading those that others have had with you, you don't buy
into that.
But, guess what, that is exactly how this nation came to be.
Those pesky damn people who didn't want to shut up and do as they were
told.
>:|
>:|>This is important because it is consistent with these other precedent
>:|>setting documents and expresses concisely the intentions of those
>:|>constitutional clauses that these documents address.
>:|
>:|But, none of it justifies the revisionist propoganda being supported and
>:|spread by Mr. Allison and others.
Revisionist? LOL, great buzz word, like special rights for gays, etc Not
true, of course, but sure does sound nice. Makes nice sound bites.
First and foremost, the term revisionist is not a negative term.
There is nothing wrong with correcting incorrect data, be it scientific or
historical. or any other for that matter.
I wonder how you can be so blind to what Gardiner is doing.
How do you rationalize in your mind Gardiner posting a quote from a book
that mentions religion as being a factor, quotes the entire sentence word
for word, except the last two words, which he does not include?
What were those two words? Mention of the European Enlightenment.
That doesn't qualify as propaganda in your book? To take what a respected
professional historian, who has spent his adult life researching and
studying this material, and edit what that historian wrote to make it come
out the way you ant it to come out to support your personal theory, rather
then present what he really wrote. Because what he really wrote does not
place the same influence on something you are trying to place on it, in
fact lists it equally with a opposite influence. That isn't propaganda in
your mind?
No wonder some people have no real problem with Barton's false quotes.
Kenneth Childress
[Mr. Allison trying not to look stupid, but failing]
>>:|In article <3i6p8scj0844h1bru...@4ax.com>,
>>:|Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote:
>>:|>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:07:27 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
>>:|>wrote:
>>:|>
>>:|>>Religion was a formative influence in the early life of America
This comment by Mr. Gardiner is absolutely true.
>>:|>But Christianity had no part in it.
This comment by Mr. Klein is absolutely false. Why you even try to
support it is beyond me.
This statement is bogus.
>>:|>The founders even stated that
>>:|>this is NOT a Christian nation.
Name multiple founders that have stated this. The best you can do is
point to the Treaty of Tripoli, which you know as well as anyone else
isn't support of this claim. You've even said so yourself in the past.
This statement is bogus.
There are courts cases that allude to this claim, just ast there are
court cases and other statements that allude to the opposite. You know
this as well as anyone else.
>>:|>Most of them had open contempt for
>>:|>Christianity and its bible.
>>:|
>
>Well, I will be honest and say I am not sure what he meant with the first
>sentence
You should ask him. But, the statement as written is bogus.
>>:|>But Christianity had no part in it.
>
>I don't know if he thinking one thing and wrote another or not.
>
>I suspect that he was meaning that the Christian religion was not
>foundation of the government nor was Christianity incorporated into the
>government, into the Constitution, etc.
Why don't you ask him rather than make yourself look stupid by
criticizing me when I call him on this statement? Geeze.
BTW, this statement of Mr. Klein's is bogus too.
[Mr. Allison's crapola]
I'll give you credit in the above part for actually responding to the
discussion. The before and after was a waste of time.
--
Jeff Sinclair
ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
> In article <5hv89s0ivr407rca7...@4ax.com>,
> <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
> >ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>
> [Mr. Allison trying not to look stupid, but failing]
Jim Alison was not trying to defend the statement that “Christianity
had no part in it”, as both he and I and Mike Curtis have reiterated
over and over again. Jim Alison _clarified_ this statement to show that
Christianity officially had nothing to do with the American government.
The Tripoli document of 1797 was an explicit example of this, and is
consistent with the other documents that I listed before. That is what
he has attempted to argue and he has backed up his argument with
evidence supporting his statement of fact.
So where’s your evidence to the contrary?
> >>:|In article <3i6p8scj0844h1bru...@4ax.com>,
> >>:|Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote:
> >>:|>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:07:27 -0600, Gardiner
<Gard...@pitnet.net>
> >>:|>wrote:
> >>:|>
> >>:|>>Religion was a formative influence in the early life of America
>
> This comment by Mr. Gardiner is absolutely true.
Gardiner’s comment was that religion was _the most important_ factor in
the early life of America, especially in its effects on revolutionary
thinking. That has been shown to be definitely false, especially
because the Classical Tradition, the influence of English Common Law.
The Enlightenment, and the English revolutionary tradition were all
found to be more influential.
> >>:|>But Christianity had no part in it.
>
> This comment by Mr. Klein is absolutely false. Why you even try to
> support it is beyond me.
>
> This statement is bogus.
It is true if you are referring to the official role of religion in
government. I don’t know if that is what Al Klein was trying to argue
or not, but that is what Jim Alison was arguing.
> >>:|>The founders even stated that
> >>:|>this is NOT a Christian nation.
>
> Name multiple founders that have stated this. The best you can do is
> point to the Treaty of Tripoli, which you know as well as anyone else
> isn't support of this claim. You've even said so yourself in the
past.
>
> This statement is bogus.
What part of the statement “As the government of the United States of
America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” do you
seem to have a problem with?
What part of the fact that this is consistent with such official
articles as Article 6, Section 3 of the US Constitution, the
establishment clause of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and
such documents as Madison's _Memorial and Remonstrance_ (1785),
Jefferson's _Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom_ (1786), His letter
to the Danbury Baptist Association (1802), Madison's Vetoes of 1811,
and Madison's _Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, and
Ecclesiastical Endowments_ do you seem to have a problem with?
This statement is not bogus, but well-supported by documentary evidence.
> There are courts cases that allude to this claim, just ast there are
> court cases and other statements that allude to the opposite. You
know
> this as well as anyone else.
>
> >>:|>Most of them had open contempt for
> >>:|>Christianity and its bible.
> >>:|
> >
> >Well, I will be honest and say I am not sure what he meant with the
first
> >sentence
>
> You should ask him. But, the statement as written is bogus.
Perhaps you should ask him. You are the one who has claimed to know
what he meant by that statement. Ask him if you read him correctly.
> >>:|>But Christianity had no part in it.
> >
> >I don't know if he thinking one thing and wrote another or not.
> >
> >I suspect that he was meaning that the Christian religion was not
> >foundation of the government nor was Christianity incorporated into
the
> >government, into the Constitution, etc.
>
> Why don't you ask him rather than make yourself look stupid by
> criticizing me when I call him on this statement? Geeze.
Because you are mind reading and assuming that you know what he (Al
Klein) means when you do not. So ask him and enlighten us all. For a
change.
Rick Gardiner
> >:|>
> >:|>
> >:|>So there is no misunderstanding, are you going on record as claiming the
> >:|>following?
> >:|No, I'm stating that the following is bogus.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [context]
> [according to Childress, the following is bogus]
Of course Childress is 100% accurate here and you are a buffoon. When Klein
said that "Christianity had no part in IT," he was responding to a comment
about "the early life of America." The early life of America refers to the
socio-cultural backdrop of the American colonies, not just the Constitutional Convention.
To say that Christianity had no part in the early life of America is not only
buffoonery, but for Alison and Sinclair to jump to defend it tells everyone
who the real propagandists are around here. It tells everyone who is bending
over backwards to distort facts way way way out of bounds in order to fit
their ideological positions.
It is blatant, and it is really quite funny.
Christianity had no part in the early life of America, and I suppose Quakerism
had no part in the early life of Pennsylvania. I suppose that Puritanism had
no part in the early life of New England.
> The founders even stated that this is NOT a Christian nation.
> Most of them had open contempt for Christianity and its bible.
Open contempt?? Please demonstrate where I can find more than 50% of the
founders disparaging the bible.
> >:|>But Christianity had no part in it.
>
> I don't know if he thinking one thing and wrote another or not.
He certainly wasn't thinking what John Adams was thinking when he wrote that
America had its birth upon the general principles of Christianity.
RG
buc...@exis.net
>:|In article <5hv89s0ivr407rca7...@4ax.com>,
>:| <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>:|>ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>:|
>:|[Mr. Allison trying not to look stupid, but failing]
ahhhh, a Brian Carey trick, LOL
How cute.
>:|
>:|>>:|In article <3i6p8scj0844h1bru...@4ax.com>,
>:|>>:|Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote:
>:|>>:|>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:07:27 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
>:|>>:|>wrote:
>:|>>:|>
>:|>>:|>>Religion was a formative influence in the early life of America
>:|
>:|This comment by Mr. Gardiner is absolutely true.
>:|
>:|>>:|>But Christianity had no part in it.
>:|
>:|This comment by Mr. Klein is absolutely false. Why you even try to
>:|support it is beyond me.
>:|
>:|This statement is bogus.
>:|
Your evidence is?
>:|>>:|>The founders even stated that
>:|>>:|>this is NOT a Christian nation.
>:|
>:|Name multiple founders that have stated this. The best you can do is
>:|point to the Treaty of Tripoli, which you know as well as anyone else
>:|isn't support of this claim. You've even said so yourself in the past.
LOL
(1) Don't have to name multiple founders who stated it.
You are desperately trying to expand the playing field to find some way of
making your claim stick
Multiple founders, huh?
How many members made up the U S Senate in 1796 and 1797.
They ratified it.
Bet at least two had been founders.
That qualifies as multiple founders.
Now, one for you, how many founders stated in any official way that this
was a Christian nation?
You are now trying to say that this
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUNE 10, 1797
ARTICLE 11. As the government of the United States of America is
not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, . . .
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: TREATY OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE BEY AND SUBJECTS OF BARBARY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't
>:|The best you can do is
>:|point to the Treaty of Tripoli, which you know as well as anyone else
>:|isn't support of this claim.
support of that claim?
What do you think it supports? That this nation was founded on the
Christian religion?
Can you quote or cite any clauses of the Constitution or BORs that would
support your premise?
Can you quote or cite any **official--legally binding, etc** government
declarations that would support your premise?
>:|You've even said so yourself in the past.
I would love to see you provide evidence to support the claim above.
>:|
>:|This statement is bogus.
You saying it is bogus one time or one million times doesn't make it so.
You have to build a case showing it to be bogus, you know? Building a case
requires evidence from sources outside of yourself and your own
unsubstantiated opinion.
Here, consider this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we give up on finding out the truth, what is the point of studying
history or doing anything for that matter? The object of historical study
was to keep digging into the past until we come up with every fact that we
can possibly find and verify. Then, we mull those facts over to come up
with the best theories possible about what really happened.
When there aren't enough facts to go on, or a person doesn't provide any
evidence or facts, one could argue that it's useless to continue debate.
Such debate just disintegrates into argument over opinions that
are based on nothing but fancy.
So, it's not a case of "nobody knows for sure." It's a case of needing to
ferret out the facts as far as we can currently document and verify them.
Others may just be mouthing off their unsubstantiated and undocumented
opinions.
Asking for evidence is doing everyone a service by trying to stop such
mouthing off in its tracks.
Legitimate historical study can only be based on documentation .In
addition, claims require proof. If you're going to claim something ,
you're going to need some proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the
beef?" Where's the proof for their claims? If they're not responding
with *factual* proof, then their claim is not worth considering
. If they *do* respond with factual proof, then the demand for evidence
will have caused others to reveal facts perhaps heretofore unknown that
will fundamentally change the way we see a particular past event.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your claims of bogus are noted as well as the fact you offer nothing other
then your own opinions.
>:|
>:|There are courts cases that allude to this claim, just ast there are
>:|court cases and other statements that allude to the opposite. You know
>:|this as well as anyone else.
Whoa, court cases that allude to what claim? That this is a Christian
nation or that this nation was founded on Christianity?
Which cases might these be? What do you mean by allude? Kindly define how
you are using that word.
Exactly what do these "court cases" that "allude" to "this claim" have to
do with this particular discursion?
Are you trying to say that a court officially declared this to be a
Christian nation or officially declared this nation was founded on the
Christian religion?
That such a declaration has legal importance, is part of the holding, is
legally binding?
If you are, which court made that official declaration ?
If you aren't saying that, then why did you say what you said at all for?
If not legally binding it is irrelevant.
>:|
>:|>>:|>Most of them had open contempt for
>:|>>:|>Christianity and its bible.
>:|>>:|
>:|>
>:|>Well, I will be honest and say I am not sure what he meant with the first
>:|>sentence
>:|
>:|You should ask him. But, the statement as written is bogus.
>:|
Your unsustained claim is noted.
==============================================================
=================================================================
From: "Paul Browning" <ps...@home.com>
For Washington:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the last years of Washington's Presidency, Thomas Paine published The
Deist, or Unitarian, or Quaker, or indifferent, it is a general accepted
fact that four, maybe as many five or six of the first presidents were not
all that orthodox in their religious convictions.
The same can be said for a fair number of other leaders or influential men
of the founding period and periods that immediately followed.
By the late 1820s and there was real concern by many of the religious
conservatives/tradionalists about the rapid secularization of the nation
and its institutions. Men such as the Rev Jasper Adams, Supreme Court
Justice Joseph Story and others published material in the early 1830s
designed, in part, to try and reverse the trends they saw taking place.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, disestablishment was an accomplished fact, a social
symptom of declining interest in organized Christianity. Church-going in
Virginia had long been on the decline as communicants found more reasons
for attending Sunday horse races or code fights than for being in pews. In
1784 a foreign traveler in Richmond noted that the village had only "one
small church, but [it was] spacious enough for all the pious souls of the
place and the region. If the Virginians themselves did not freely and
openly admit that zeal for religion, and religion generally, is now very
faint among them, the fact might easily be divined from other
circumstances" (Schoepf, Travels in the Confederation, 11, 62).
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The papers of James Madison, Volume 8, March 10,
1784- March 28, 1786. Edited by Robert A. Rutland, William M.E. Rachal.
The University of Chicago Press, (1973) pp 295-298
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . While at least thirteen of JM's petitions were circulated (and in
time bore 1,552 signatures), another (and still anonymous) petition writer
found that his attack on the "Teachers of Christian Religion" measure
gained more widespread support. Twenty-nine petitions, signed by 4,899
Virginians, came from the pen of this unknown opponent of a church-state
tie. These petitions were based on an argument that carries beyond JM's-the
General Assessment bill was not only contrary to the Virginia Declaration
of Rights and to the enlightened republicanism pronounced there, but the
proposed act was in conflict with "the Spirit of the Gospel." Whoever wrote
this petition, which was easily the most popular of the several circulating
protests, was clearly an active Christian who believed the General
Assessment bill would do nothing to check "that Deism with its banefull
Influence [which] is spreading itself over the state" (Vi: Westmoreland
County petition).
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The papers of James Madison, Volume 8, March 10,
1784- March 28, 1786. Edited by Robert A. Rutland, William M.E. Rachal.
The University of Chicago Press, (1973) pp 295-298
========================================================
Ok, your turn, you have anything other then your opinion to offer?
>:|>>:|>But Christianity had no part in it.
>:|>
>:|>I don't know if he thinking one thing and wrote another or not.
>:|>
>:|>I suspect that he was meaning that the Christian religion was not
>:|>foundation of the government nor was Christianity incorporated into the
>:|>government, into the Constitution, etc.
>:|
>:|Why don't you ask him rather than make yourself look stupid by
>:|criticizing me when I call him on this statement? Geeze.
>:|
DUH, the silly one who keeps claiming things are bogus and nothing more
than stupid claims while being unable to provide anything to back up his
words , etc is the only one looking stupid around here.
Only the one who gets pinned down by Mike and admits he really doesn't know
a lot about what he is talking about is the only one looking stupid around
here.
Remember these:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't recall. The original was Arabic. The point is, it wasn't
written by Washington or Adams.
It wasn't as important as some want to make it out to be.
It is something I made up to illustrate a counter point to the original
poster's claim. I don't recall the specifics of why the Article was
removed.
After the original claim is substantiated.
It was inserted by the translator. Why exactly I'm not sure is known.
I don't recall. I don't think it is a significant issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
--
--
--
Kenneth Childress
<buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>
>>:|In article <5hv89s0ivr407rca7...@4ax.com>,
>>:| <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>>:|>ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>>:|
>>:|>>:|Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote:
>>:|>>:|>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:07:27 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
>>:|>>:|>wrote:
>>:|>>:|>
>>:|>>:|>>Religion was a formative influence in the early life of America
>>:|
>>:|This comment by Mr. Gardiner is absolutely true.
Glad to have your agreement on this one.
>>:|>>:|>But Christianity had no part in it.
>>:|
>>:|This comment by Mr. Klein is absolutely false. Why you even try to
>>:|support it is beyond me.
>>:|
>>:|This statement is bogus.
>
>Your evidence is?
The complete lack of evidence to the contrary, for starters. That's all
that is needed.
>>:|>>:|>The founders even stated that
>>:|>>:|>this is NOT a Christian nation.
>>:|
>>:|Name multiple founders that have stated this. The best you can do is
>>:|point to the Treaty of Tripoli, which you know as well as anyone else
>>:|isn't support of this claim. You've even said so yourself in the past.
>
>LOL
Yes, I'm certainly laughing at you here.
You have a reading comprehension problem. "The founders even stated
...". Show via direct quotes two or more that have said this.
[The rest of Mr. Allison's obfuscations were they belong]
--
Jeff Sinclair
Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
> buc...@exis.net wrote:
> >
> > ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
> >
> > >:| <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
> > >:|>
> > >:|>ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
> > >:|>
> > >:|>
> > >:|>So there is no misunderstanding, are you going on record as
claiming the
> > >:|>following?
> > >:|No, I'm stating that the following is bogus.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
> > [context]
> > [according to Childress, the following is bogus]
>
Klein
> said that "Christianity had no part in IT," he was responding to a
comment
> about "the early life of America." The early life of America refers
to the
> socio-cultural backdrop of the American colonies, not just the
Constitutional Convention.
As usual Gardiner cuts the context out of what Jim Alison is saying
here. So let’s restore the context, shall we folks?
http://x27.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=2&AN=579601676.1
==============
Well, I will be honest and say I am not sure what he meant with the
first sentence
>:|>But Christianity had no part in it.
I don't know if he thinking one thing and wrote another or not.
I suspect that he was meaning that the Christian religion was not
foundation of the government nor was Christianity incorporated into the
government, into the Constitution, etc.
In that he is correct.
---- ----- ----- ----- ------ ----
Next:
Like it or not, evidence has been provided that supports this:
>:| The founders even stated that
>:|>this is NOT a Christian nation.
----- ------ ----- ------ ------ ---
Next:
and some evidence has been provided that supports this are well:
>:| Most of them had open contempt for
>:|>Christianity and its bible.
==============
Jim Alison is not defending the assertion that religion had nothing to
do with early colonial American history. That it did is well
established. He is saying that if in fact the intention here is to
state that Christianity has no official status, then that statement is
correct and has been supported by considerable evidence these past two
months.
What’s more, Jim Alison provided considerable evidence to back up his
claim, which neither Childress nor Alison attempted to deal with other
than by ignoring it. Jim Alison presented a considerable amount of
evidence to support this in this post:
http://x27.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=578336510
Here is just one of many citations from that post:
==============================================================
=================================================================
The buffoon is the one who generates ad hominem attacks by eliminating
context and refusing to deal with solid evidence contrary to his pet
theory. Gardiner seems to get caught doing this nearly every post he
makes
> To say that Christianity had no part in the early life of America is
not only
> buffoonery, but for Alison and Sinclair to jump to defend it tells
everyone
> who the real propagandists are around here. It tells everyone who is
bending
> over backwards to distort facts way way way out of bounds in order to
fit
> their ideological positions.
Straw man. Jim Alison is not arguing that and neither am I. As for who
the real propagandists are around here… well, I’ll leave that up to the
reader to decide for himself or herself after checking out these links
again:
These three demonstrate his deliberate misuse of sources:
http://x25.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=574076937
http://x25.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=574076941
http://x25.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=574076944
These two show how he blatantly misused source material from Bernard
Bailyn:
http://x45.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=573227851
http://x45.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=573227854
These document his character, motivations, and his associations with
some big league religious right types:
http://x43.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=573160019
http://x43.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=573160022
http://x43.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=573160026
Not to mention:
http://x37.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=570613756
http://x37.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=570613760
http://x37.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=570613765
http://x37.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=570613771
The above URLs document Gardiner's own words, his own inflammatory
rhetoric, his own motives, and the company he has kept which further
give good indications as to his motives. It is also to be noted that
his arguments have not been directed toward legitimating the
establishment of any "one Protestant religious group", but toward
legitimating the establishment of Christianity as a whole in claiming
that the government was and should be based on "Christian principles".
As the reader has seen who has peeked in on this newsgroup for the past
month or so, that which Gardiner presents as Christianity is very
narrow and intolerant indeed and runs contrary to the intentions of the
Founding Fathers and the framers of the Constitution.
So before he casts stones, Gardiner should be reminded from time to
time as above that he lives in a glass house.
> It is blatant, and it is really quite funny.
>
> Christianity had no part in the early life of America, and I suppose
Quakerism
> had no part in the early life of Pennsylvania. I suppose that
Puritanism had
> no part in the early life of New England.
The two paragraphs above demonstrate beyond the question of a doubt
that Gardiner has seen the movie _Harvey_ with James Stewart, in that,
like the protagonist of the movie, he is arguing with an invisible six-
foot tall pink rabbit that no one else can see. One more time: Jim
Alison has never argued this and the need for Gardiner to manufacture
straw men or imaginary pink bunnies (or perhaps in his case pink
elephants) to argue with merely shows Gardiner’s desperation in tryiong
to find a way to discredit Jim Alison.
> > The founders even stated that this is NOT a Christian nation.
> > Most of them had open contempt for Christianity and its bible.
>
> Open contempt?? Please demonstrate where I can find more than 50% of
the
> founders disparaging the bible.
Please deal with Jim Alison’s evidence presented in the URL above which
supports this assertion rather than evading it again. We have been over
this ground before. Many of the founders broke with “orthodox
Christianity” and became deist, theists, and unitarians of one stripe
or another. It is perhaps more accurate to say that they expressed
occasional contempt for _organized_ Christianity, and that they
certainly did not hold conventional views concerning the bible
(especially in Jefferson’s case).
> > >:|>But Christianity had no part in it.
> >
> > I don't know if he thinking one thing and wrote another or not.
>
> He certainly wasn't thinking what John Adams was thinking when he
wrote that
> America had its birth upon the general principles of Christianity.
Oh? What _was_ he thinking? He signed an official document with this
clause: "As the government of the United States of America is not in
any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
As was mentioned before, especially after 1780, John Adam’s views were
not very influential concerning the development of the principles and
ideologies that helped to form the Constitution. That he signed off on
the Treaty of Tripoli with this phrase included in it need not mean
that he personally agreed with it, but simply that he recognized that
this was the intent especially concerning the relationship between
religion and the state in the United States.
mscu...@my-deja.com
There is a little passage in the introduction to Leonard Levy's *The
Establishment Clause* that fits the moment. It can be found on page XX.
"I used to think I was misunderstood by readers becuase I was not
sufficiently clear. I have come to believe that htose who differ will
distort nad refuse to understand; many readers demand clarity and
simplicity where the historical record, providing none, shows
inconsistencioes, lacunae, and complexity. Too many readers want
complete adherence to their views, allowing for no acceptions or
deviations. Some people seem to read with such blindness that there
seems to be no way to shatter the stupefied integument of their biases."
This is how I see the conversations with Gardiner and his buddies in
this newsgroup and others.
I don't think the problem is with myself, Mr. Alison, Mr. Sinclair, Mr.
Stevens, or anyone else who has disagreed with Mr. Gardiner.
[snipped for brevity]
--
Mike Curtis
Kenneth Childress
>In article <8788ou$jnm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Jeff Sinclair <jeffrey...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Establishment Clause* that fits the moment. It can be found on page XX.
>
>"I used to think I was misunderstood by readers becuase I was not
>sufficiently clear. I have come to believe that htose who differ will
>distort nad refuse to understand; many readers demand clarity and
>simplicity where the historical record, providing none, shows
>inconsistencioes, lacunae, and complexity. Too many readers want
>complete adherence to their views, allowing for no acceptions or
>deviations. Some people seem to read with such blindness that there
>seems to be no way to shatter the stupefied integument of their biases."
>
>This is how I see the conversations with Gardiner and his buddies in
>this newsgroup and others.
>
>I don't think the problem is with myself, Mr. Alison, Mr. Sinclair, Mr.
>Stevens, or anyone else who has disagreed with Mr. Gardiner.
Actually, you, and the others you name are some of the best examples of
in these discussions of what Mr. Levy describes. When the reality is,
all parties involved can be said to resemble the above. That you only
see your opponents as guilty is all the more proof of the sanctimonious
arrogance all too often displayed by separationists. It is just too
funny watching you guys describe yourself when you point fingers.
And people think I'm biased. Sheesh.
--
Richard A. Schulman
<jeffrey...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>As was mentioned before, especially after 1780, John Adams' views were
>not very influential concerning the development of the principles and
>ideologies that helped to form the Constitution.
Not so. His influence on the Constitution was quite important through
two channels:
- first, through the influence of the various state constitutions,
many of which he helped draw up during the period following
independence;
second, through the influence of his Defence of the Constitutions,
vol. I, which was widely read by those attending the Philadelphia
Constitutional convention.
---
Richard Schulman
Remove antispamming XYZ for email reply
PGP id: 0xAFB852BF
buc...@exis.net
>:|Actually, you, and the others you name are some of the best examples of
>:|in these discussions of what Mr. Levy describes. When the reality is,
>:|all parties involved can be said to resemble the above. That you only
>:|see your opponents as guilty is all the more proof of the sanctimonious
>:|arrogance all too often displayed by separationists. It is just too
>:|funny watching you guys describe yourself when you point fingers.
>:|
>:|And people think I'm biased. Sheesh.
Duh, people don't think you are biased, they know you are.
buc...@exis.net
>:|He certainly wasn't thinking what John Adams was thinking when he wrote that
>:|America had its birth upon the general principles of Christianity.
>:|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUNE 10, 1797
ARTICLE 11. As the government of the United States of America is
not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself
no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
Mussulmans; and, as the said States never entered into any was, or act of
hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that
no pretext, arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: TREATY OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE BEY AND SUBJECTS OF BARBARY
Communicated to the Senate, May 26, 179, American State Papers, Class I,
Foreign Relations, Volume, II, Page 154) (The treaty was made under the
administration of George Washington, and was signed and sealed at Tripoli
on the fourth Day of November, 1796, and at Algiers the third day of
January, 1797, by Hassan Bashaw, Dey of Algiers, and Joel Barlow, Counsul-
General of the United States
AMERICAN STATE PAPERS Bearing On Sunday Legislation, Revised and Enlarged
Edition, Compiled and Annotated by William Addison Blakely, Revised Edition
Edited by Willard Allen Colcord, The Religious Liberty Association,
Washington D.C. 1911, pp 153)
*It was ratified by the U.S. Senate June 7, 1797 and signed into law by
President John Adams June 10, 1797.*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Jophn Adams' published comments:
"Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of
America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and
every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may
be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United
States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby
enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the
United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to
observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof."
The Philadelphia Gazette and Universal Daily Advertiser for Saturday, 17
June 1797.
buc...@exis.net
>:|In article <7fld9so9lrp7daht4...@4ax.com>,
>:| <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>:|>ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>:|>
>:|>>:|>>:|>>Religion was a formative influence in the early life of America
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|This comment by Mr. Gardiner is absolutely true.
>:|
>:|Glad to have your agreement on this one.
You don't have any such agreement, sorry about that.
But go ahead play your silly games. As you know by now or should know by
not, most times I don't delete material. I address what I want to address
and leave the rest as I found it.
But nice try, keeps you in practice, I guess.
>:|
>:|>>:|>>:|>But Christianity had no part in it.
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|This comment by Mr. Klein is absolutely false. Why you even try to
>:|>>:|support it is beyond me.
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|This statement is bogus.
>:|>
>:|>Your evidence is?
>:|
>:|The complete lack of evidence to the contrary, for starters. That's all
>:|that is needed.
Your double talk and complete lack of any evidence is noted.
Classical Childress.
>:|
>:|>>:|>>:|>The founders even stated that
>:|>>:|>>:|>this is NOT a Christian nation.
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|Name multiple founders that have stated this. The best you can do is
>:|>>:|point to the Treaty of Tripoli, which you know as well as anyone else
>:|>>:|isn't support of this claim. You've even said so yourself in the past.
>:|>
>:|>LOL
>:|
>:|Yes, I'm certainly laughing at you here.
Kewl, highly irrelevant but laugh away, meanwhile I am waiting for you to
back this up:
>:|>>:The best you can do is
>:|>>:|point to the Treaty of Tripoli, which you know as well as anyone else
>:|>>:|isn't support of this claim.
And back this up
>:|>>:You've even said so yourself in the past.
I have a very sneaky suspicion that you will never back either up.
Classical Childress.
>:|
>:|You have a reading comprehension problem. "The founders even stated
>:|...". Show via direct quotes two or more that have said this.
>:|
Still trying to expand the parameters, huh.
I am waiting for you to back up your claims. I understand that a tactic
you like to use is to ignore requests to back up your claims while
demanding more and more from those you are arguing against.
Don't ask others to provide that which you seldom, if ever show.
You are well aware of the fact that I support my comments, in fact you have
bitched about it for years.
I still wait to see your evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case you are interested, the vote to pass the treaty in the U. S. Senate
was 23 to 0
So there is 23 who said yes and unanimous votes were not all that common.
There was no recorded debate or discussion pertaining to this matter.
A copy of the treaty (including Article 11 with its famous or infamous
wording) was published, in full, in at least three newspapers of the day,
and created absolutely no stir at all.
President John Adams issued the following announcement when he signed the
Treaty: on June 10, 1797
"Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of
America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and
every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may
be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United
States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby
enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the
United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to
observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof."
So that makes 24.
Now, you can keep trying to expand the parameters all you want. It doesn't
alter any of the facts of this topic, in fact only serves to show how
little you do know about the topic and how little you have to contribute to
the discussion on this topic.
>:|[The rest of Mr. Allison's obfuscations were they belong]
Ahhh, I see you are trying to save face but you are offering the admission
of defeat.
What you deleted, as par classical Childress is
comments and claims you advanced or made and were challenged on.
(Childress resorts to the Childress retreat by deletion)
Historical data by historians directly bearing on the topics under
discussion here.
As I said classical Childress.
Jeff Sinclair
ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
> In article <879ajd$b1t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <mscu...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >In article <8788ou$jnm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Jeff Sinclair <jeffrey...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Establishment Clause* that fits the moment. It can be found on page
XX.
> >
> >"I used to think I was misunderstood by readers becuase I was not
> >sufficiently clear. I have come to believe that htose who differ will
> >distort nad refuse to understand; many readers demand clarity and
> >simplicity where the historical record, providing none, shows
> >inconsistencioes, lacunae, and complexity. Too many readers want
> >complete adherence to their views, allowing for no acceptions or
> >deviations. Some people seem to read with such blindness that there
> >seems to be no way to shatter the stupefied integument of their
biases."
> >
> >This is how I see the conversations with Gardiner and his buddies in
> >this newsgroup and others.
> >
> >I don't think the problem is with myself, Mr. Alison, Mr. Sinclair,
Mr.
> >Stevens, or anyone else who has disagreed with Mr. Gardiner.
>
of
> in these discussions of what Mr. Levy describes. When the reality is,
> all parties involved can be said to resemble the above. That you only
> see your opponents as guilty is all the more proof of the
sanctimonious
> arrogance all too often displayed by separationists. It is just too
> funny watching you guys describe yourself when you point fingers.
Because you say so? LOL!
When we argue the thesis that the founders intended that the government
be neutral toward all religion and that there was meant to be a wall of
separation between religion and government, we back up our these with
comprehensive evidence provided in its total social and historical
context as argued by the framers of the constitution themselves. Thus,
we have cited time and time and time again documents especially by
Madison and Jefferson to this effect, the constitution itself, the
deliberations leading up to the decisions affecting the relevant
clauses in the constitution, legal opinion on these clauses, the
considered opinions of professional historians, etc., etc., etc.
You generally respond with insults, personal attacks, and fluff. You
got any evidence in context to the contrary to rebut the evidence that
we have presented logically and cogently? Then put it up... or shut up.
We at least provide solid evidence which supports out contention thaty
the framers of the constitution intended separation. Our opinion on
this is therefore not based upon an ideological bias but upon what the
historical evidence itself argues. You have yet to present any evidence
whatsoever to the contrary.
> And people think I'm biased. Sheesh.
And you wonder why. Sheesh.
Jeff Sinclair
Richard A. Schulman <RichardAS...@att.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2000 03:37:02 GMT, Jeff Sinclair
> <jeffrey...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
were
> >not very influential concerning the development of the principles and
> >ideologies that helped to form the Constitution.
>
> two channels:
>
> - first, through the influence of the various state constitutions,
> many of which he helped draw up during the period following
> independence;
Source? The only state constitution that Adams had a hand in was the
Massachusetts Constitution of 1780.
> second, through the influence of his Defence of the Constitutions,
> vol. I, which was widely read by those attending the Philadelphia
> Constitutional convention.
But which was almost universally thought by everyone else to be
anachronistic in that he still conceived of constitution making in
terms of power relationships between a monarchical executive, an
aristocratic upper house, and a 'common' lower house. The framers on
the other hand saw all three 'branches' (executive, legislative, and
judicial) to be different expressions of the people as a whole who had
power over these differing functions, and saw the constitution not as a
document describing power relationships governing the social forces
identified with each of the three branches, as in the English
constitution, but as an expression of the ultimate authority itself
(namely the people) which was itself a higher authority than the
goverment itself. See especially Chapter XIV, "The Relevance anf
Irrelevance of John Adams", pp. 567-592 in Gordon Wood's _The Creation
of the American Republic_ for a detailed treatment of John Adams in
this regard. I had quoted portions of this chapter previously and
treated this matter in considerable depth:
http://x26.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=578133492
For Example:
(p. 580)
"It was this remedy of the mixed constitution, this constitutional
overlay on the ferocious social scramble he described, that makes
Adams’s political theory so contrary to the central thrust of
constitutional thought in 1787. Too immersed in the climate of opinion
of his own state of Massachusetts, too involved in Europe out of the
whirling broader currents of American thinking, Adams never quite
perceived what polemics were doing to the Americans’ understanding of
politics and to the assumptions underlying the theory of the mixed
polity."
Adams simply was largely irrelevant in the development of
constitutional thought. He had been left behind when the revolution
ended.
Rick Gardiner
> >:|in these discussions of what Mr. Levy describes. When the reality is,
> >:|all parties involved can be said to resemble the above. That you only
> >:|see your opponents as guilty is all the more proof of the sanctimonious
> >:|arrogance all too often displayed by separationists. It is just too
> >:|funny watching you guys describe yourself when you point fingers.
> >:|And people think I'm biased. Sheesh.
>
> Duh, people don't think you are biased, they know you are.
Based on your immature strategy of reposting everything Childress says an hour
later, I would be more worried, if I were you, that people think you are an
absolute immature and juvenille moron.
RG
Rick Gardiner
You cite this to back up Klein's absurd position that "Christianity had no
part" in the early life of America??
It is one thing to say that the U.S. did not have a Christian establishment,
it is quite another to say that Christianity did not inspire the founding.
That is what John Adams said:
"The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the
only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could
Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address,
or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the
general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united: And
the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those
young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities
sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.
Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general
Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and
Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as
human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely
say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed
they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles."
Source: John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28th, 1813, from Quincy. The
Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson
and Abigail and John Adams, edited by Lester J. Cappon, 1988, the University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, pp. 338-340.
Rick Gardiner
>
> In article <8788ou$jnm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Jeff Sinclair <jeffrey...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Establishment Clause* that fits the moment. It can be found on page XX.
>
> "I used to think I was misunderstood by readers becuase I was not
> sufficiently clear. I have come to believe that htose who differ will
> distort nad refuse to understand; many readers demand clarity and
> simplicity where the historical record, providing none, shows
> inconsistencioes, lacunae, and complexity.
So true. The record of the founding of the U.S. does not yield a clear,
consistent, simple testimony that the founders wanted to separate religion
from public life, regardless of Alison, Sinclair, and Curtis' simplistic
interpretations and avoidance of the lacunae and complexity of the matter.
> Too many readers want
> complete adherence to their views, allowing for no acceptions or
> deviations.
That's Sinclair in a nutshell.
> Some people seem to read with such blindness that there
> seems to be no way to shatter the stupefied integument of their biases."
That's Alison in a nutshell.
> This is how I see the conversations with Gardiner and his buddies in
> this newsgroup and others.
Agreed. They attempt to present the colonial milieu in its proper religious
context; while the others make silly and indefensible arguments that religion
didn't play much of a role.
That position is entirely the result of their 21st century anti-religious bias.
> I don't think the problem is with myself, Mr. Alison, Mr. Sinclair, Mr.
> Stevens, or anyone else who has disagreed with Mr. Gardiner.
There is no problem. Only blindness.
RG
mscu...@my-deja.com
Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
had no
> part" in the early life of America??
>
> It is one thing to say that the U.S. did not have a Christian
establishment,
> it is quite another to say that Christianity did not inspire the
founding.
What inspired the founding, Gardiner, were difficulties with Great
Britain, a declaration of independence, and then war. Christianity had
very little to do with it.
Mike Curtis
mscu...@my-deja.com
Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
I guess the most juvenile comeback to what I wrote is written by
Gardiner below. To see in those who spend time explaining their
historical viewpoints, with patience and with primary and secondary
material leading to a convergence of the evidence as proof of a
blindness to your view an easy cop-out. What you have basically done
below is provide further insults and unsubstantiated assertions about
those who disagree with your position. This, in effect upholds the
paragraph I quoted from Levy in more ways than you will ever
understand.
I realize your knee jerked so fast that it struck your chin. knocked
you to the floor, rendering you senseless, but I do hope you will
consider what others are trying to say to you about history. I rather
you do this than your reframing every argument made to you to suit your
own purposes which I suspect is another fault your your rising knee.
Read Levy's paragraph again and do consider what he is saying.
Mike Curtis
> mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <8788ou$jnm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Jeff Sinclair <jeffrey...@my-deja.com> wrote:
--
Mike Curtis
Arminius
enlightening. I have appreciated them very much.
Mr. Childress' "refutations" have been enlightening in another way.
Even though Buckeye has cited numerous sources for his arguement, Mr.
Childress merely replies "this is bogus" with no support whatsoever.
This is the essence of dogma. No amount of evidence will influence Mr.
Childress to change his position, nor does he feel he needs to offer
any contrary documentation other than "this is bogus" and "don't make
yourself look stupid". Sad, really.
--
Arminius
"The dead travel fast." --Goethe
buc...@exis.net
Kenny me boy,
Anytime you need another history lesson let me know.
Meanwhile enjoy, and do by all means learn. LOL
--------- --------- -------- -------- ----------
>:|>>:|This comment by Mr. Klein is absolutely false. Why you even try to
>:|>>:|support it is beyond me.
>:|>>:|
>:|
>:|>>:|>>:|>The founders even stated that
>:|>>:|>>:|>this is NOT a Christian nation.
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|Name multiple founders that have stated this. The best you can do is
>:|>>:|point to the Treaty of Tripoli, which you know as well as anyone else
>:|>>:|isn't support of this claim. You've even said so yourself in the past.
>:|
>:|You have a reading comprehension problem. "The founders even stated
>:|...". Show via direct quotes two or more that have said this.
>:|
Let's put this issue to rest.
=================================================================
MONDAY, MAY 29, 1797
The following written message was received from the President of the United
States, by Mr. Majcom, his Secretary:
Gentlemen of the Senate:
I lay before you, for your consideration and advice, a treaty of
perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and the
Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, concluded at Tripoli, on the 4th
day of November, 1796.
JOHN ADAMS
UNITED STATES, MAY 26TH, 1797.
[apparently the May 26 date is when Adams actually wrote the above
message]
The message and treaty was read [out loud on the floor of the Senate]
ORDERED, That they lie for consideration.
TUESDAY, MAY 30, 1797.
The Senate proceeded to consider the message of the President of
the United States, of the 29th instant, and the treaty therewith
communicated, between the United States the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of
Barbary.
Ordered, That it be referred to Mr. Bloodworth, Mr. Goodhue, and Mr.
Tazewell, to consider and report thereon to the Senile
On motion,
Ordered, That the treaty be printed be printed for use of the Senate.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 1797.
Mr. Bloodworth, from the Committee to whom was referred the
consideration of the treaty of peace and friendship, between the United
States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barary, made
report, that it be adopted; and the report being amended,
On the question to agree to the report as amended,
It was determined in the affirmative, Yeas . . . . . . . . . . . 23.
The yeas and nays being required by one-fifth of the Senators present,
Those who voted in the affirmative, are--Bingham, Bloodworth, Blount,
Bradford, Brown, Cocke, Foster, Goodhue, Hillhouse, Howard, Langdon,
Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Martin, Paine , Read, Rutherfurd, Sedgwick,
Stockton, Tattnall, Tichenor, and Tracy.
So it was
RESOLVED, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein,) That
the Senate do advise and consent to the ratification of the treaty of peace
and friendship between the United States of America and the bey and
subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary.
ORDERED, That the Secretary lay this resolution before the President
of the United States,
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Journal of the Senate including the Journal of
the Executive Proceedings of the Senate, John Adams Administration
1791-1801, Volume I: Fifth Congress, First Session; March-July, 1797,
Martin P. Claussen, General Editor. Michael Glazier, Inc. Wilmington,
Delaware 19801, (1977) pp 156-57, 160.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SATURDAY JUNE 10, 1797
President John Adams signed the treaty into law on this date and issued the
following proclamation:
Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States
of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the
advice consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and
every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may
be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United
States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby
enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the
United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully
to observe and fulfil the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.
The full treaty and the proclamation (above) was printed in at least two
Philadelphia newspapers of the day and at least one New york Newspaper of
the day.
The treaty as ratified is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America
and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary.
ARTICLE 1.
There is a firm and perpetual Peace and friendship between the
United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli of Barbary,
made by the free consent of both parties, and guaranteed by the most potent
Dey & regency of Algiers.
ARTICLE 2.
If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the
parties is at war shall be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the
other party they shall pass free, and no attempt shall be made to take or
detain them.
ARTICLE 3.
If any citizens, subjects or effects belonging to either party
shall be found on board a prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other
party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at liberty, and the effects
restored to the owners.
ARTICLE 4.
Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties,
by which they are to be known. And, considering the distance between the
two countries, eighteen months from the date of this treaty shall be
allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers
belonging to such vessels shall be sufficient for their protection.
ARTICLE 5
A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel
condemned by the other party or by any other nation, the certificate of
condemnation and bill of sale shall be a sufficient passport for such
vessel for one year; this being a reasonable time for her to procure a
proper passport.
ARTICLE 6
Vessels of either party putting into the ports of the other and
having need of provisions or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the
market price. And if any such vessel shall so put in from a disaster at sea
and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and reembark
her cargo without paying any duties. But in no case shall she be compelled
to land her cargo.
ARTICLE 7.
Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other,
all proper assistance shall be given to her and her people; no pillage
shall be allowed; the property shall remain at the disposition of the
owners, and the crew protected and succoured till they can be sent to their
country.
ARTICLE 8.
If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy within
gun-shot of the forts of the other she shall be defended as much as
possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized or attacked when it is
in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to
sea no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port within
twenty four hours after her departure.
ARTICLE 9.
The commerce between the United States and Tripoli,-the protection
to be given to merchants, masters of vessels and seamen,- the reciprocal
right of establishing consuls in each country, and the privileges,
immunities and jurisdictions to be enjoyed by such consuls, are declared to
be on the same footing with those of the most favoured nations
respectively.
ARTICLE 10.
The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli as a full
and satisfactory consideration on his part and on the part of his subjects
for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship are acknowledged to have
been recieved by him previous to his signing the same, according to a
reciept which is hereto annexed, except such part as is promised on the
part of the United States to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival
of their Consul in Tripoly, of which part a note is likewise hereto
annexed. And no presence of any periodical tribute or farther payment is
ever to be made by either party.
ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any
sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character
of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as
the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against
any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising
from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
existing between the two countries.
ARTICLE 12.
In case of any dispute arising from a notation of any of the
articles of this treaty no appeal shall be made to arms, nor shall war be
declared on any pretext whatever. But if the (consul residing at the place
where the dispute shall happen shall not be able to settle the same, an
amicable referrence shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the
Dey of Algiers, the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And
he by virtue of his signature to this treaty engages for himself and
successors to declare the justice of the case according to the true
interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to
enforce the observance of the same.
Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Jumad in the
year of the Higera 1211-corresponding with the 4th day of Novr 1796 by
JUSSUF BASHAW MAHOMET Bey
SOLIMAN Kaya
MAMET Treasurer
GALIL Genl of the Troops
AMET Minister of Marine
MAHOMET Coml of the city
AMET Chamberlain
MAMET Secretary
ALLY-Chief of the Divan
Signed and sealed at Algiers the 4th day of Argib 1211-corresponding
with the 3d day of January 1797 by
HASSAN BASHAW Dey
and by the Agent plenipotentiary of the United States of America
[Seal] Joel BABLOW
[The "Receipt"]
Praise be to God &c-
The present writing done by our hand and delivered to the American
Captain OBrien makes known that he has delivered to us forty thousand
Spanish dollars,-thirteen watches of gold, silver & pinsbach,-five rings,
of which three of diamonds, one of saphire and one with a watch in it, One
hundred & forty piques of cloth, and four caftans of brocade,-and these on
account of the peace concluded with the Americans.
Given at Tripoli in Barbary the 20th day of Jumad 1211,
corresponding with the 21st day of Novr 1796-
(Signed) JUSSUF BASHAW-Bey whom God Exalt
The foregoing is a true copy of the reciept given by Jussuf
Bashaw- Bey of Tripoli-
(Signed) HASSAN BASHAW-Dey of Algiers.
The foregoing is a literal translation of the writing in Arabic on
the opposite page.
JOEL BARLOW
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Treaties and other International Acts of the United
States of American, Edited by Hunter Miller, Volume 2, Documents 1-40;
1776-1818, United States Government Printing Office, Washington: 1931. pp
364-66)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE UNITED STATES RATIFICATION AND PROCLAMATION
The fourth document in the Department of State file, and the last
to be noted, is at once the United States instrument of ratification and
the proclamation, dated June 10, 1797.
In its combination of what are ordinarily two separate papers,
that document is of unusual form. It is under the Great Seal and is signed
by Adams and attested by Pickering as Secretary of State; but before the
testimonium clause is this paragraph of ratification and proclamation:
Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States
of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the
advice consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and
every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may
be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United
States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby
enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the
United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully
to observe and fulfil the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.
The text embodied in the paper after the words, "which Treaty
written in the Arabic Language, being translated into the Language of the
United States, is in the words following to wit," is almost exactly the
same as that in the Statutes at Large, which was perhaps copied from the
instrument now described.Accordingly the provisions of the twelve articles
appear in the document as written by Barlow in English in the original
treaty book; so do the signatory names, although the copyist of them made a
slip or two. The Barlow certification of January 4, 1797, which was
doubtless contained in a now missing copy, is included, as is also the
Humphreys approval or confirmation; but the receipt and the note, each of
which Article 10 (according to the Barlow translation) in terms makes a
part of the treaty, are not otherwise mentioned.
NOTE REGARDING THE Barlow TRANSLATION
The translation first printed is that of Barlow as written in the
original treaty book, including not only the twelve articles of the treaty
proper, but also the receipt and the note mentioned, according to the
Barlow translation, in Article 10. The signature of Barlow is copied as it
occurs, but not his initials, which are on every page of the fourteen which
is not signed. The Humphreys approval or confirmation follows the
translation; but the other writings, in English and Spanish, in the
original treaty book, are not printed with the translation but only in
these notes.
It is to be remembered that the Barlow translation is that which
was submitted to the Senate (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II,
18-19) and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty
collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States
has always been deemed the text of the treaty.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Treaties and other International Acts of the United
States of American, Edited by Hunter Miller, Volume 2, Documents 1-40;
1776-1818, United States Government Printing Office, Washington: 1931. pp
382-83)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The eleventh article of the Barlow translation has no equivalent
whatever in the Arabic. The Arabic text opposite that article is a letter
from Hassan Pasha of Algiers to Yussuf Pasha of Tripoli. The letter gives
notice of the treaty of peace concluded with the Americans and recommends
its observation.
Three fourths of the letter consists of an introduction, drawn up by a
stupid secretary who just knew a certain number of bombastic words and
expressions occurring in solemn documents, but entirely failed to catch
their real meaning. Here the only thing to be done by a translator is to
try to give the reader an impression of the nonsensical original:
Praise be to God, who inspires the minds of rulers with causes of
well-being and righteousness! The present matter may be in the interest of
the land and the servants [of God], in order that things may be put in
their place. This whole affair has been opened [by omission of one letter
the Arabic reads "victories" instead of "opened"] by the intermediary of
the exalted, honored Prince, the Lord Hassan Pasha, in the protected [by
(rod] Algiers, may God strengthen him and give him victory and help him in
accomplishing good things; thus in the beginning and in the end, and may
the acquiescence in his order take place by considering all his affairs,
and may his endeavor repose on the fitness of his reflection. So may God
make it, the beginning of this peace, a good and graceful measure and an
introduction having for result exaltation and glorification, out of love
for our brother and friend and our most beloved, the exalted Lord Yussuf
Pasha, [here follows the same word as in Article 10: al-munshi?,
"residing" or "governing"] in the well-protected [by God] Tripoli, may God
strengthen him by His grace and His favor, amen! Because our interests are
one and united, because our aim is that acts may succeed by overthrowing
justice, and the observance [of duty?; of treaties?; of the Sacred Law?]
becomes praiseworthy by facts entirely, amen ! by making successful
safety and security by permanence of innumerable benefits and pure and
unmixed issue. Prosperity accompanies highness and facilitation of good by
length of the different kinds of joy makes permanent. Praise be to God for
the comprehensive benefit and your perfect gifts, may God make them
permanent for us and for you, thus till the day of resurrection and
judgment, as long as times last, amen!
Further, if there are American people coming to the well-protected
Tripoli, they wish to be, by your carefulness, honored [and free] from all
disagreements as are, Indeed, all the [Christian] nations, so that nobody
molests them and no injury befalls them; and likewise people from Tripoli,
if they proceed to the country of the Americans, they shall be honored,
elevated upon the heads, nobody molesting or hindering them until they
travel [homeward] in good state and prosperity. Thus. And greetings!
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Treaties and other International Acts of the United
States of American, Edited by Hunter Miller, Volume 2, Documents 1-40;
1776-1818, United States Government Printing Office, Washington: 1931. pp
371-72)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional sources of information on this subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.au.org/c&sjun6.htm
Joel Barlow And The Treaty With Tripoli
A Tangled Tale Of Pirates, A Poet And The True Meaning Of The First
Amendment by Rob Boston
Church & State Magazine, June, 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html
Does the 1796-97 Treaty with Tripoli Matter to Church/State Separation?
Speech given to the Humanists of Georgia on June 22, 1997 and at
the 1997 Lake Hypatia Independance Day Celebration. By Ed Buckner, Ph.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mainstreamop.org/church2.htm
To: The Editor
From: Rev. James W. Watkins
Re: Following Editorial For Consideration As An Op-Ed
IS THE UNITED STATES A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY?
Rev. James W. Watkins
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/linksidx.htm#tripoli
or
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
[sometimes the top link doesn't work, so if you have trouble with it try
the bottom.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Avalon Project : The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816
Diplomatic papers of the United States
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/bar1796n.htm (size 33189
bytes)
The Avalon Project : The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816
Diplomatic papers of the United States
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/bar1805t.htm (size 20495
bytes)
The Avalon Project : The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816
Diplomatic papers of the United States
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/bar1796e.htm (size 26862
bytes)
The Avalon Project : The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816
Diplomatic papers of the United States
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/bar1796t.htm (size 14688
bytes)
The Avalon Project : The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816
The Avalon Project. at the Yale Law School. The Barbary Treaties :
Tripoli 1805 Hunter
Miller's Notes. This treaty concluded the Tripolitan War, which...
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/bar1805n.htm (size 33793
bytes)
The Avalon Project : The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816
The Avalon Project. at the Yale Law School. The Barbary Treaties :
Tripoli 1805 The
Arabic Text. The Arabic of this treaty was probably in the legal
sense.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/bar1805e.htm (size 7863
bytes)
Kenneth Childress
>>:|>>:|This comment by Mr. Klein is absolutely false. Why you even try to
>>:|>>:|support it is beyond me.
>>:|>>:|
>>:|
>>:|>>:|>>:|>The founders even stated that
>>:|>>:|>>:|>this is NOT a Christian nation.
>>:|>>:|
>>:|>>:|Name multiple founders that have stated this. The best you can do is
>>:|>>:|point to the Treaty of Tripoli, which you know as well as anyone else
>>:|>>:|isn't support of this claim. You've even said so yourself in the past.
>>:|
>>:|You have a reading comprehension problem. "The founders even stated
>>:|...". Show via direct quotes two or more that have said this.
>>:|
>
>Let's put this issue to rest.
You got anything that isn't related to the Treaty? Naw, I didn't think
so. Give it up.
--
Kenneth Childress
Arminius <armi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>All of Buckeye's posts have been very well-documented and quite
>enlightening. I have appreciated them very much.
Good for you. He does present much useful information. Those of us
with more experience with Mr. Allison see through his techniques. You
see, volumes of material aren't what makes an argument. When reading
his material you must ask yourself if what you are reading really
applies to the discussion at hand. More often than not, most of it does
not apply.
>Mr. Childress' "refutations" have been enlightening in another way.
>Even though Buckeye has cited numerous sources for his arguement, Mr.
>Childress merely replies "this is bogus" with no support whatsoever.
You see, the problem with Mr. Allison is most of the time his volumes of
material don't address the issue. That is currently the case with him
being stuck on the Treaty of Tripoli. The treaty exists and was
ratified and signed. No one is disputing that. The problem is, the
treaty and its related information doesn't support the bogus contention
that Mr. Allison chimed in with the treaty information to support.
>This is the essence of dogma. No amount of evidence will influence Mr.
>Childress to change his position,
I change my position when the information presented warrants my doing
so. I've studied enough of US history to have reached the conclusions
that I have. So have many other people and historians. Mr. Allison has
reached another conclusion. That is the essence of his dogma. No
amount of evidence will influence Mr. Allison to change his position.
Mr. Allison, and others, are aware of the information if they have done
a reasonable study of the topic.
>nor does he feel he needs to offer
>any contrary documentation
I'm not into quote wars. Mr. Gardiner has done a far better job
presenting information that I can, and I don't feel inclined to repeat
what he has done. It really isn't my fault that Mr. Allison can't
present a decent argument. He hasn't been able to stay on topic for
several years at least.
>other than "this is bogus" and "don't make
If you go back and read Mr. Klein's original statements, you will see
that they are bogus and unsupportable. They are just an interjection
from a "hit and run" atheist who pops in with stupid statements and
leaves. Those trying to support those statements look silly.
>yourself look stupid". Sad, really.
Actually, whether you agree with me or not, if you pay close attention
to Mr. Allison you will see my point. At least, if you are honest you
will. There is difference between presenting historical information and
having that information support your contention.
--
Rick Gardiner
>
> In article <38998204...@pitnet.net>,
> Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
> > buc...@exis.net wrote:
> > >
> > > *It was ratified by the U.S. Senate June 7, 1797 and signed into law by
> > > President John Adams June 10, 1797.*
> >
> > part" in the early life of America??
> >
> > It is one thing to say that the U.S. did not have a Christian establishment,
> > it is quite another to say that Christianity did not inspire the founding.
>
> What inspired the founding, Gardiner, were difficulties with Great
> Britain, a declaration of independence, and then war. Christianity had
> very little to do with it.
Well, I guess you just know a bit more about it than John Adams.
What do you think ignited the "difficulties with Great Britain"? Could it have
been the conflict which Bailyn spoke about and which Carl Bridenbaugh wrote an
entire book about (MITRE AND SCEPTRE), i.e., the religious rights of
Protestant dissenters?
What does John Adams say about this controversy:
"If any gentleman supposes this controversy to be nothing to the present
purpose, he is grossly mistaken. It spread an universal alarm against the
authority of Parliament. It excited a general and just apprehension, that
bishops, and dioceses, and churches, and priests, and tithes, were to be
imposed on us by Parliament. It was known that neither king, nor ministry, nor
archbishops, could appoint bishops in America, without an act of Parliament;
and if Parliament could tax us, they could establish the Church of England,
with all its creeds, articles, tests, ceremonies, and tithes, and prohibit all
other churches, as conventicles and schism shops."
(John Adams to H.Niles, Feb 13, 1818)
Hear that Curtis? "Grossly mistaken"
That means you and Sinclair.
Sure, go ahead and join Sinclair in the "Nobody cared about Adams anyway"
rhetoric (which is hilarious as Alison in another thread is currently pinning
his "America is not a Christian Nation" on an Adams treaty).
By relegating Adams to a minor position, and hinging your hopes to G. Wood,
you fly in the face of the preponderance of evidence and scholarship available.
By saying Christianity had very little to do with the founding, you fly in the
face of mainstream scholarship:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html
http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/erelrev.htm
http://americanrevolution.org/gaustad.html
http://www.prawica.px.pl/johnson.htm
http://www.wfu.edu:/~matthetl/perspectives/five.html
not to mention the conclusion of the supreme court: http://www.universitylake.org/history/supreme.html
But, if you insist upon joining Alison and Sinclair and looking like a
buffoon, it is a free country (thanks to the inspiration of Luther--according
to Madison), and you are certainly free to do so.
RG
Rick Gardiner
>
> All of Buckeye's posts have been very well-documented and quite
> enlightening. I have appreciated them very much.
>
> Even though Buckeye has cited numerous sources for his arguement, Mr.
> Childress merely replies "this is bogus" with no support whatsoever.
Is that so, Arminius? I suppose you are intimately familiar with the Treaty of
Tripoli and the controversies surrounding it, huh? If you are trusting the
information Alison provided, you are quite gullible.
First of all, Alison & Friends are hinging their hopes on a document which the
U.S. apparently made with a bunch of Pirates entirely for the economic gain of
the U.S.
Alison & friends are always quick to say that the religious language used by
the founders was simply for political purposes, but that they were winking as
they wrote. If ever that may have been the case, it would have been the case
in regard to their relationship with these Muslims whom they privately hated,
and went back to war against within 3 years.
It is a matter of fact that the copy of the treaty which bears Washington's
signature is a fraud. (see Ray Irwin, DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS, University of
North Carolina Press, p. 84).
As Alison's own sources admit, Article 11 to the treaty was an interpolation.
Arabic scholars will tell you that Article 11 simply wasn't there in the
original.
The document itself is a religious document through and through in the
original. Read a literal translation of Article 12, for example. Note that the
treaty actually begins with the words, "Praise be to Him whom praise is Due."
I wonder who that was referring to? Christopher Reeves?
The supreme court in 1892 said that "this is a Christian Nation," and Alison
loves to brush that off as an obscure reference with is just the extraneous
and irrelevant opinion of an overzealous Supreme Court Justice.
Well if anything is an obscure and extraneous reference in the Annals of
American government, it would be a 1797 agreement with a bunch of Pirates
which had interpolated by an loose-cannon (Barlow) a politically shrewd clause
for the sake of gaining the approval of the Pirates.
> This is the essence of dogma. No amount of evidence will influence Mr.
> Childress to change his position, nor does he feel he needs to offer
> any contrary documentation other than "this is bogus" and "don't make
> yourself look stupid". Sad, really.
It will be interesting to see what you do with "evidence" to the contrary when
you encounter it, see above.
Speaking of sad, though, anyone who would willingly dub themselves Arminius is
really sad.
RG
Rick Gardiner
>
> What inspired the founding, Gardiner, were difficulties with Great
> Britain, a declaration of independence, and then war. Christianity had
> very little to do with it.
This is where your biases turn into irresponsible history. You say
Christianity had "very little" to do with it, Klein says "Christianity had no
part in it" (Which Alison does his best to defend), and Sinclair has tried to
come along and say that Bailyn himself relegates religion to a peripheral
position (which any graduate student who has read Bailyn would see to be
entirely erroneous right on the surface).
At the same time you go and make all these radical statements about the role
of religion in the founding, Sinclair dares to come along and say things like
"oh, well we aren't denying the role of religion," but the record, as you have
stated in your paragraph above, flies entirely in the face of Sinclair's
attempt to save face.
Alison and Cronies simply are blind to mainstream scholarship in saying that
"Christianity had very little to do with the founding"
Proof:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html
http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/erelrev.htm
http://americanrevolution.org/gaustad.html
http://www.prawica.px.pl/johnson.htm
http://www.wfu.edu:/~matthetl/perspectives/five.html
not to mention the conclusion of the supreme court: http://www.universitylake.org/history/supreme.html
RG
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
(for more proof)
Jeff Sinclair
ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
> >Let's put this issue to rest.
>
> You got anything that isn't related to the Treaty? Naw, I didn't
think
> so. Give it up.
Oh, you mean like the following, which you avoided?:
What part of the statement "As the government of the United States of
America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" do you
seem to have a problem with?
What part of the fact that this is consistent with such official
articles as Article 6, Section 3 of the US Constitution, the
establishment clause of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and
such documents as Madison's _Memorial and Remonstrance_ (1785),
Jefferson's _Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom_ (1786), His letter
to the Danbury Baptist Association (1802), Madison's Vetoes of 1811,
and Madison's _Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, and
Ecclesiastical Endowments_ do you seem to have a problem with?
It would seem that there is much there evidence than just the treaty
supporting the statement in the treaty that "the government of the
United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian
Religion".
I suspect, however, that this information could be posted one thousand
times along with the supreme court cases citing these documents an
precedent that this is not officially a "Christian nation", and you
still would not get it.
--
"I have always been here" - Kosh
Jeff Sinclair
> >
> > There is a little passage in the introduction to Leonard Levy's *The
> > Establishment Clause* that fits the moment. It can be found on page
XX.
> >
> > "I used to think I was misunderstood by readers becuase I was not
> > sufficiently clear. I have come to believe that htose who differ
will
> > distort nad refuse to understand; many readers demand clarity and
> > simplicity where the historical record, providing none, shows
> > inconsistencioes, lacunae, and complexity.
>
> So true. The record of the founding of the U.S. does not yield a
clear,
> consistent, simple testimony that the founders wanted to separate
religion
> from public life, regardless of Alison, Sinclair, and Curtis'
simplistic
> interpretations and avoidance of the lacunae and complexity of the
matter.
Yet another in a series of Gardiner’s straw men series. We have been
arguing _not_ that the founders wanted to separate religion from public
life but that they wished to separate it from official usage and
endorsement (for or against) by the government.
For the record, we have posted clear, consistent and easy to understand
documentary evidence from Madison, Jefferson, and other of the founders
and framers which shows clearly that their intention was _clearly_ that
the government be officially neutral toward all things religious. These
documents have been posted several times, especially since December of
last year they include (although the list is by no means exhaustive)
such official articles as Article 6, Section 3 of the US Constitution,
the establishment clause of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights,
and such documents as Madison's _Memorial and Remonstrance_ (1785),
Jefferson's _Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom_ (1786), His letter
to the Danbury Baptist Association (1802), Madison's Vetoes of 1811,
and Madison's _Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, and
Ecclesiastical Endowments_. These documents are easily accessible at a
variety of websites, including Jim Alison’s web site.
What’s more, we have posted a considerable amount of commentary by
professional historians and legal scholars supporting the assertion
that these documents point irresistibly to the conclusion that such
separation was intended, especially given the types of sectarian
conflicts occasioned by religious establishment which had wracked
Europe for centuries and which had even in the colonies, in some cases
(i.e. in Virginia between the Presbyterians and the Baptists, in New
England between the Puritans and the Quakers, etc.) occasioned
religious strife.
> > Too many readers want
> > complete adherence to their views, allowing for no acceptions or
> > deviations.
>
> That's Sinclair in a nutshell.
No, that would be Gardiner. The fact that he immediately flies into
personal attacks when someone disagrees with him is confirmation of
this. Here are some URLs detailing examples of his past personal
attacks on me and on others. Access to the entire post will determine
to the reader’s satisfaction the context in which these personal
attacks took place:
http://x37.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=570613756
http://x37.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=570613760
http://x37.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=570613765
http://x37.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=570613771
The above URLs document Gardiner's own words, his own inflammatory
rhetoric, his own motives, and the company he has kept which further
give good indications as to his motives. It is also to be noted that
his arguments have not been directed toward legitimating the
establishment of any "one Protestant religious group", but toward
legitimating the establishment of Christianity as a whole in claiming
that the government was and should be based on "Christian principles".
The reader can also judge for himself or herself if I have been the
inflexible ideologue that Gardiner says that I have. However, the most
important thing is to compare the evidence that Mike Curtis, Jim
Alison, and I have presented showing that religion was one of many
influences on the development of American revolutionary thinking, and
not even the most important, with Gardiner’s ideologically driven
assertion that religion was _the most important_ factor, in
contradiction to decades of historical scholarship to the contrary.
> > Some people seem to read with such blindness that there
> > seems to be no way to shatter the stupefied integument of their
biases."
>
> That's Alison in a nutshell.
No, _that_ would be Gardiner. His biases have been exposed in his
dishonest use of sources again and again in order to support his
ideological bias as documented at the following URLs:
These two, for example, show how he blatantly misused source material
from Bernard
Bailyn:
http://x45.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=573227851
http://x45.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=573227854
Gardiner is challenged to show where Jim Alison has resorted to the
dishonest tactic recorded in the above URLs by cutting off quotes in
mid-sentence to achieve the desired sentence fragment to support his
assertions, or by presenting out of context quotations or source
material to argue that the founders intended the official separation of
religion and government. I suspect that the cause of the error above in
Gardiner’s misattribution of this to Jim Alison is that he happened to
be reading one of his own posts.
> > This is how I see the conversations with Gardiner and his buddies in
> > this newsgroup and others.
>
> Agreed. They attempt to present the colonial milieu in its proper
religious
> context; while the others make silly and indefensible arguments that
religion
> didn't play much of a role.
>
> That position is entirely the result of their 21st century anti-
religious bias.
That position is the position of scholars like Bernard Bailyn, whose
scholarly and cogent studies we have quoted who stated that religion,
while influential, what limited in its influence, especially when
compared with the Classical tradition, the influence of English common
law, Enlightenment philosophy, and especially the English revolutionary
tradition. Or will Gardiner now turn around and claim that scholars
like Bailyn and Wood, who won Pulitzer Prizes in History for their work
on American Revolutionary history, carry with them a "21st century anti-
religious bias" as well? LOL!
> > I don't think the problem is with myself, Mr. Alison, Mr. Sinclair,
Mr.
> > Stevens, or anyone else who has disagreed with Mr. Gardiner.
>
> There is no problem. Only blindness.
Gardiner’s intentional blindness to the documentary evidence presented
_is_ the problem.
mscu...@my-deja.com
Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
> mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <38998204...@pitnet.net>,
> > Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
> > > buc...@exis.net wrote:
> > > >
> > > > *It was ratified by the U.S. Senate June 7, 1797 and signed
into law by
> > > > President John Adams June 10, 1797.*
> > >
> > > You cite this to back up Klein's absurd position
that "Christianity had no
> > > part" in the early life of America??
> > >
> > > It is one thing to say that the U.S. did not have a Christian
establishment,
> > > it is quite another to say that Christianity did not inspire the
founding.
> >
> > Britain, a declaration of independence, and then war. Christianity
had
> > very little to do with it.
>
John Adams is *one* person and this selection was his view in 1813 or
something and he is entitled to it. I do suspect there was a response
from Jefferson.
John Adams doesn't get to speak for the whole historical record nor
does he get to speak for the whole revolutionary generation.
> What do you think ignited the "difficulties with Great Britain"?
Gosh, where to start. Much of it started with the French & Indian war
in the 1740s and 50s.
Could it have
> been the conflict which Bailyn spoke about and which Carl Bridenbaugh
wrote an
> entire book about (MITRE AND SCEPTRE), i.e., the religious rights of
> Protestant dissenters?
Nope, I disagree with them. On certain local levels it could have been
but on the colonial level it would be an event that would effect most
of the major colonies.
> What does John Adams say about this controversy:
>
> "If any gentleman supposes this controversy to be nothing to the
present
> purpose, he is grossly mistaken. It spread an universal alarm against
the
> authority of Parliament. It excited a general and just apprehension,
that
> bishops, and dioceses, and churches, and priests, and tithes, were to
be
> imposed on us by Parliament. It was known that neither king, nor
ministry, nor
> archbishops, could appoint bishops in America, without an act of
Parliament;
> and if Parliament could tax us, they could establish the Church of
England,
> with all its creeds, articles, tests, ceremonies, and tithes, and
prohibit all
> other churches, as conventicles and schism shops."
>
> (John Adams to H.Niles, Feb 13, 1818)
>
> Hear that Curtis? "Grossly mistaken"
Super, and Adams was speaking as a journalist at the time. Historians
look at the total array of evidence. That even includes evidence that
Adams was not aware of.
[snipped personal attacks]
--
Mike Curtis
buc...@exis.net
>:|All of Buckeye's posts have been very well-documented and quite
>:|enlightening. I have appreciated them very much.
>:|
>:|Mr. Childress' "refutations" have been enlightening in another way.
>:|Even though Buckeye has cited numerous sources for his arguement, Mr.
>:|Childress merely replies "this is bogus" with no support whatsoever.
>:|This is the essence of dogma. No amount of evidence will influence Mr.
>:|Childress to change his position, nor does he feel he needs to offer
>:|any contrary documentation other than "this is bogus" and "don't make
>:|yourself look stupid". Sad, really.
This is classical Childress.
I have known him in various news groups for five years.
While he frequently claims to be opened minded, his words over those five
years do not show that to be true, in fact shows the exact opposite to be
true.
He seldom provides any evidence to back up any of his pronouncements.
Instead, most of his replies consist of exactly what you have documented
above.
he seems to be under the impression that there would be or should be a
large segment of the population that is going to hang onto his every word
and accept such as Gospel, simply because he has said it.
Self delusion is a grand thing.
The fact is, the man doesn't have the knowledge, background or resources to
counter most factual discussions on this particular topic, but he does have
a political bias, and that really is all that matters to him.
I enjoy replying to him because he is so easy, and most reasonable people
can see he is in over his head in most of these discussions, but what makes
it fun is, he doesn't seem to realize that yet, hence he tends to stick his
foot in his mouth quite often.
In short, he will, if given enough time make himself "look stupid."