Separation of Church and State is a Christian concept
buc...@exis.net
>:|shos...@primenet.com (Paul Madison) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >> > The facts I have posted regarding the fact that Jefferson's brand of
>:|> >> > separation was explicitly based on his understanding of Jesus Christ's
>:|> >> > teaching on the matter have yet to be countered. So I stand by my
>:|> >> > original assertion that Separation of Church and State is
>:|> >> > fundamentally a Christian principle with a Christian origin.
>:|>
>:|> oo, do tell. I apologize for arriving past the metriculation date, but
>:|> please reiterate, if you will, thanks.
>:|
>:|Glad to.
>:|
>:|Consider the following clearly identifiable ancestry of the idea of
>:|separating the civil (secular government) and the ecclesiastical
>:|(religion, church):
>:|
>:|MARTIN LUTHER
>:|
>:|"God has ordained the two governments: the spiritual, which by the Holy
>:|Spirit under Christ makes Christians and pious people; and the secular,
>:|which restrains the unchristian and wicked so that they are obliged to
>:|keep the peace outwardly... Christ himself summarizes all this with the
>:|admirable distinction in Matthew 22: 'Give to the Caesar the things that
>:|are the Caesar's and to God the things that are God's.’ If the Caesar’s
>:|power extended to God's kingdom and God's power, and were not something
>:|distinct and separate, there would be no point in distinguishing the two.
>:|But, as has been said, the soul is not subject to the Caesar's power."
>:|
>:|-On Secular Authority
>:|
>:|JOHN CALVIN
>:|
>:|"There are two governments: the one religious, by which the conscience is
>:|trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil, by which the
>:|individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we
>:|are bound to perform."
>:|
>:|-Institutes of the Christian Religion
>:|
>:|JOHN LOCKE
>:|
>:|"There is a twofold society, of which almost all men in the world are
>:|members, and from that twofold concernment they have to attain a twofold
>:|happiness; viz. That of this world and that of the other: and hence there
>:|arises these two following societies, viz. religious and civil...
>:|If each of them would contain itself within its own bounds - the one
>:|attending to the worldly welfare of the commonwealth, the other to the
>:|salvation of souls - it is impossible that any discord should ever have
>:|happened between them."
>:|
>:|-Miscellaneous Papers, Life of Locke, 1829, p. 297
>:|
>:|JAMES MADISON
>:|
>:|"A due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the
>:|way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due God, best promotes the
>:|discharge of both obligations... A mutual independence is found most
>:|friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political
>:|prosperity."
>:|
>:|-Madison to F.L. Schaeffer
>:|
>:|The idea is definitely of Protestant origin--NOT ENLIGHTENMENT
>:|
>:|Consider the clear trace of ideas as they were handed down through these
>:|writers:
>:|
>:|MARTIN LUTHER, 1523
>:|
>:|"The laws of worldy government extend no farther than to life and
>:|property and what is external upon earth. For over the soul God can and
>:|will let no one rule but himself. Therefore, where temporal power
>:|presumes to prescribe laws for the soul, it encroaches upon God’s
>:|government and only misleads and destroys souls. We desire to make this
>:|so clear that every one shall grasp it, and that the princes and bishops
>:|may see what fools they are when they seek to coerce the people with
>:|their laws and commandments into believing one thing or another."
>:|
>:|JOHN CALVIN, 1540
>:|
>:|"Now let us return to human laws. If they are passed to lay scruples on
>:|us, as if the observance of these laws were necessary [for our
>:|salvation], we say that something unlawful is laid upon conscience. For
>:|our consciences do not have to do with men but with God alone."
>:|
>:|JOHN MILTON, 1659
>:|
>:|"It is unlawful for the civil magistrate to use force in matters of
>:|religion... Christ hath a government of his own sufficient of itself to
>:|all his ends and purposes in governing his church, but much different
>:|from that of the civil magistrate; and the difference in this very thing
>:|principally consists, that it governs not by outward force."
>:|
>:|JOHN LOCKE, 1689
>:|
>:|"The care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate, because his
>:|power consists only in outward force; but true and saving religion
>:|consists in the inward persuasion of the mind, without which nothing can
>:|be acceptable to God... Civil society has nothing to do with [anything
>:|outside of] its own limits, which is civil happiness... My faith or
>:|religious worship hurts not another man in any concernment of his."
>:|
>:|THOMAS JEFFERSON, 1776
>:|
>:|"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are
>:|injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say
>:|there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks
>:|my leg."
>:|
>:|----
>:|
>:|Anyone who can't see that the ancestry of these fundamental American
>:|ideas is easily and demonstrably traceable to the Protestant Reformation
>:|has her head in the sand
>:|
-------- ---------- -------- ------ -------
A STRUCTURALIST ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
In the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court the Establishment Clause has
not been regarded as a personal right, one that protects against coercion
of religiously informed conscience. Even in archetypal no establishment
eases such as those concerning religion in public schools, for example
Engel v. Vitale (16) and McCollum v. Board of Education. (17) the Court
applied the Establishment Clause not to relieve individual students of`
religious coercion or harm. but to keep two centers of'
authority--government and religion--in their proper relationship.(18) This
is why in popular discourse it is said that the Establishment Clause is
about "church-state relations" or the "separation of church and state." It
is in this structuralist role--when invoked to keep civil government in the
right relationship with religion--that the Establishment Clause broke with
older European patterns (19) and made its most unique and celebrated
contribution to the American constitutional settlement. (20)
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Differentiating the free Exercise and Establishment
Clauses, by Carl H. Esbeck. Journal of Church and State, Volume 42, Number
2, Spring 2000, pp 311-334.
**********************************************
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
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>:|MARTIN LUTHER, 1523
>:|
>:|"The laws of worldy government extend no farther than to life and
>:|property and what is external upon earth. For over the soul God can and
>:|will let no one rule but himself. Therefore, where temporal power
>:|presumes to prescribe laws for the soul, it encroaches upon God’s
>:|government and only misleads and destroys souls. We desire to make this
>:|so clear that every one shall grasp it, and that the princes and bishops
>:|may see what fools they are when they seek to coerce the people with
>:|their laws and commandments into believing one thing or another."
>:|
>:|JOHN CALVIN, 1540
>:|
>:|"Now let us return to human laws. If they are passed to lay scruples on
>:|us, as if the observance of these laws were necessary [for our
>:|salvation], we say that something unlawful is laid upon conscience. For
>:|our consciences do not have to do with men but with God alone."
>:|
>:|Anyone who can't see that the ancestry of these fundamental American
>:|ideas is easily and demonstrably traceable to the Protestant Reformation
>:|has her head in the sand
>:|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Protestant Reformation
What is known today as the Protestant Reformation began in the
1500s, when church critics began to increase in numbers and solidify their
arguments against the church. Their dissatisfaction with Catholicism was
multi-faceted, and Reformation leaders joined the call for reform for
different reasons. In general, though, many felt that the Catholic Church
had become obsessed with wealth and power and had thus strayed from
its role as God's church on Earth. Reformers sought to bring the faith
back to the people and reemphasize personal salvation and piety.
An example of the church's emphasis on money, many reformers
said, was the practice of selling indulgences, or a pardon from sin. The
sale of indulgences had originally been limited only to those who engaged
in extremely pious acts, but by the 1500s popes had taken to selling
them simply to raise money.
The Reformation sparked first in Germany, with the ideas of Martin
Luther, a Catholic monk. Luther's study of the Bible led him to
conclude that the Catholic Church's heavy emphasis on ceremony was
misguided. All that mattered, Luther argued, was that the sinner sincerely
seek forgiveness. God would take care of the rest.
Luther was incensed when in 1517 a Dominican friar arrived in
Wittenberg, where Luther resided, to sell indulgences. The friar had
been ordered by Pope Leo X to raise money for the rebuilding of St.
Peter's Church in Rome. The friar told the poor that for every coin
they dropped into his box, a soul would depart purgatory and fly into
heaven.
Later that year Luther executed a bold plan of action: At the door
of the Catholic church in Wittenberg he posted the 95 Theses, a document
that strongly attacked the sale of indulgences. Luther did not intend
his action to amount to a formal break with the church and did not
think of himself as a reformer, but his actions had severe consequences.
Church leaders could not let such a brazen challenge go unanswered.
They began to attack Luther and the reforms he suggested. The battle
was under way.
Luther took advantage of the printing press, a relatively new
invention, to spread his ideas through a series of pamphlets that
summarized his thinking. He continued to argue strongly that people did
not need priests or other intermediaries to communicate with God.
Catholic Church leaders were infuriated. In 1520, Pope Leo X excommunicated
Luther. Luther responded by burning the decree in public.
A special church council was convened to condemn Luther and
ban the sale of his writings. Luther's life was in danger, but because
Germany lacked a strong central government he was able to flee to
the Saxony region, where he sought protection from its ruler. While
there, Luther continued to spread his ideas and write pamphlets.
Luther worked feverishly to translate the Bible into German. Until
this time, most common people had never actually read the Bible, since
most peasants could not read in their own language, let alone the Latin
of the Catholic Church. Luther's translation meant that Germans who
could read would have access to the Bible for the first time.
The religion that became known as Lutheranism began to spread.
Eventually, Luther officially formed a new church, which he believed
was in keeping with biblical edicts concerning religion.
Leaders in some parts of Germany began to accept Lutheranism
and even establish it as a state religion. One leader, Charles V, attempted
to crush Lutheranism through military action but failed. The 1555 Peace
of Augsburg that ended the conflict guaranteed each German ruler the
right to choose a state religion.
While Luther's ideas and the chain of events he set into motion
are crucial to world history, it is important to keep in mind that Luther,
as important as he is to the development of religious liberty hundreds
of years later across the sea in North America, did have faults. For
instance, Luther did not believe in religious liberty as we understand
the concept today. Although he sought the freedom to interpret the
Bible in a way that differed from the view of the Catholic Church,
Luther then assumed that his interpretation was the only correct one
and persecuted those who disagreed. He was convinced that those who
took issue with his views were inspired by Satan and called the pope
the Anti-Christ. Luther was also a virulent anti-Semite who wanted
to exterminate the Jews. Like so many early dissenters from established
churches, Luther sought freedom only for himself and those who believed
exactly as he did. Despite these faults, however, the actions that Luther
took were a crucial bridge to events that were to unfold later. In that
respect, he may properly be called a hero of religious liberty.
In the wake of Luther's success, other reformers sprang up. Many
new Christian denominations took shape and began to grow. In many
cases, groups of people simply gathered in houses for informal worship
without forming an official church.
The English Reformation
Although Luther's ideas did spread to England, they had little impact
there. The Reformation in England was sparked by a wholly different
chain of events. King Henry VIII, who had a reputation as a strong
defender of the Roman Catholic Church, brought about change for
largely personal reasons. Seeking a male heir to his throne, Henry VIII
wanted to divorce his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and marry Anne Boleyn, an
attendant to the queen.
Pope Clement VII refused to grant Henry an annulment of his
marriage to Catherine, mostly for political reasons. Clement feared the
power of Catherine's nephew, Charles V of Spain, whose forces had
attacked and sacked Rome in 1527.
Enraged, Henry VIII disestablished Catholicism in England and
set up his own church, the Anglican Church, or the Church of England.
(It is known in the United States today as the Episcopal Church.) The
archbishop of Canterbury became the highest religious authority in the
land, and Henry VIII quickly received his divorce. In fact, he married
five more times.
Not satisfied with disestablishing the Roman Catholic Church, Henry
set out to make England a purely Anglican nation. He launched a reign
of terror against Catholics that soon spread to Lutherans and Anabaptists
(the precursors of today's Baptists). One of Henry VIII's favorite tactics
for disposing of heretics was death by fire. Two pyres were set side
by side; a Catholic was burned on one, an Anabaptist or a Lutheran
on the other. It was a startling change for a king who had once been
proclaimed "defender of the faith" by the pope.
After Henry's death confusion reigned in religious matters for
England's citizens. Henry's successor, Edward VI, retained Anglicanism
and persecuted Catholics, but following his reign Queen Mary re-
established Catholicism for five years, in turn persecuting Protestants.
Mary's reign was marked by such great religious persecution that history
knows her as "Bloody Mary." Finally, under Elizabeth I, England
returned to Anglicanism, which remains the country's state church today.
Calvin's Geneva
In what is today Switzerland, Reformation leader John Calvin
founded a Protestant church based on a rigid code of beliefs he spelled out
in a 1536 work titled 'The institutes of the Christian Religion. Calvin
and his followers eventually took over the city of Geneva and established
Calvinism there.
Unfortunately, Calvin had absolutely no understanding of the
concept of religious liberty. Calvin's Geneva was a harsh theocracy where
the clergy controlled all aspects of the lives of the citizens. Laws
prohibiting dancing and gambling, for example, were strictly enforced, and
violations brought swift punishment. Calvin's enforcers closed down the
theaters and tried to rid the city of its taverns. One unfortunate man,
Michael Servetus, who held Unitarian-style beliefs, was burned at the stake
by Calvin's henchmen because he disagreed with Calvin's interpretation of
the Trinity. The world still had a long way to go before anything
resembling true religious freedom came into being.
Despite the heavy-handed flavor of Calvin's ideas, his thinking
spread to other countries, notably France, where the presence of Calvinists
among the heavily Catholic population resulted in bloody conflict. Calvin's
religious ideas also caught on and spread in Scotland and the
Netherlands. The thinking of Calvin was eventually embraced by some
in England as well, where the faith went by the name of Puritanism.
This strand of Calvinism was exported to North America in the 1660s.
New Religions Take Hold
Although leaders of the Catholic Church launched attempts to reverse
the effects of the Reformation by ini6ating a series of internal changes,
their actions simply came too late. The church called councils to clarify
Catholic doctrine and took active steps to stamp out what was considered
heresy within the church, but to no avail. Protestant religions continued
to spread.
The Catholic Church certainly remained an important influence in
Europe and later in many other parts of the world, but it now had
to accept a future of sharing that influence with a variety of Protestant
denominations.
Some new Christian denominations died out quickly but others
survived and exist until this day. They include Baptists, Quakers,
Congregationalists, and Presbyterians. And the Reformation, which spawned
a multitude of new denominations, had a direct impact on events that
were to unfold in the United States 250 years after Martin Luther took
his hammer to a church door in Wittenberg.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Why The Religious Right is Wrong About Separation
of Church & State, by Robert Boston. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY. (1993)
pp 45-48
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The brand of religious freedom that was advocated by men like Jefferson and
Madison and embodied in the Federal Constitution and eventually in the
various State Constitutions of this nation was quite different then that
which had ever existed in the old world and quite different then anything
advocated by Luther and Calvin.
Gardiner has found one letter, out of all the letters written by Madison,
that mentions Luther, none mentioning Calvin.
He has produced none, yet, from Jefferson that mentions Luther, and the
only ones by Jefferson mentioning Calvin are full of language not fit for
polite society. In short, Jefferson had no use for Calvin and any of his
ideas about religion.
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Jefferson's ideas on religious freedom he drew largely from John
> > Locke. Fact, period, indisputable.
>
> No, it is not and over time myself and others have showed you that
Don't do this to yourself, Mike. You're only going to embarrass yourself.
By saying this, Mike, you really have lost a great deal of credibility
that I was beginning to accord to you, or, at minimum you prove that you
are simply unfamiliar with the scholarly literature:
See viz., Sanford Kessler, "Locke's Influence on Jefferson's `Bill for
Establishing Religious Freedom'." Journal of Church and State, Volume 25
(1983). 231-52.
Or see Gaustad:
"Jefferson turned to John Locke again and again... in Locke's LETTER
CONCERNING TOLERATION, written in [1689], Jefferson found sentiments he
would appropriate as his own...
Locke wrote of settling the "just bounds that lie between" the civil and
the ecclesiastical estate [first enunciated by Luther], Jefferson's
Statute [for religious freedom] can certainly and profitably be read as
the American gloss on Locke's basic proposition... Jefferson's debt to
Locke was more than merely one of sentiment."
-Edwin S. Gaustad, SWORN ON THE ALTAR OF GOD: A RELIGIOUS BIOGRAPHY OF
THOMAS JEFFERSON (Eerdman's, 1996).
Or Sandford:
"Jefferson was indebted to his wide reading, particularly from John
Locke, Shaftesbury, and John Milton, for many of these ideas on
toleration. Locke had argued that no one had a right to punish his
neighbor by the civil law for different religious practices, even if they
were in error, since the neighbor injured no one but himself by his
error. Jefferson used the same argument in Notes on the State of Virginia
when he wrote that it did no injury to him for his neight to believe in
twenty gods or no God."
That's just from the secondary sources. The primary sources are far more
telling about Jefferson's reliance on Locke: See Jefferson, "Notes on
Religion" in THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, Paul Ford, ed., Vol. 2.
Have you no concern for your credibility?
RG
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mscu...@my-deja.com
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Jefferson's ideas on religious freedom he drew largely from John
> > > Locke. Fact, period, indisputable.
> >
> > No, it is not and over time myself and others have showed you that
>
>
been through this in threads about Locke and Hutcheson and Bolingbroke
and many other Scottish philosophers that Jefferson admired. You found
yourself lacking and then turned to insults. No, Mr. Gardiner, you have
no credibility. Maybe as new readers turn up they'll be fooled by your
persistence. I no longer have the patience.
--
Mike Curtis
rgar...@my-deja.com
Go ahead an blow hot air, pound your chest and behave like Holloway
(viz., "I don't have to prove anything to you because everyone knows that
Jefferson wrote a letter to Dr. Woods in which he said orthodox
Christianity is entirely unredeeming; its as plain as the existence of
the Roman Empire"). The fact that you snipped, ignored, and avoided the
scholarship which blew your assertion out of the water is clear evidence
that your assertion was demonstrably bogus.
Note: I have never stated that Jefferson was not influenced by
Bolingbroke, or Reid, or Lord Kames, but that he "drew largely" from
Locke when it came to RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
Again, that is a fact, proven, indisputable, period. You have never
posted anything in the history of this forum which disproves that. What
you have rightly asserted is that Jefferson read other books than Locke.
So what? That's true. His views on religious liberty were principally
formed by Locke and Milton, according to the scholars. See JEFFERSON AND
HIS LIBRARY, p. 135,
"Suprisingly enough, Jefferson had only three short works on the subject
of religious toleration, religious liberty, and the separation of church
and state [in his library]... John Locke's TOLERATION and Milton's
writings on religion were particularly important in influencing his
thought, Jefferson's notes on his reading in religion reveal."
You used to at least try to be academic. Apparently you have caught the
Erbitis; a disease which prevents you from being able to engage in a
scholarly discussion based on facts, and leaves you entirely disposed to
proclaiming yourself the winner by fiat, or perhaps, by appeal to popular
opinion. It also has the side effect of making you disparage the
integrity of others while touting your own self-righteousness.
I am very ashamed of you. I always thought you to be above Erb in that
regard. I guess I was wrong. I guess I can expect a short one-line
response to this post, saying something like "yeah, well, your mother
wears combat boots, so I don't need to respond intelligently to you."
That certainly has been the pattern of the "skeptics" whom have been
dragged into these threads: the Holloways, the Cyberclones (aka Michael),
and the Fishes.
Apparently your level discourse has sunk to theirs. Okay, whatever.
RG
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources
mscu...@my-deja.com
Actually, as everyone in this group knows, it was I who went to the
libraries to find this Wood's letter. You ignored what I did find in
the letter to Short. You also did not ask me to show you that Jefferson
referred to a Dr. Woods. You ignored my response. I find that directly
speaks to your integrity and credibility.
http://x71.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=643070200&CONTEXT=&hitnum=0 is the
post. And here is the content for you to ignore again.
In article <8k14dp$bpb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Look, the fact that you got caught posting an entirely fabricated
> > > quote from Thomas Jefferson
> >
> > He didn't. Someone else did.
>
> Make no mistake. It was Alison that first offered the "Dr. Woods"
> citation. http://x59.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=631291495
>
> Not Holloway, not Erb... it was Alison.
Okay. Over the past month you've been ragging on this I lost track.
Accept my apologies. This seems to be how he offered it:
With all the above stated I offer the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the following significant passage we have Jefferson's opinion of the
Christian religion as a whole:
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the
world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity]
one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and
mythologies" (Letter to Dr. Woods).
Could a more emphatic declaration of disbelief in Christianity be
framed than this?
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_am
ericans/intro.html
Six Historic Americans
Paine, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Lincoln, and
Grant
The Fathers And Saviors Of Our Republic, Freethinkers
by John E. Remsburg
Six Historic Americans, Thomas Jefferson by John E. Remsburg (1906)
The "Memoirs, Correspondence and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas
Jefferson," edited by Thomas Jefferson Randolph, a grandson of the
distinguished statesman, was printed in four large volumes, and
published in 1829. From these volumes, and other writings of Jefferson,
I have culled some of the most radical thoughts to be found in the
whole range of Infidel literature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. It was a presentation from a secondary source to which both he and I
had doubts about.
2. I went to the University library here which is _very_ extensive. I
did find a reference to a Dr. Woods in one of Jefferson's letters but
no letter to doctor Woods in any of the materials Remsberg said he
used. I went through them all. I hope this is clear to you. I did find
the letter to Short where some of this is said.
So from:
THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON Definitive Edition
Containing His AUTOBIOGRAPHY, NOTES ON VIRGINIA, PARLIAMENTARY MANUAL,
OFFICIAL PAPERS, MESSAGES AND ADDRESSES, AND OTHER WRITINGS, OFFICIAL
AND PRIVATE, NOW COLLECTED AND PUBLISHED IN THEIR ENTIRETY FOR THE
FIRST TIME INCLUDING ALL OF THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS, DEPOSITED IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND PUBLISHED IN 1853 BY ORDER OF THE JOINT
COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS WITH NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS AND A COMPREHENSIVE
ANALYTICAL INDEX
ALBERT ELLERY BERGH EDITOR
VOL. XV.
ISSUED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION
OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON, D. C. 1907 COPYRIGHT, 1905,
BY THE THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION JEFFERSON IN HIS FAMILY
Beginning on page 245:
TO WILLIAM SHORT.
MONTICELLO, April 13, 1820.
DEAR SIR,-Your favor of March the 27th is received, and as you
request, a copy of the syllabus is now enclosed. It was originally
written to Dr. Rush. On his death, fearing that the inquisition of the
public might get hold of it, I asked the return of
244 Jefferson's Works
it from the family, which they kindly complied with. At the request of
another friend, I had given him a copy. He lent it to his friend to
read, who copied it, and in a few months it appeared in the Theological
Magazine of London. Happily that repository is scarcely known in this
country, and the syllabus, therefore, is still a secret, and in your
hands I am sure it will continue so.
But while this syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in
its true and high light, as no impostor Himself, but a great Reformer
of the Hebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am
with Him in all His doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of
Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards
forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem
it, etc., etc. It is the innocence of His character, the purity and
sublimity of His moral precepts, the eloquence of His inculcation, the
beauty of the apologues in which He conveys them, that I so much
admire; sometimes, indeed, needing indulgence to eastern hyperbolism.
My eulogies, too, may be founded on a postulate which all may not be
ready to grant. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to Him by His
biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct
morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so
much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and
imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions
should have
Correspondence 245
proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the
dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity
of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes
and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corruptor of
the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and alsifications
of His doctrines, led me to try to sift them apart. I found the work
obvious and easy, and that His past composed the most beautiful morsel
of morality which has been given to us by man. The syllabus is
therefore of His doctrines, not all of mine. I read them as I do those
of other ancient and modern moralists, with a mixture of
approbation and dissent.
I rejoice, with you, to see an encouraging spirit of internal
improvement prevailing in the States. The opinion I have ever expressed
of the advantages of a western communication through the James river, I
still entertain; and that the Cayuga is the most promising of the links
of communication.
The history of our University you know so far. Seven of the ten
pavilions destined for the professors, and about thirty dormitories,
will be completed this year; and three other, with six hotels for
boarding, and seventy other dormitories, will be completed the next
year, and the whole be in readiness then to receive those who are to
occupy them. But means to bring these into place, and to set the
machine into motion, must come from the legislature. An opposition, in
the meantime, has been got up. That of
246 Jefferson's Works
our alma mater, William and Mary, is not of much weight. She must
descend into the secondary rank of academies of preparation for the
University. The serious enemies are the priests of the different
religious sects, to whose spells on the human mind its improvement is
ominous. Their pulpits are now resounding with denunciations against
the appointment of Doctor Cooper, whom they charge as a monotheist in
opposition to their tritheism. Hostile as these sects are, in every
other point, to one another, they unite in maintaining their mystical
theogony against those who believe there is one God only. The
presbyterian clergy are loudest; the most intolerant of all sects, the
most tyrannical and ambitious ; ready at the word of the lawgiver, if
such a word could be now obtained, to put the torch to the pile, and to
rekindle in this virgin hemisphere, the flames. in which their oracle
Calvin consumed the poor Servetus, because he could not find in his
Euclid the proposition which has demonstrated that three are one and
one is three, nor subscribe to that of Calvin, that magistrates have a
right to exterminate all heretics to Calvinistic Creed. They pant to re-
establish, by law, that holy inquisition, which they can now only
infuse into public opinion. We have most unwisely committed to
the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
hierophants of our particular superstition, the direction of public
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
opinion, that lord of the universe. We have given them stated and
privileged days to collect and catechise us, opportunities of
delivering their oracles to the
Correspondence 247
people in mass, and of moulding their minds as wax in the hollow of
their hands. But in despite of their fulminations against endeavors to
enlighten the general mind, to improve the reason of the people, and
encourage them in the use of it, the liberality of this State will
support this institution, and give fair play to the cultivation of
reason. Can you ever find a more eligible occasion of visiting once
more your native country, than that of accompanying Mr. Correa, and of
seeing with him this beautiful and hopeful institution in ovo?
Although I had laid down as a law to myself, never to write, talk, or
even think of politics, to know nothing of public affairs, and
therefore had ceased to read newspapers, yet the Missouri question
aroused and filled me with alarm. The old schism of federal and
republican threatened nothing, because it existed in every State, and
united them together by the fraternism of party. But the coincidence of
a marked principle, moral and political, with a geographical line, once
conceived, I feared would never more be obliterated from the mind; that
it would be recurring on. every occasion and renewing irritations,
until it would kindle such mutual and mortal hatred, as to render
separation preferable to eternal discord. I have been among the most
sanguine in believing that our Union would be of long duration. I now
doubt it much, and see the event at no great distance, and the direct
consequence of this question; not by
248 Jefferson's Works
the line which has been so confidently counted on; the laws of nature
control this; but by the Potomac, Ohio and Missouri, or more probably,
the Mississippi upwards to our northern boundary. My only comfort and
confidence is, that I shall not live to see this ; and I envy not the
present generation the glory of throwing away the fruits of their
fathers' sacrifices of life and fortune, and of rendering desperate the
experiment which was to decide ultimately whether man is capable of
self-government? This treason against human hope, will signalize their
epoch in future history, as the counterpart of the medal of their
predecessors.
You kindly inquire after my health. There is nothing in it
immediately threatening, but swelled legs, which are kept down
mechanically, by bandages from the toe to the knee. These I have worn
for six months. But the tendency to turgidity may proceed from debility
alone. I can walk the round of my garden; not more. But I ride six or
eight miles a day without fatigue. I shall set out for Poplar Forest
within three or four days; a journey from which my physician augurs
much good.
I salute you with constant and affectionate friendship and respect.
**********************************************************************
I've left the letter in its entirety. Now I can give you the prior
reference to a Dr. Woods so we know he exists. However the above shows
plainly that Jefferson has used this phrasing before or after the
unlocated "Letter To Dr. Woods."
I'm still looking for it. So in it's place I would use the above letter
instead.
--
Mike Curtis
> Note: I have never stated that Jefferson was not influenced by
> Bolingbroke, or Reid, or Lord Kames, but that he "drew largely" from
> Locke when it came to RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
And your source from Jefferson is?
> Again, that is a fact, proven,
It isn't proven because you say so. you haven't the qualifications nor
the history of scholarship in this news group.
[snip -yawn]
--
Mike Curtis
rgar...@my-deja.com
> Actually, as everyone in this group knows, it was I who went to the
> libraries to find this Wood's letter. You ignored what I did find in
> the letter to Short.
I've seen that letter several times before. What was there to ignore? You
didn't find the quote there that Alison, Holloway, and Erb have been
touting as legitimate. You found the words "our superstition." So what?
You did not show that Jefferson believed Christianity has no redeeming
features as Alison, Holloway, and Erb have maintained.
Your "research" proved nothing.
> You also did not ask me to show you that Jefferson referred to a Dr.
> Woods. You ignored my response. I find that directly speaks to your
> integrity and credibility.
What!!?? Why the heck do I care if Jefferson referred to a Dr. Woods in a
letter. I'm sure he did. I would like to see the letter to Dr. Woods
which Alison cited where Jefferson says that there is not one redeeming
feature in Christianity.
Mike Curtis
>
>> Actually, as everyone in this group knows, it was I who went to the
>> libraries to find this Wood's letter. You ignored what I did find in
>> the letter to Short.
>
>I've seen that letter several times before.
Despite your snippage I'm positive people can refer back to my post.
http://x71.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=643070200&CONTEXT=&hitnum=0
>What was there to ignore? You
>didn't find the quote there that Alison, Holloway, and Erb have been
>touting as legitimate. You found the words "our superstition." So what?
The "so what" as you term it is that this is the phrase you denied
Jefferson to have written.
>You did not show that Jefferson believed Christianity has no redeeming
>features as Alison, Holloway, and Erb have maintained.
This was never any of our burden. I did show that the letter to a Dr,
Woods does not exist as yet, However, Dr. Woods does exist. I find
that interesting even if you do not. However, what I can do, if you
insist, is present all the writings of Jefferson against organized
churches and then what he views as Christianity vs. *his* for of
Christianity would become clear. But I have forgotten. Three of us did
this already in the colonial group and this group.
>Your "research" proved nothing.
It proved that there was no letter to a Dr. Woods. It did prove there
was a Dr. Woods and also a letter using a part of the phrase you
contested in this letter:
http://x71.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=643070200&CONTEXT=&hitnum=0
>> You also did not ask me to show you that Jefferson referred to a Dr.
>> Woods. You ignored my response. I find that directly speaks to your
>> integrity and credibility.
>
>What!!?? Why the heck do I care if Jefferson referred to a Dr. Woods in a
>letter.
I know you don't care for you are not a very good historian. Since he
went on a hunting trip with a Dr. Woods it is still possible that the
letter exists in some archive. But since you are not paying me for
research I'll chose to not proceed further. At present you ought to be
more than happy that there doesn't seem to be a letter To Dr. Woods
located. Then you ought to also be pleased to learn that your J. Q.
Adams quote has been shown to be bogus also. I realize that you have
no room to admit wrong.
> I'm sure he did. I would like to see the letter to Dr. Woods
>which Alison cited where Jefferson says that there is not one redeeming
>feature in Christianity.
How thick are you? I search several libraries containing all the
printed sources available to an author of a 1905 book on Jefferson. I
found nothing. Which part of this do you have trouble understanding?
Mike Curtis
rgar...@my-deja.com
> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >What was there to ignore? You
> >didn't find the quote there that Alison, Holloway, and Erb have been
> >touting as legitimate. You found the words "our superstition." So what?
>
> The "so what" as you term it is that this is the phrase you denied
> Jefferson to have written.
I denied the following two quotes:
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
and
"I do not find in our particular superstitution any redeeming feature."
It is not at all surprising that Jefferson referred to English Christian
traditions as "our superstition." That's not what's at issue.
> >You did not show that Jefferson believed Christianity has no redeeming
> >features as Alison, Holloway, and Erb have maintained.
>
> This was never any of our burden.
According to Alison it is. According to Alison, the one who provides the
quote is the one who has the burden to cite it. Perhaps you think Alison
is wrong about that.
It was offered first by Holloway, then backed up by Erb, then Alison
offered his version of the quote, referring to the letter to Dr. Woods.
> I did show that the letter to a Dr,
> Woods does not exist as yet,
Thank you.
> However, Dr. Woods does exist.
So. I'm sure there were many men named Woods who were within Jefferson's
sphere of influence. Although I've never read it, I would guess that a
Dr. Smith exists too, and a Dr. Jones, and even a Dr. Curtis probably.
> I find
> that interesting even if you do not.
What is interesting about it?
> However, what I can do, if you
> insist, is present all the writings of Jefferson against organized
> churches and then what he views as Christianity vs. *his* for of
> Christianity would become clear.
Jefferson's complaint was primarily with what he called "the corruptions
of Christianity" burrowing a phrase from Priestly. It was the theology of
the church fathers, whom Jefferson called "Platonists" that he took issue
with: the trinity, the virgin birth, miracles, etc.
He had his complaints with some church groups and he offered great
appreciation for others (e.g., the Danbury Baptists).
> But I have forgotten. Three of us did
> this already in the colonial group and this group.
I missed it. I'm sure Alison will repost it for us... if it really
exists.
> >Your "research" proved nothing.
>
> It proved that there was no letter to a Dr. Woods.
Okay, that seems true to me.
> It did prove there
> was a Dr. Woods and also a letter using a part of the phrase you
> contested in this letter:
John Quincy Adams uses many "parts of the phrase" which you and Alison
contest in his 1837 July 4 Address.
> >> You also did not ask me to show you that Jefferson referred to a Dr.
> >> Woods. You ignored my response. I find that directly speaks to your
> >> integrity and credibility.
> >
> >What!!?? Why the heck do I care if Jefferson referred to a Dr. Woods in a
> >letter.
>
> I know you don't care for you are not a very good historian.
Ignoratio Elenchi
http://rampages.onramp.net/~alaska/reporter/fallacy/page23.htm
> > I'm sure he did. I would like to see the letter to Dr. Woods
> >which Alison cited where Jefferson says that there is not one redeeming
> >feature in Christianity.
>
> How thick are you? I search several libraries containing all the
> printed sources available to an author of a 1905 book on Jefferson. I
> found nothing. Which part of this do you have trouble understanding?
I hear you loud and clear.
Hence, The quote and citation Alison posted are more than likely bogus.
buc...@exis.net
>:|In regards to the fascinating new book on the founding of the U.S., found at http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
>:|
>:|Robert L. Johnson wrote:
>:|>
>:|> I just visited the site and the way it looks to me is the book makes the
>:|> claim that America owes its existence to Christianity and that
>:|> Christianity permeates the founding of our country. If this were true
>:|> Jesus would at least be mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or
>:|> the Constitution. Jesus and the Bible are NOT mentioned in either one.
>:|> The Declaration mentions God only in Deistic terms. And that's what
>:|> Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, and many other key founders were - Deists.
>:|>
>:|> Bob
>:|
>:|Dear Bob,
>:|
>:| I perceive you are a committed deist, and I don't want to quarrel with
>:|you about the merits of your religion, but your assertions about American
>:|history are wrong-headed and unsupportable.
>:|
>:| Six facts, I hope you will have the integrity to admit are indisputable:
>:|
>:| 1) Neither Jefferson nor Paine were part of the assembly of founders
>:|who wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787.
This is true, So, what is your point?
>:|
>:| 2) Paine was a first generation immigrant to the U.S. at the behest of
>:|Benjamin Franklin, and although his book, COMMON SENSE, was a best seller as a
>:|political tract, his views on religion led him to be labelled an infidel by
>:|the majority of the key founders. As an immigrant it is not fair to say that
>:|Paine's perspective was the product of six generations of life in the American
>:|Colonies.
This is irrelevant
>:|His religious perspective did not represent the consensus of the
>:|colonists.
>:|In key places such as Princeton, all students had to refute Paine
>:|as a part of their graduation requirements.
Evidence?
>:|
>:| 3) The following "key founders" were strongly Christian, and by that,
>:|I mean traditional orthodox believers in the trinity:
>:|
Before we get into all this let me post the following:
**********************************************************************************
As students of the separation debate quickly discover, the
"quotation war" between accomodationists and separationists tends to
produce a lot more heat than light. There are at least two reasons for
this. First, most quotations are ripped out of the context of the documents
from which they are quoted, which leads to misinterpretation and
misrepresentation. Second, it's easy to read too much into a quotation,
especially if the quotation does not directly address the claim one is
attempting to prove. The best historical studies on church/state separation
take these issues into account when drawing conclusions from quotations; we
hope we have done the same in this webpage.
Having said this, we want to argue that there are some systematic problems
with way many accomodationists use quotations. In particular, we believe
that many of their quotations are not sufficient to establish their primary
claim that the framers intended the Constitution to favor either
Christianity or theism, or provide aid to religion. In what
follows, we present some guidelines accomodationists should follow if they
want to successfully use quotations to prove their points.
Quote the framers, and not just famous early Americans:
If you want to prove something about what the framers of the constitution
believed, you have to quote the framers themselves, and not just famous
Americans that lived around the turn of the 19th century. Many
accomodationists, for example, are fond of quoting the famous lawyer and
statesman Daniel Webster, who was a staunch proponent of Christian
influence in government, but Webster played no role whatsoever in the
formation of the Constitution (he did not even begin to
practice law until 1805, 14 years after the ratification of the Bill of
Rights). Webster's opinions may have been well-articulated, but they are
not the same as the views of the framers.
Quote supporters of the Constitution, not detractors:
If you want to find out how the Constitution was understood in 1787, quote
people that supported the Constitution, and not those who thought the
Constitution was evil. Patrick Henry, for example, made a number of
statements suggesting that our nation was founded on belief in God, and
that it was important to acknowledge God in civic affairs, but Henry lost
the battle to put religion in the Constitution. More to the point, Henry
was an anti-federalist, and vigorously opposed the Constitution when
Virginia discussed ratification. [In addition, Henry very much favored
establishments of religion, he butted heads with James Madison on this
issue and LOST] Quoting Henry to prove things about the constitution is
like quoting the chairman of the Republican National Committee to prove
things about the platform of the Democratic party.
Recognize that being sympathetic to religion is not the
same as being sympathetic to accomodationism: While many of the framers
were devoutly religious men, not all devoutly religious men were
accomodationists. It is not sufficient to quote a framer saying that
religion is good, or even that religion is important to government; one can
believe these things and at the same time believe that the government has
no business supporting religion. Jefferson, for example, believed that a
generalized belief in a future state of rewards and punishments was
important to maintain public morality, but he was staunchly opposed to
government support of religion. If the sum of your case in favor of
accomodationism is that the framers were religious people, you have no case
in favor of accomodationism.
States are not federal government: Accomodationists are
fond of quoting state constitutions, state laws, and state practices in
their efforts to support their claims about the federal government. But the
First Amendment originally limited only Congress, not the states. State
practices, in other words, tell us nothing about what is legal for the
federal government. Jefferson, for example, made official declarations of
days of prayer as Governor of Virginia, but refused to do the same as
President on the grounds that the First Amendment limited him in ways that
the Virginia State Constitution did not.
Make sure you have the right time frame: Between 1781
and 1789 the United States operated under the Articles of Confederation,
which contained no provisions for religious liberty. During this time
Congress acted in a variety of ways that might well have violated the First
Amendment. But since the First Amendment was not ratified until 1791, these
actions cannot be used to prove anything about that Amendment, or about the
meaning of the Constitution, which was ratified in 1788 (the first Congress
did not convene under the Constitution until 1789).
So what would a good accomodationist quote look like? Simply
put, it would be an authentic quote from someone who was a framer of the
Constitution, or someone who was qualified to express a learned opinion
about the Constitution, that directly addresses the issue of federal power
over religion under the Constitution and the First Amendment.
We think it's interesting that there are plenty of good
quotations on the separationist side of this this issue. Many framers were
adamant that (in the words of Richard Dobbs Spaight of North Carolina),
"(n)o power is given to the general government to interfere with it
[religion] at all. Any act of Congress on this subject would be an
usurpation."
Conversely, there is almost nothing that meet our standards
on the accomodationist side. We think this discrepancy is both significant
and telling.
TOM PETERS, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
*******************************************************************************
Not all of the above applies to what follows, but a lot does.
>:|Patrick Henry (give me liberty)
Patrick Henry is mentioned above.
>:|Samuel Adams (boston tea party)
Something to bear in Mind. The mindset regarding religion carried by many
who lived in or came from one of the New England states was quite different
then the mind set regarding religion of people from most of the other
states. Three of those New England states continued with established
religions long after all other states had ended theirs. (Mass. didn't end
its establishment of religion until the 1830's)
>:|Roger Sherman (member of the Dec of Ind committee)
>:|James Otis (taxation w/o rep)
>:|James Madison (father of the constitution)
Whoa, you will find little if any evidence that Madison was highly
religious, highly Christian, etc.
And as is stated on the section I posted on quotations, it really doesn't
matter how religious or non religious a person was. The founders separated
religion and government.
>:|John Hancock (first signer of the Dec.)
>:|William Churchill Houston (secretary of the 2nd cont cong)
>:|George Wythe (Jefferson's Mentor)
>:|John Witherspoon
>:|Charles Pinckney
>:|
Charles Pinckney offered the clause that directly separated church and
state at the Constitutional convention. He also led the fight in his home
state to disestablish religion in the revised South Carolina Constitution
in 1790.
>:| 4) Harvard, William & Mary, Yale, and Princeton were the institutions
>:|where most of the founders received their intellectual formation; all of these
>:|institutions were traditional orthodox Christian academies until the 19th century.
So?
Jefferson went to W&M, he was one of the major forces for religious liberty
in this nation. He founded a secular University
Madison went to Princeton, and his role in religious liberty in this
country is well documented
>:|
>:| 5) The two most often quoted sources by the founders were, first, the
>:|Bible, and second, William Blackstone's Common Law Commentaries (See Hyneman &
>:|Lutz).
You had better go back and read those people's findings again. You are
leaving out a very large part of what they discovered.
On page 17 of Mr. Eidsmoe's advidavit he mentions the work of Dr. Donald S
Lutz and Dr. Charles Hyneman. In Feb past, Tom Peters was preparing for a
debate with some Fundamentalists in Louisville, Ky over one of David
Barton's commercial videos claiming this is a Christian nation, separation
is a myth, etc. On the Video in question which was going to be used as the
focus of the debate, David Barton had made mention of this same material.
Tom Peters asked me via email what I (Jim Allison) knew about this
information, and the following was my answer back to him in regards to that
matter. Uncensored I might add, :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ok here we go, CHRISTIANITY AND THE CONSTITUTION, The Faith of Our
Founding
Fathers, by John Eidsmoe with forward by D. James Kennedy
Page 51
"Two professors (now u know you can't trust professors, LOL) Donald S
Lutz, and Charles S Hyneman have reviewed an estimated 15,000 items, and
closely read 2,200 books (these must be two really old people 2,200 books
closely read? ) pamphlets, newspaper articles, and monographs with
explicitly political content printed between 1760 and 1805. They reduced
this to 916 items, about 1/3 of all public political writings longer than
2000 words.
From these items, Lutz and Hyneman identified 3,154 references to other
sources. The source most often cited by the founding fathers was the bible,
which accounted for 34 percent of all citations. The Fifth book of the
bible, Deuteronomy, because of its heavy emphasis on biblical law, was
referred to frequently.
At the top of page 52 there is a chart and the first line of the chart
shows the percentage the bible was referred to
1760's 24%
1770's 44%
1780's 34%
1790's 29%
1800 - 05 38% for an over all average of 34%
Next in line was enlightenment and it carries an overall average of 22%
Whig is next with an overall average of 18%
Next is Common Law which is listed at 11% followed by
classical at 9% peers at 4% and others at 2%
Where this was published is suppose to have been Donald S Lutz, THE
RELATIVE INFLUENCE OF EUROPEAN WRITERS ON LATE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY POLITICAL
THOUGHT." AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW 189 (1984) 189-197.
Ok that's it, there are some other charts listing individual people like
Blackstone, Locke, Hume, Coke Milton etc in the order he claims they were
cited and Blackstone came in second at 7.9% with Montesquieu leading among
individuals with 8.3%..
I have some problems with the above information. All the numbers seems like
just that a lot of numbers but I am not sure any real bridges are
established between them definning exactly what all is considered. We also
are covering a 45 year period of time and only the vague term founding
fathers used. Lower case letters at that for founding fathers so how many
people and who exactly are these people. How many were fire and brimstone
New England preachers of the time frame 1760 to 1780 are there using
speeches delivered from Sunday Pulpits prior to and during the war of
Independence.
How many of these people were the people who really were Founders and were
considered for the time frame of the creation of this government.
Now to be fair he lists 216 items were examined for the 1760s, 544 for the
1770's, 1306 for the 1780's 674 for the 1790's, and 414 for the 1800-05
But again no way of knowing just what those items are or who said them or
wrote them etc.
But here is what I have to offer as rebuttal show and tell again.
if you want to go to which ever one of your libraries (regular or law) that
has them and look at the 12 published volumes of THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY
OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. (Don't be fooled by the numbering,
the books aren't published in a proper order. The published volumes thus
far are 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
if you look at volume 13 you will find on page 601 of the index the heading
Biblical References and it contains 24 page numbers listed for it. Volume
13 contains at least 579 pages of material from the people of those times.
For the three Virginia volumes you will find in the index under Biblical
References 46 page numbers which contain Biblical references on them. These
three books contain at least 1692 pages of historical material from the men
of those times.
So what we find is 67 pages listed as containing some reference to the
Bible out of a total of at least a total of 2271 pages of actual historical
documents, letters, newspaper articles, pamphlets, etc.
You can look at the remaining volumes there and you will find some indexes
don't even list Biblical references but the % doesn't change for the other
volumes that do contain such references.
If you take one of these book to your debate and let people see for
themselves I think the point will be made quite clearly.
(Our Secret, Susan's and mine. We go to Pat Robertson's Regent University,
School of Law and use the law Library there to research a lot of the
material we gather to use against the Christian Coalition, and the
religious right in general. its is such an enjoyable ironic situation.)
Ok first level of stuff from Regent.
While there we found and copied the ten pages that make up the Lutz
article as it appeared when it was published in 1984 in the AMERICAN
POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW.
Some additional light is shed on the information. Some of the material
that was used is given after all and some of it was THE COMPLETE
ANTI-FEDERALIST,
I have researched those six volumes that make up THE COMPLETE
ANTI-FEDERALIST in the past, and am aware of the religious references that
are in those books and was not impressed with their quanity.
Some other anti-federalist material unnamed, and some federalist material
which is unnamed.
It does say that "the proceedings of legislatures and conventions were not
included." it doesn't say why.
Another point made was that, "a citation count need not distinguish between
positive and negative citations."
The bible could have been cited in a positive way or negative way, doesn't
matter it was counted both ways..
Weaknesses of this method is, "that it cannot distinguish among citations
that represent the borrowing of an idea, the adapting of an idea, the
approval of an idea, the opposition of an idea, or an appeal to authority."
The purpose of this research was to try and determine the influence
European writers etc had on American political thought and in regards to
the Bible no real effort was made to determine just why the results or the
actual meaning of the results. But the highest % in regards to the Bible
was in the 1760's to 1780's period, the period of time when the actual
Constitution and BOR was being written debated ratified etc had the lowest
Biblical citations the 1780's and 1790's were 34% and 29% respectively
which was the lowest citation periods. (we know from the experiment above
had that material been included it would have been even lower)
Much of the Bible citations were a result of sermons that were published in
pamphlet forms and handed out much of the pre war of Independence period.
In fact this form of publishing represented about 10% of the total
publishing done in this nation at that time. Of course we have 16 years of
this 45 year period of time (1760 to 1776) with 9 of the colonies still
being under various forms of establishments. This study may give some
insights into what influence the Europeans had on American Political
thought but it is a far cry from giving any meaning or insight as to what
if any accurate meaning the figures they came up with concerning the bible
citation indicated or really meant.
The pattern of citations during the years 1787 and 1788 was, "The Bible's
prominence disappears, which is not surprising since the debate centered
upon specific institutions which the bible had little to say. The
anit-federalists do drag it in with respect to basic principles of
government but the federalists inclination to enlightenment is most evident
here in their failure to consider the bible relevant."
They include a chart here that lists the total for citations for the bible
for 1780's at 34% a repeat of the other chart but it lists only federalists
and anti-federalits and list federalists at 0% and anti-federalists at 9%
apparently whomever made up the other 25% were neither federalists or
anti-federalists. So it makes one think who were they? They didn't appear
to be very political since the two named groups mad up the bulk of the
political thinking of the times.
There is no further additions to the Bible findings added in the conclusion
and that isn't surprising since it was just an interesting sidelight found
while conducting a study of something else totally different.
So depending on exactly what Barton tries to make of this information it
really isn't that important. I also don't particularly like the fact that
so much of the entire political debate as indicated in the 12 volume set of
books appears to have been left out. Those results would have lowered the
overall Bible citation % quiet a bit for that time period. I also cannot
for the life of me recall anything like one third of any possible
citations in the Complete anti federalist being religious in any form There
just wasn't that much in there and I made note of and checked out every
reference to religion that was given in the index for all six volumes.
Anyways that is that.
I just sent you the results of my work with this claim and have only one
more thing to add.
The selection process predetermines the outcomes.
While in the world of scholarship and academia the research that was done
might have been acceptable, I find that the lack of naming the source
material in any better way then they did and the total opposite results to
be found in the books I consulted is disturbing.
Of course there is also the issue of who cited anything and how often did
people cite anything.
That wasn't addressed and is important to know.
I suppose that cites on 67 pages out of roughly 2100 pages pertaining to
the bible might represent 34% of the total cites to be found in those 2100
pages. But what does it mean if that was the case. It means people didn't
cite anything much and the bible even less. No conclusions such as Barton
might be trying to form or might want to imply to others is gonna be
supported by that information.
(BTW one additional item. In those 67 pages the reference might have only
been ne single sentence on the entire page, it doesn mean all that was
contained on that page was about the Bible.)
*********************************************************************************
And
Separation of Church and State Home Page
How often did the founders quote the Bible?
Research by Jim Allison and Tom Peters.
In the first version of his videotape, America 's Godly Heritage, David
Barton makes reference to two University of Houston researchers who studied
the most frequently cited authors in the writings of the founding fathers.
According to Barton, these researchers concluded that 94% of all the
citations found in these writings were either to the Bible, or to authors
who based their conclusions on the Bible. This, he concludes, demonstrates
the profound influence of the Bible on the Constitution.
While Barton doesn't name the researchers in his videotape, he refers to
them in his recent book, Original Intent. Barton's reference is to The
Origins of American Constitutionalism (hereafter, Origins), a 1988 book by
political scientist Donald Lutz. On pages 136-149 of Origins, Lutz
summarizes the results of a 1984 paper in which he and colleague Charles
Hyneman analyze some 15,000 items of American political commentary
published between 1760 and 1805 ("The Relative Influence of European
Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought," The
American Political Science Review, 78 (1984), pp. 189-197; hereafter,
Relative Influence). The purpose of the paper was to determine the sources
that most influenced the development of American political thought during
our nation's founding period.
Does Lutz's and Hyneman's research support Barton's conclusions about the
Bible and the Constitution? In some ways, the answer is "yes." In
particular, Lutz and Hyneman demonstrate that the Bible was the most
frequently quoted source between 1760 and 1805, and he concludes that
future research on the development of American political thought should
include increased attention to "biblical and common law sources" (Relative
Influence, p. 190). It is perfectly reasonable that Barton would use this
evidence to support his argument, and we have no quarrel with that aspect
of Barton's case.
But this isn't all that Lutz concludes. Lutz also devotes a full section of
his article to political writings about the Constitution, and these data
largely refute Barton's conclusions. Needless to say, Barton doesn't report
these data, despite their relevance to his argument. Additionally, Barton
attributes to Lutz and Hyneman conclusions they do not reach about the
importance of the Bible during the founding period. Accordingly, Barton's
treatment of Lutz's data is both selective and dishonest.
Let's begin with Barton's 94% figure. In the videotape, Barton breaks it
down as follows: 34% ofthe founder's quotations were taken directly from
the Bible, and 60% were from authors that base their conclusions on the
Bible. The 34% figure, at least, is accurate; this corresponds exactly to
Lutz's and Hyneman's conclusions with respect to the total percentage of
citations between 1760 and 1805. But where does the 60% figure come from?
Not from the paper; Lutz and Hyneman provide no category of citations that
even remotely corresponds to "authors that base their conclusions on the
Bible." Rather, the 60% figure is manufactured by Barton himself on the
basis of his own reading of other authors that scored highly in Lutz and
Hyneman's survey people like Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke. You would
not know this from the videotape, which reports the 60% figure as if it
were the conclusions of Lutz and Hyneman themselves. [Note: there are a
number of problems with this 60% figure. In particular, Barton overstates
the degree to which these authors used the Bible in reaching their own
conclusions. We'll do an article on this issue at a later time.]
Beyond this, what exactly does this 94% figure prove? Barton wants us to
think that because the founders quoted at length from the Bible, or people
that quoted the Bible, the Constitution must somehow embody Biblical law,
be "based" on the Bible. or otherwise have the Bible in mind. But this
doesn't follow; the fact that the Bible was frequently quoted is not the
same thing as saving it was quoted for the purpose of creating a legal code
or the Constitution, Indeed, Lutz's and Hyneman's data suggest that the
Bible was for the most part irrelevant to the Constitution, and that what
connections there were between the Bible and the Constitution are not of
the type that support Barton's claims.
First, Barton does not report the most relevant evidence from Lutz's
article: in addition to their general citation count from 1760 to 1805,
Lutz and Hyneman compile a count specific to political debate on the
Constitution between the years 1787 and 1788 (the years corresponding to
the drafting and ratification of the Constitution). According to Lutz, this
sample "comes close to exhausting" the literature written on the
Constitution during this period (Relative Influence, p. 194). If the
founders believed that the Bible was truly relevant to the Constitution,
Biblical citations should appear in abundance in this sample, but, they
don't. On the contrary, Biblical citations are virtually nonexistent in
this sample. According to Lutz, federalist (i.e., pro-Constitution) writers
never quoted the Bible in their political writings between 1 787 and 1 788.
Conversely. anti-federalist writers quoted the Bible only 9% of the time.
According to Lutz:
The Bible's prominence disappears, which is not surprising since the
debate centered upon specific institutions about which the Bible has little
to say. The Anti-Federalists do drag it in with respect to basic principles
of government, but the Federalist's inclination to Enlightenment
rationalism is most evident here in their failure to consider the Bible
relevant....The debate surrounding the adoption of the Constitution was
fought out mainly in the context of Montesquieu, Blackstone, the English
Whigs, and major writers of the Enlightenment (Relative /nfluence, pp.
194-195, emphasis ours).
Additionally, Barton omits Lutz's breakdown of sources for his 34% figure.
Three fourths of the Biblical citations in Lutz's 1760 to 1805 sample come,
not from secular sources, but from reprinted sermons (one of the most
popular types of political writing during these years). Conversely the
Bible accounts for only 9% of all citations in secular literature, about
equal to the number of citations from classical authors (Origins, p. 140).
Hence, were it not for the political activity of religious clergy, the
Bible would be tied for fourth place among source citations during 1760 and
1805.
Interestingly, Barton's reference to Lutz's work in Original Intent is not
to Lutz's article, but to Origins, Lutz's later book. Lutz's book reports
his 1984 data in abbreviated form, and does not refer to his citation count
for the years 1787 to 1788, or the conclusions he draws from that count. A
reader that simply follows Barton's citations, in other words, would be
ignorant of this data. At the same time, no reader of Lutz book would
likely come away with the feeling that the Constitution was written with
the Bible particularly in mind. As Lutz documents, by the time of the
Constitution, American political theory was a rich tapestry of ideas drawn
from many different sources; the Bible and colonial covenant theology were
simply two of many influences that played in the minds of the American
founders.
In the end, Lutz's work is far more supportive of separation than of
accomodationism. Did the founder's quote the Bible in their political
writings? Of course they did, and there is nothing remarkable about that
fact. Lutz's data suggest that, whatever the cultmal influence of the
Bible, it did not play much of a role in the construction of the
Constitution. On the contrary, the Constitution is a secular document
concerned with the nuts and bolts issues of how to create a workable nation
in a land of economic, cultural, and religious diversity. It simply did not
touch on matters relevant to the Bible.
TOM PETERS, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
*******************************************************************************
>:|Blackstone was a full fledged believer in revealed religion (i.e., the
>:|bible),
Irrelevant
His works that were cited were Commentaries on the Laws of England.
There was only one chapter or so that had anything to do with Religion, and
one must remember, England had an established church. reliigon and
government were very much in a union with each other.
>and most of his content was rooted in medieval (Catholic) political
>:|philosophy (e.g., the Magna Carta).
I don't even know what that is suppose to mean.
>:|What's more, the entire Common Law
>:|tradition was rooted in orthodox Christianity.
>:|
The above is disputed, Disputed in fact by Thomas Jefferson, who presents a
great deal of evidence showing that Christianity is not part of the English
Common Law
>:| 6) The First Great Awakening was the generation in which the founders
>:|were born and reared. The First Great Awakening was led by Jonathan Edwards,
>:|George Whitefield, and John Wesley...their views permeated the colonies; and
>:|they were hardly deists!
>:|
In 1776 only 17% of the American population was churched.
In 1800 when the government began functioning in Washington D C there was
only one church in D C and it had less then 20 members. The following year
the church had shut its doors.
>:| Now a quick word about the men whom I'm sure you will claim for your band:
>:|
>:| GEORGE WASHINGTON: I am quite aware that his religious sentiments are
>:|a great matter of controversy. You mentioned in your post your interest in
>:|Boller's book on Washington. The most celebrated biography of Washington is
>:|Mason Weems' THE LIFE OF GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1809; this book portrays
>:|Washington as a committed orthodox Christian. E.C. McGuire published The
>:|Religious Opinions and Character of Washington in 1836; it debunks the
>:|"Washington the Deist" myth. Finally, I refer you to William J. Johnson,
>:|GEORGE WASHINGTON THE CHRISTIAN (1919).
>:| In a nutshell, there are an abundance of documents authored by
>:|Washington which prevent an honest historian from classifying Washington as a
>:|deist. One example of this is the following prayer: "O most Glorious God, in
>:|Jesus Christ my merciful and loving Father, I acknowledge and confess the weak
>:|and imperfectconfess my guilt, in performances of the duties of this day...for
>:|the sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered upon the cross for me, for his sake,
>:|ease the burden of my sin...direct me to the true object Jesus Christ, the
>:|way, the truth, and the life...These weak petitions I humbly implore thee to
>:|hear and accept and ans. for the sake of thy Dear Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen."
>:|
>:|Bob, it'll take some manipulation of words to derive DEISM from that prayer!!
The historical facts are that Washington was not a very committed
Christian. The common accepted preception is, he shared Deist thought,
was a Mason, fully believed in religious freedom and equality and attended
church regularly at times in his life and very infrequent at other times.
he was never known to partake of communion, his wife would but Washington
would leave first.
Do you have a original cite for the above "prayer"
Without an original cite it is meaningless. Second hand sources that do not
provide original sources cites are highly suspect.
>:|
>:| JOHN ADAMS: a graduate of Harvard, a place steeped in Puritanism; like
>:|Washington, he used some deistic language, but his explicit creed (1813) was
>:|as follows: "My religion is founded on the hope of pardon for my offenses."
John Adams was not an orthodox Chrisitian. He was a combination Unitarian,
Deist, with some holdover Calvinist thoughts at times.
You will find as many writings of his that are highly critical and blasting
organizied religion aas you will find support of religion in general.
>:|It
>:|was his son, John Quincy Adams who made this bold statement in 1821: "The
>:|highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one
>:|indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."
>:|
THE ABOVE IS A BOGUS QUOTE
******************************************************************************
Did John Quincy Adams ever say that the American Revolution "connected in
one indissoluable bond the principles of civil government with the
principles of Christianity?"
Research by Jim Allison.
In the first edition of his videotape, America's Godly Heritage, David
Barton quotes John Quincy Adams as follows:
The highest glory of the American Revolution is this; it connected in
one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the
principles of Christianity.
While the quote doesn't appear in any of Barton's later works, it does turn
up in another popular Christian book, William J. Federer's, America's God
and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations, p. 18. Federer provides a date for
the quotation (July 4, 1821), and gives the source as follows:
John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution 1860
(reprinted NY: Burt Franklin, 1860; 1970), p. XXIX.
We recently located this source and now suspect that John Quincy Adams
never uttered these words. Here's what we found:
Pages X through XXXVIII of the Thornton book are a historical introduction
to the subject of religion in the New England States, with a special focus
on the state of Massachusetts. Throughout this introduction, Thornton
quotes various early Americans on the subject of religion. At least some of
the quotations are footnoted, and all of them appear to be enclosed in
quotation marks. Sometimes portions of the quotations are italicized for
emphasis.
The words attributed to John Quincy Adams appear on page XXIX. None of
these words are placed in quotation marks. Rather, the sentence reads as if
Thornton is making his own conclusion about what John Quincy Adams
believed. Thornton's sentence reads as follows:
The highest glory of the American Revolution, said John Quincy Adams,
was this: IT CONNECTED IN ONE INDISSOLUBE BOND, THE PRINCIPLES OF CIVIL
GOVERNMENT WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIANITY (emphasis in the original).
No footnote for these words is given. Nor are the words attached to a date.
Hence, if these words are a quotation from Adams? it is impossible to trace
them back from Thornton's book to an original source. Elsewhere in the book
Adams' father (John Adams) is quoted properly, i.e., with footnotes and
quotation marks.
It appears, in other words, that somewhere down the line Thornton"s
conclusions about John Quincy Adams were passed off as Adam's own remarks.
In Federer's case, his reproduction of the quotation doesn't edit out the
words "said John Quincy Adams" and replace them with ellipses; either he
knowingly misreports Thornton's words, or he didn't check his sources for
accuracy. It is, of course, possible, that the printer made a mistake and
forgot the quotation marks but, until somebody can locate the original
source of the quote, there is no ground whatsoever to treat these words and
Adams' own. The quote should be regarded as bogus.
Please note: even if Adams did say these words it wouldn't bolster the
accomodationist's case; as we suggest elsewhere, Adams would simply be
wrong to argue that the federal Constitution embodies the principles of
Christianity. It doesn't, and Adams' saying so doesn't prove a thing.
Rather, the real importance of this quote is as a demonstration of just how
far some popular Christian authors will go to prove their case. Nothing in
the Thornton book justifies taking the "indissoluble bond" quote as John
Quincy Adams' own words, but because it says something the right wants to
hear, the words are pressed into service anyway. This isn't good
scholarship, and the consumers of Barton and Federer's work should be aware
of just how poor their research is.
TOM PETERS, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
**********************************************************************************
>:| BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: Of all the founders, Franklin is most deistic. I
>:|will grant him to your cause, with Paine. But you need to be honest enough to
>:|admit that Franklin, as an 81 year old man at the Constitutional Convention
>:|was too feeble to provide the erudition he possessed as a younger man.
>:|Further, you must admit that Franklin was steeped in Puritanism and
>:|Presbyterianism...he studied for the ministry, he wrote a defense of
>:|Predestination, and he was a huge fan of Christianity, even though he demurred
>:|from its precepts. Although Franklin explicitly identified with the Deists
>:|(per AUTOBIOGRAPHY), Puritanism ran through his blood. That is why Franklin is
>:|perhaps the one individual in America most closely identified with "the
>:|Protestant Work Ethic."
>:|
>:| THOMAS JEFFERSON: You might think it outrageous to say that Jefferson
>:|had a Christian view of law and rights. You will point out that Jefferson was
>:|very clearly outside the mainstream in his views of Christ as Savior. He did
>:|not believe Jesus was God. If he did not have an orthodox view of the
>:|Christianity, how could he have a Christian view of law and rights?
>:| Regardless of whatever his personal views of religion were,
>:|Jefferson's political writings were saturated with ÒChristianÓ ideas. This is
>:|a result of Jefferson's immersion in a Christian culture. Whether he
>:|personally confessed Jesus as his savior is of little issue in terms of
>:|whether his theories were Christian. Jefferson adopted, by osmosis, much of
>:|the general Christian world-view of his mentors. Armchair historians easily
>:|forget Jefferson's cultural context; Jefferson's educational training did not
>:|occur in the classroom of Deists in Paris, but at the feet of clergymen in
>:|Virginia. From the time he was nine years old until the time he was sixteen,
>:|he was tutored by two orthodox ministers: Rev. James Maury and Rev. William
>:|Douglas. When he studied law at William and Mary he was not the pupil of
>:|Voltaire. His mentor was Mr. George Wythe, "a devout Christian and by no means
>:|a deist." And although the same cannot be said of Jefferson, it is recorded
>:|that Jefferson admired Wythe's Christian virtue. Jefferson called Wythe "my
>:|second father, my earliest and best friend." Though Jefferson became a
>:|Unitarian who was quite fond of the French deists, he was instilled with
>:|orthodox Christianity in his formative years. Despite his private doubts about
>:|the deity of Christ, as a statesman he complied with tradition, referring to
>:|Jesus as "Our Savior" and "Lord" in the ordinary Christian sense (see the
>:|Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom). In other words, as a son of a
>:|Christian culture, JeffersonÕs blood was Christian. And that blood permeates
>:|the concepts set forth in his political writings.
>:|
You will have to do better then the above. You really seem to be working
hard at trying to claim Jefferson as one of your own.
Solid examples would go much father in trying to establish your claims. Do
yoo have any examples of his writings etc that would do this?
>:| Critics like yourself, both Christian and non-Christian, have often
>:|insisted that the U.S. Constitution is not "Christian" because it nowhere
>:|refers to "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Over the years there have been
>:|repeated efforts by some Christian groups to make the Constitution "Christian"
>:|by an amendment that would change the preamble to include a reference to "our
>:|Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." This cosmetic change would add ecclesiastical
>:|language almost as a decoration. It would have no material effect on any of
>:|the concepts in the document. Yet it is supposedly required in the eyes of
>:|some to make the Constitution "Christian." The issue is one of surface versus
>:|substance. It is the substance of the document that makes it a product of Christianity.
>:| In the Puritan outlook, Christian jargon was not the key. The content
>:|and the underlying concepts were the key. The fact that terms such as
>:|"federalism" and "due process of law" had an explicit Christian heritage, and
>:|that the entire Constitution rested on a Puritan view of the ordinary
>:|depravity of man was the kind of evidence that was relevant to showing the
>:|Christian impact on the Constitution.
>:| The language of the Founders was creator-oriented because it dealt
>:|with civil government, law, and individual rights. The Founders did not apply
>:|redeemer-oriented language--Christian jargon--to these documents of public
>:|law, because Calvin, Luther, and dozens of other Protestant political
>:|theorists called it a corruption of the gospel. By using creator-oriented
>:|language, the founders were squarely within the mainstream of the English
>:|Common Law heritage. And they were completely in harmony with the traditional
>:|Puritan use of legal terms and rights terms.
>:| In the Puritan approach, concepts were very important. Some concepts
>:|dealt with law. Others dealt with rights. By 1776, the Puritans were fully
>:|convinced that concepts about the equality of all human beings, individual
>:|inalienable rights, and government by the consent of the governed were fully
>:|biblical ideas. It is not surprising in light of the Puritan impact, that
>:|these ideas were foundational to the American colonial outlook at the time of independence.
>:| These were not Enlightenment concepts or Deistic concepts. They were
>:|Puritan concepts, and fully Christian. And they were more than just Puritan
>:|concepts. They were part of that broader stream of Christian thought in which
>:|the Puritans stood. Where the colonies were concerned, the concepts were
>:|Puritan for the simple fact that for decades the Puritans were purveyors of
>:|these concepts and were intellectual leaders prior to 1776. The concepts were
>:|Christian even though they were expressed in natural terms rather than
>:|ecclesiastical language. In the Puritan approach to the creator-redeemer
>:|distinction, natural language was the right language to use.
>:| To the critics, however, naturalistic language is automatically
>:|suspect. Such language could not be "Christian" because it does not sound
>:|religious enough. People are prone to test the founding documents not by their
>:|concepts and content, but by whether they used Christian jargon. If redemptive
>:|language was not used, many simply assume that the documents were not
>:|"Christian." That is not only a foolish and narrow-minded approach to
>:|evaluating the founders and their writings, it leads to a patently erroneous conclusion.
There is much that could be offered to the above but for this installment I
will only add the following:
******************************************************************************
Did Montesquieu base his theory of separation of powers on the Bible?
Barren Charles Louis Joseph de Secondat Montesquieu was a nobleman who
wrote extensively about political theory. In his famous work The Spirit of
the Laws, Montesquieu became the first to articulate in a detailed way the
doctrine of separation of powers (i.e., the theory that liberty is best
protected when government distributes executive, legislative, and judicial
power among three branches of government, so that no one branch can control
all three). By all accounts America's founding fathers were deeply
influenced by Montesquieu; citations to Montesquieu pop up with great
frequency in the political discourse of revolutionary America, and his
work was a major justifrcation for the structure of the American
Constitution.
In his book America's God and Country (p. 453), William Federer claims
that Montesquieu based his theory of divided powers on two Biblical
passages: Isaiah 33:22, and Jeremiah 17:19. The Isaiah passage reads as
follows:
The LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king.
The Jeremiah passage reads:
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who
can know it?
According to Federer, the Jeremiah passage provides the motive for
separated powers; since the heart is wicked it's best to divide powers to
minimize the amount ofpower that any one individual person can possess. The
Isaiah passage, on the other hand, provided Montesquieu with the structure
for a divided government. Federer references these verses to page 457 of
Anne Cohler's 1989 translation of The Spirit of the Laws, These same
verses are also referred to by David Barton in his work The Myrh of
Separation, pp. 195-196. Unlike Federer, harvever, Barton does not
explicitly claim that Montesquieu based his work on these verses, and does
not provide relevant citations to Montesquieu's text.
The problem with Federer's argument is that it is not true. Montesquieu
develops his argument for separation of powers in Book XI of The Spirit
ofthe Laws, and nowhere in this book does he reference Isaiah, Jeremiah, or
am other book of the Bible. On the contrary. Montesquieu's examples in
this section are all drawn from contemporary European and pre-Christian
Roman and Germanic histoly. Nor can we find references to Isaiah and
Jeremiah elsewhere in the book. While Montesquieu does occasionally
reference the Bible in The Spirit ofthe Laws, these references are mostly
to the Pentateuch, and are never to the prophetic books of the Old
Testament.
It is difficult to argue that Montesquieu based his theory of divided
powers on Isaiah and Jeremiah when he doesn't quote from these books, and
when he bases his examples on other sources. We corrclude that Federer has
either misunderstood Montesquieu, is simply repeating someone else's
inaccurate argument, or is intentionally misleading his readers.
But what of Federer's reference to page 457 of Cohler's translation of The
Spirit of the Laws? We've located a copy of this work, and this page turns
out to be nothing more than the title page for the fifth section of
Cohler's translation; it has no text except the words "Part 5. We will
charitably assume that the reference is a misprint, but sloppy editing on
Federcr's part does little to convince us that he knows what he's talking
about with respect to Montesquieu. Additionally, Cohler's work contains an
detailed appendix in which she indexes all the sources Montesquieu used in
writing The Spirit of the Laws, and while we find several references to
various books oflhe Bible, there are no references to Isaiah and Jeremiah.
Far from proving his argument Cohler's translation is further proof that
Federer's claim is incorrect..
For what it's worth, we don't think Federer is the originator of the myth
that Montesquieu derived his theory from the Bible. Barton's The Myth of
Separation predates Federer, and Barton makes essentially the same argument
(albeit without footnotes). The idea was probably circulating long before
either Federer or Barton wrote their books. But it makes no difference. It
is a myth. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Montesquieu
derived his ideas from the Bible. The myth should be put to rest
before it does am more disservice.
TOM PETERS, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
________________________________________________________________________
Does the Constitution Embody Christian Thought and Morality?
Contrary to the claims of many accomodationists, virtually nothing in the
Constitution references Christian thought and morality. The only explicit
mention of religion is the article VI declaration that "no religious Test
shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust
under the United Stales. Otherwise, the Constitution is wholly concerned
with the secular issues of defining federal power. and distributing that
power among the various branches of government. Quite against the practice
of state constitutions, the federal Constitution does not quote or refer to
the Bible, does not set up any religion above another, does not refer to
God. and does riot raise or rule upon religious questions. It is a
remarkably secular document for its day and age.
Our e-mail correspondents have occasionally argued that that the structure
of our federal government is derived from the Bible: this claim rests on
little more than wishful thinking. The most inuportant features of our
federal government include (1) a separation of powers among three branches
of government, (2) a bicameral legislature, (3) different modes of
representation in each chamber of the legislature, (4) a limited executive,
(5) and independent judiciary and (G) a complex system of checks and
balances. No model of government found in the Bible corresponds to this
outline. Ancient Israel was governed first by Judges and then by Kings: in
neither system was there separation of powers (i.e., the executive acted as
both lawmaker and judge). nor was there am clear distinction between
secular and religious law. Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find anvthing
like a bicameral legislature, or an independent judiciary. Conversely the
New Testament does not contain a model of government: It simply does not
fanction as a political document in the same way as, eg., the Q'uran does
in Islam.
Some accomodationists claim that founders derived the principle of
separation of powers from Isaiah 33:22, "For the LORD is our judge, the
LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our King: he will save us. Apart from the
fact that there is no evidence that this verse was ever referred to by the
founders in this context, this argument fails on it's own assumptions: the
Constitution sets up an elected executive, riot a King. and the tenor of
the verse is anti separation-of-powers; it says that all three branches are
properly united in one person, the LORD. That the founders would read this
verse and derive from it a mandate for divided
powers is neither logical nor plausible.
Nor is there any relationship between the Constitution and the 10
Commandments. The Constitution fairly repudiates the first two commandments
(i.e., it leaves us free to worship other Gods than the LORD, and to make
graven images), and is silent on commandments three through ten. Laws
against blasphemy, Sabbath breaking, dishonoring parents, murder, adultery,
stealing, false witness. and coveting are left entirely to the states.
The secular ethos of the Constitution extends even to the taking of the
oath of office. Quite against the practices of the states, the oath of
offrce described in Article II section 2 of the Constitution is completely
secular; it is described as an "oath or affrrmation." contains no religious
references, and need not be taken on the Bible. The practice of saying "so
help me God" is not required by the Constitution; it is a voluntary
practice initiated by later presidents.
The absence of Christian thought and morality in the Constitution is a
powerful evidence that the founders did not intend to create a Christian
nation. Indeed, a popular early criticism of the Constitution is that it
allowed non-Christians to serve in federal offices. and did nothing to
promote Christianity (see Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore. The Godless
Constitution. ch. 2). If the founders wanted to favor Christianity or
Judeo- Christian morality, they failed utterly in that lask. This should
make us suspect that the Constitution was never intended to set up
Christianity as a preferred religion in the first place.
TOM PETERS, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
************************************************************************************
MACKLIN
requiring some "official" religion or interferring with religious expresion
was that in Europe you had to be in a certain church to have any office
within the government. The King was often the head of the church or
appointed a leader. If you were of the wrong religion you just didn't have
a voice.
The anti-religion court cases stem from a few people who are offended by
ignoring religious words spoken in their presence.
There is no seperation between church and state as far as morals, only
political power. What has happened is that morals have been included in the
implementation of a wall imposed by the courts.
BTW, I have not been to church in about 30 years, except for one funeral I
was roped into and a tourist visit when I walked through St. Patrick's in
NYC.
Seperation of church and state in the modern sense is an atheist concept.
Being agnostic I dom't know, don't much care and it can't be proven one way
or the other.
GOD was defined by the Big Bang---Gravity Overcomes Dispersion
Or
Did you hear about the agnosyic, dyslexic, insomniac who was up all night
worrying about the existance of DOG.
mscu...@my-deja.com
"MACKLIN" <JMAC...@kscable.com> wrote:
> The reason for then First Amendment prohibition on the federal
government
> requiring some "official" religion or interferring with religious
expresion
> was that in Europe you had to be in a certain church to have any
office
> within the government.
This is incorrect in that the main body of the Constitution takes care
of this and NOT the First Amendment. The main body has a ban on
religious tests for federal office.
> The King was often the head of the church or
> appointed a leader. If you were of the wrong religion you just
didn't have
> a voice.
>
> The anti-religion court cases stem from a few people who are offended
by
> ignoring religious words spoken in their presence.
>
> There is no seperation between church and state as far as morals, only
> political power.
Actually there is. There would be arguments over abortion or prayer in
schools or the death penalty if your assertion were correct.
> What has happened is that morals have been included in the
> implementation of a wall imposed by the courts.
Which morals are those.
> Seperation of church and state in the modern sense is an atheist
concept.
No, it is a necessary concept and a secular one. The framers
experienced fighting among Christian groups and these fights were taken
into the secular world.
[snip]
--
Mike Curtis
rgar...@my-deja.com
clear thing: you are as uneducated and misguided as all the other amateur
historians who post nonsense in this group as you continually assert that
anyone who would want to separate church and state must have done it
because they didn't like religion.
That is demonstrably and conclusively false.
For example, I pointed out that Pinckney was a devout and orthodox
Christian and your "disproof" was:
> Charles Pinckney offered the clause that directly separated church and
> state at the Constitutional convention. He also led the fight in his
> home state to disestablish religion in the revised South Carolina
> Constitution in 1790.
I pointed out that Jefferson went to William & Mary, and orthodox
seminary, and your "disproof" that it influenced him was:
> Jefferson went to W&M, he was one of the major forces for religious
> liberty in this nation. He founded a secular University
The point that you overlook constantly is that "religious liberty" is a
product of the reformation. It was because these guys were influenced by
the Miltons, Lockes, and Witherspoons, that they insisted upon the
orthodox distinction and separation between the kingdom of the world and
the kingdom of the church.
RG
Thomas P.
>Your repeat syndicated post from last year reminds us all of one very
>clear thing: you are as uneducated and misguided as all the other amateur
>historians who post nonsense in this group as you continually assert that
>anyone who would want to separate church and state must have done it
>because they didn't like religion.
>
>That is demonstrably and conclusively false.
>
>For example, I pointed out that Pinckney was a devout and orthodox
>Christian and your "disproof" was:
>
>> Charles Pinckney offered the clause that directly separated church and
>> state at the Constitutional convention. He also led the fight in his
>> home state to disestablish religion in the revised South Carolina
>> Constitution in 1790.
>
>I pointed out that Jefferson went to William & Mary, and orthodox
>seminary, and your "disproof" that it influenced him was:
>
>> Jefferson went to W&M, he was one of the major forces for religious
>> liberty in this nation. He founded a secular University
>
>The point that you overlook constantly is that "religious liberty" is a
>product of the reformation. It was because these guys were influenced by
>the Miltons, Lockes, and Witherspoons, that they insisted upon the
>orthodox distinction and separation between the kingdom of the world and
>the kingdom of the church.
Which church would that be? The separation is between government and
any religion. The result is, or should be, that all religions,
Christian or not, are private affairs. People like John Lock were in
opposition to the main-line Protestant denominations of his day when
they advocated freedom of religious choice. None of those
denominations would have supported full, civil liberties for
Catholics, Jews or atheists. Protestant idea indeed!
>
>RG
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Thomas P.
Michael
>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:46:43 GMT, rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>Your repeat syndicated post from last year reminds us all of one very
>>clear thing: you are as uneducated and misguided as all the other amateur
>>historians who post nonsense in this group as you continually assert that
>>anyone who would want to separate church and state must have done it
>>because they didn't like religion.
>>
>Which church would that be? The separation is between government and
>any religion. The result is, or should be, that all religions,
>Christian or not, are private affairs. People like John Lock were in
>opposition to the main-line Protestant denominations of his day when
>they advocated freedom of religious choice. None of those
>denominations would have supported full, civil liberties for
>Catholics, Jews or atheists. Protestant idea indeed!
These are exerpts from two documents which resulted from the
Reformation. I believe both show that the church (whether Protestant
or Catholic) played a role in government. I agree, assumption of
separation of church and state as a Protestant idea is absurd.
Peace of Augsburg 1555:
The Diet determined that in the future no member of the empire should
make war against another on religious grounds and that this peace
should remain operative until the denominations were peacefully
reunited. Only two denominations were recognized, the Roman Catholics
and the adherents of the Confession of Augsburg--i.e., the Lutherans.
Moreover, in each territory of the empire, only one denomination was
to be recognized, the religion of the prince's choice being thus made
obligatory for his subjects. Any who adhered to the other denomination
could sell his property and migrate to a territory where that
denomination was recognized. The free and imperial cities, which had
lost their religious homogeneity a few years earlier, were exceptions
to the general ruling. Protestant and Catholic citizens in these
cities remained free to exercise their religion as they pleased. The
same freedom was furthermore extended to Protestant knights and to
towns and other communities that had for some time been practicing
their religion in the lands of ecclesiastical princes of the empire.
This last concession provoked vehement Catholic opposition, and
Ferdinand circumvented the difficulty by deciding the matter on his
own authority and including the clause in a separate article.
Ecclesiastical lands taken by Lutherans from prelates who were not
immediate vassals of the emperor were to remain with the Lutherans if
continuous possession could be proved from the time of the Treaty of
Passau (Aug. 2, 1552), but, to ensure the permanence of the remaining
ecclesiastical territories, the Catholics gained the condition that in
the future any ecclesiastical prince who became Protestant should
renounce his office, lands, and revenues. Because the Protestants
would not accept this ecclesiastical reservation and the Catholics
would not yield, Ferdinand incorporated the clause on his own
authority with a note that agreement had not been reached on it. In
fact, Protestants were in many cases able to nullify its effect.
Treaty of Westphalia
Even more important than the territorial redistribution was the
ecclesiastical settlement. The Peace of Westphalia confirmed the Peace
of Augsburg (1555), which had granted Lutherans religious tolerance in
the empire and which had been rescinded by the Holy Roman emperor
Ferdinand II in his Edict of Restitution (1629). Moreover, the peace
settlement extended the Peace of Augsburg's provisions for religious
toleration to the Reformed (Calvinist) church, thus securing
toleration for the three great religious communities of the
empire--Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Calvinist. Within these limits
the member states of the empire were bound to allow at least private
worship, liberty of conscience, and the right of emigration to all
religious minorities and dissidents within their domains. These
measures of toleration did not extend to non-Catholics in the
hereditary lands of the house of Habsburg, however.
The difficult question of the ownership of spiritual lands was decided
by a compromise. The year 1624 was declared the "standard year"
according to which territories should be deemed to be in Roman
Catholic or Protestant possession. By the important provision that a
prince should forfeit his lands if he changed his religion, an
obstacle was placed in the way of a further spread both of the
Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. The declaration that all
protests or vetoes of the Peace of Westphalia by whomsoever pronounced
should be null and void dealt a blow at the intervention of the Roman
Curia in German affairs.
buc...@exis.net
>:|Your repeat syndicated post from last year reminds
Is posted to in reply to your repeat and syndicated posts of last year.
>:|us all of one very
>:|clear thing: you are as uneducated and misguided as all the other amateur
>:|historians
Your credibility was shot all to hell about 14 months ago.
You are a rather johnny come lately to these NGs, silly.
But, in the short time you have been here you have managed to destroy any
credibility you might have had.
>:|who post nonsense in this group as you continually assert that
>:|anyone who would want to separate church and state must have done it
>:|because they didn't like religion.
Another one of your invented arguments I see. Well, carry on arguing with
yourself. I wonder which side of your personality will win?
buc...@exis.net
>:|Your repeat syndicated post from last year reminds
Is posted to in reply to your repeat and syndicated posts of last year.
>:|us all of one very
>:|clear thing: you are as uneducated and misguided as all the other amateur
>:|historians
Your credibility was shot all to hell about 14 months ago.
You are a rather johnny come lately to these NGs, silly.
But, in the short time you have been here you have managed to destroy any
credibility you might have had.
>:|who post nonsense in this group as you continually assert that
>:|anyone who would want to separate church and state must have done it
>:|because they didn't like religion.
Another one of your invented arguments I see. Well, carry on arguing with
yourself. I wonder which side of your personality will win?
buc...@exis.net
>:|The point that you overlook constantly is that "religious liberty" is a
>:|product of the reformation. It was because these guys were influenced by
>:|the Miltons, Lockes, and Witherspoons, that they insisted upon the
>:|orthodox distinction and separation between the kingdom of the world and
>:|the kingdom of the church.
Why did James Madison go to Princeton?
Why did James Madison go to Princeton instead of W&M for example?
rgar...@my-deja.com
buc...@exis.net wrote:
> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >:|The point that you overlook constantly is that "religious liberty" is a
> >:|product of the reformation. It was because these guys were influenced by
> >:|the Miltons, Lockes, and Witherspoons, that they insisted upon the
> >:|orthodox distinction and separation between the kingdom of the world and
> >:|the kingdom of the church.
>
> Why did James Madison go to Princeton?
> Why did James Madison go to Princeton instead of W&M for example?
Excellent question. And I think you know the answer: it certainly wasn't
because Princeton was more of a "secular" school.
IIRC, Robert Alley's book suggests that one of Madison's Scottish
Presbyterian tutors encouraged Madison toward Princeton. Princeton,
having hired Davies as President (Davies was a big Presbyterian promoter
of religious liberty), caught Madison's attention.
William & Mary, being an Anglican dominated institution, tended toward
the Erastian brand of pre-Protestant unity between church and state.
Madison was far more Presbyterian in his sentiments than he was Anglican,
even though he mostly attended an Anglican church.
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> People like John Lock were in
> opposition to the main-line Protestant denominations of his day when
> they advocated freedom of religious choice. None of those
> denominations would have supported full, civil liberties for
> Catholics, Jews or atheists. Protestant idea indeed!
>
Dear Thomas,
You are correct in stating that Locke did not offer religious liberty to
atheists, as neither did many of the founding fathers of the U.S.A. The
founders, including Jefferson, believed that the veracity and
trustworthiness of anyone's oath is contingent upon their belief in
rewards and punishments in the next life. If they didn't believe that,
then they couldn't take the necessary oaths for testifying or
participating in offices of state. Thus they would be excluded from
certain privileges.
You are partially correct in saying that Locke was opposed to Catholicism
at a certainly level, viz., to become a member of the civil society of
Britain, one had to swear allegiance to the government and renounce
allegiance to any foreign civil government. Insofar as the Vatican
explicitly claims itself as a civil government, no one could be a loyal
Roman Catholic and a loyal citizen of Britain at the same time. For that
reason, Locke would have excluded loyal Roman Catholics from British
citizenship.
As far as Jews are concerned, you are simply dead wrong with regard to
Locke. The Carolina Constitution (which Locke authored in the 1670's)
offers clear rights and liberty to Jews.
RG
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources
mscu...@my-deja.com
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> ton...@get2net.dk (Thomas P.) wrote:
> >
> > People like John Lock were in
> > opposition to the main-line Protestant denominations of his day when
> > they advocated freedom of religious choice. None of those
> > denominations would have supported full, civil liberties for
> > Catholics, Jews or atheists. Protestant idea indeed!
> >
> > Thomas P.
>
> Dear Thomas,
>
> You are correct in stating that Locke did not offer religious liberty
to
> atheists,
Catholics and others also. We also discussed in the past that
toleration is not religious freedom.
> founders, including Jefferson, believed that the veracity and
> trustworthiness of anyone's oath is contingent upon their belief in
> rewards and punishments in the next life. If they didn't believe that,
What God did Jefferson believe in?
> then they couldn't take the necessary oaths for testifying or
> participating in offices of state. Thus they would be excluded from
> certain privileges.
Many did whether they believed or not. Maybe you missed some of those
concerns of the people at the time.
Excuses cut because the original posts contention was not incorrect.
> As far as Jews are concerned, you are simply dead wrong with regard to
> Locke. The Carolina Constitution (which Locke authored in the 1670's)
> offers clear rights and liberty to Jews.
And slavery to Blacks and others. LOL! You didn't read it very well
either. Should we rehash this old argument again also. URLs can be
gotten.
--
Mike Curtis
Robert J. Kolker
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Dear Thomas,
>
> You are correct in stating that Locke did not offer religious liberty to
> atheists, as neither did many of the founding fathers of the U.S.A. The
> founders, including Jefferson, believed that the veracity and
> trustworthiness of anyone's oath is contingent upon their belief in
> rewards and punishments in the next life. If they didn't believe that,
> then they couldn't take the necessary oaths for testifying or
> participating in offices of state. Thus they would be excluded from
> certain privileges.
Why does the U.S. Constitution permit the Presidential Oath
to be taken by affirmation?
Bob Kolker
f
t
b
f
t
b
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Dear Thomas,
> >
> > You are correct in stating that Locke did not offer religious liberty
> to
> > atheists,
>
I explained why and you snipped it, it had nothing to do with theology
per se; it had to do with the catholic view of civil government. (see
Locke to Henry Stubbe, Sept 1659).
> We also discussed in the past that
> toleration is not religious freedom.
If you really understood the distinction made by Paine and Madison in
this regard, you would understand that you and Alison are far more in the
"toleration" camp than you are in the camp of "religious liberty."
Toleration smacks of allowing people to believe something stupid, which
is the way you look at it. Religious liberty involves the idea that we
have a duty to our Creator that has to be freely discharged.
> > founders, including Jefferson, believed that the veracity and
> > trustworthiness of anyone's oath is contingent upon their belief in
> > rewards and punishments in the next life. If they didn't believe that,
>
> What God did Jefferson believe in?
If you're questioning whether Jefferson believed in an afterlife, you are
again out of the pale of contemporary scholarship: See Chapter IX
"Jefferson's Ideas of Life After Death" in Charles Sandford, The
Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson.
> > then they couldn't take the necessary oaths for testifying or
> > participating in offices of state. Thus they would be excluded from
> > certain privileges.
>
> Many did whether they believed or not.
Your evidence? None. It's just your hunch. Guess what: unsupported
speculations don't make good history.
> > As far as Jews are concerned, you are simply dead wrong with regard to
> > Locke. The Carolina Constitution (which Locke authored in the 1670's)
> > offers clear rights and liberty to Jews.
>
> And slavery to Blacks and others. LOL! You didn't read it very well
> either. Should we rehash this old argument again also. URLs can be
> gotten.
Rehash away, baby. If you think you can post something which contradicts
my assertion here that Locke granted religious liberty to Jews, then post
URL's away.
You're lying.
If you think Locke's view on slavery set him apart from Jefferson and the
founders, as if Locke propagated it and Jefferson didn't, you better go
visit Monticello.
RG
rgar...@my-deja.com
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Dear Thomas,
> >
> > You are correct in stating that Locke did not offer religious liberty to
> > trustworthiness of anyone's oath is contingent upon their belief in
> > rewards and punishments in the next life. If they didn't believe that,
> > participating in offices of state. Thus they would be excluded from
> > certain privileges.
>
> to be taken by affirmation?
Very simple. There were a number of Quakers in the midst of the founders.
The Quakers refuse to swear. They take literally the bible verse that
says "do not swear... let your yes be yes and your no be no."
Mike Curtis
>mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Thomas,
>> >
>> > You are correct in stating that Locke did not offer religious liberty
>> to
>> > atheists,
>>
>> Catholics and others also.
>
>I explained why and you snipped it, it had nothing to do with theology
>per se; it had to do with the catholic view of civil government. (see
>Locke to Henry Stubbe, Sept 1659).
This does no one any good, Mr. Gardiner. Why don't you quote the
thing.
>> We also discussed in the past that
>> toleration is not religious freedom.
>
>If you really understood the distinction made by Paine and Madison in
>this regard, you would understand that you and Alison are far more in the
>"toleration" camp than you are in the camp of "religious liberty."
LOL!
>Toleration smacks of allowing people to believe something stupid, which
No, this is not what toleration means. This was explained to you but
you do make your position clear with the term "stupid."
>is the way you look at it. Religious liberty involves the idea that we
>have a duty to our Creator that has to be freely discharged.
Religious liberty means that you have the right to worship as you
please without comfort or aid from the state.
>> > founders, including Jefferson, believed that the veracity and
>> > trustworthiness of anyone's oath is contingent upon their belief in
>> > rewards and punishments in the next life. If they didn't believe that,
>>
>> What God did Jefferson believe in?
>
>If you're questioning whether Jefferson believed in an afterlife, you are
No, I asked what God Jefferson believed in. Nice duck.
[snip]
>> > then they couldn't take the necessary oaths for testifying or
>> > participating in offices of state. Thus they would be excluded from
>> > certain privileges.
>>
>> Many did whether they believed or not.
>
>Your evidence? None. It's just your hunch. Guess what: unsupported
>speculations don't make good history.
I suggest you look in the mirror when you say that.
>> > As far as Jews are concerned, you are simply dead wrong with regard to
>> > Locke. The Carolina Constitution (which Locke authored in the 1670's)
>> > offers clear rights and liberty to Jews.
>>
>> And slavery to Blacks and others. LOL! You didn't read it very well
>> either. Should we rehash this old argument again also. URLs can be
>> gotten.
>
>Rehash away, baby. If you think you can post something which contradicts
>my assertion here that Locke granted religious liberty to Jews, then post
>URL's away.
>
>You're lying.
I never lie. I'll spend a few moments locating it tomorrow.
>If you think Locke's view on slavery set him apart from Jefferson and the
>founders, as if Locke propagated it and Jefferson didn't, you better go
>visit Monticello.
I'll make my own arguments. Thanks.
Mike Curtis
Mike Curtis
>In article <396E0AC4...@usa.net>,
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Dear Thomas,
>> >
>> > You are correct in stating that Locke did not offer religious liberty to
>> > atheists, as neither did many of the founding fathers of the U.S.A. The
>> > founders, including Jefferson, believed that the veracity and
>> > trustworthiness of anyone's oath is contingent upon their belief in
>> > rewards and punishments in the next life. If they didn't believe that,
>> > then they couldn't take the necessary oaths for testifying or
>> > participating in offices of state. Thus they would be excluded from
>> > certain privileges.
>>
>> Why does the U.S. Constitution permit the Presidential Oath
>> to be taken by affirmation?
>
>Very simple. There were a number of Quakers in the midst of the founders.
>The Quakers refuse to swear. They take literally the bible verse that
>says "do not swear... let your yes be yes and your no be no."
There were specific letters from Jewish constituents also, Mr.
Gardiner.
Mike Curtis
Mike Curtis
Robert J. Kolker
Mike Curtis wrote:
> No, I asked what God Jefferson believed in. Nice duck.
T.J. believed in To Whom it May Concern. The God
of the Unitarians and Universalists. BTW, you can
always spot UU churches in New England. They are
the one's with the question mark (?) on the steeples.
Bob Kolker
Rev Peter
mcu...@inetport.com wrote:
> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > Dear Thomas,
> >> >
> >> > You are correct in stating that Locke did not offer religious
liberty
> >> to
> >> > atheists,
> >>
> >
> >I explained why and you snipped it, it had nothing to do with
theology
> >per se; it had to do with the catholic view of civil government. (see
> >Locke to Henry Stubbe, Sept 1659).
>
> This does no one any good, Mr. Gardiner. Why don't you quote the
> thing.
>
> >> We also discussed in the past that
> >> toleration is not religious freedom.
> >
> >If you really understood the distinction made by Paine and Madison in
> >this regard, you would understand that you and Alison are far more in
the
> >"toleration" camp than you are in the camp of "religious liberty."
>
> LOL!
>
> >Toleration smacks of allowing people to believe something stupid,
which
>
> No, this is not what toleration means. This was explained to you but
> you do make your position clear with the term "stupid."
>
> >is the way you look at it. Religious liberty involves the idea that
we
> >have a duty to our Creator that has to be freely discharged.
>
> Religious liberty means that you have the right to worship as you
> please without comfort or aid from the state.
>
> >> > trustworthiness of anyone's oath is contingent upon their belief
in
> >> > rewards and punishments in the next life. If they didn't believe
that,
> >>
> >
> >If you're questioning whether Jefferson believed in an afterlife, you
are
>
RevP
One thing is obvious, Jefferson did not believe in the xian god.
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the
world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one
redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and
mythologies" -- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Dr. Woods)
and
"And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the
Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed
with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Anyone who would maintain Jefferson was a Christian, is simply
projecting that assertion on the man. A christian would not have said
what is written above, nor would a christian reject the miracle stories
surrounding Jesus -- Jefferson did both.
Oh, and christianity does not believe in seperation of church and state,
for it believes that God will establish an earthly kingdom. That is a
unification of church and state.
"What the pagans had feared came to pass. Then everything changed its
aspect; the humble Christians altered their tone, and soon this
pretended kingdom of the other world became, under a visible chief, the
most violent despotism in this world." -- Jean-Jacques Rousseau
peace
Rev Peter
--
http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/
"In revealed religions, you have blasphemy and heresy.
In Deism, you have questions and free speech."
-- Ladyhank.
rgar...@my-deja.com
> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >I explained why and you snipped it, it had nothing to do with theology
> >per se; it had to do with the catholic view of civil government. (see
> >Locke to Henry Stubbe, Sept 1659).
>
> This does no one any good, Mr. Gardiner. Why don't you quote the
> thing.
It's lengthy. But it's also quite available to anyone with access to an
academic library:
Here is the entire cite
John Locke, The Correspondence of John Locke (Clarendon: Clarendon Press,
1976) Vol 1, p. 109.
> >> We also discussed in the past that
> >> toleration is not religious freedom.
> >
> >If you really understood the distinction made by Paine and Madison in
> >this regard, you would understand that you and Alison are far more in the
> >"toleration" camp than you are in the camp of "religious liberty."
>
> LOL!
>
> >Toleration smacks of allowing people to believe something stupid, which
>
> No, this is not what toleration means. This was explained to you
As I said, the difference was clearly explained by Thomas Paine, you
chose to ignore the primary evidence.
"Toleration is not the opposite of intolerance, but it is the counterfeit
of it. Both are despotisms."
In other words, the government doesn't "allow" or "tolerate" the fact
that I can worship whoever and however I want to, the government simply
has no jurisdiction whatsoever to "allow" or "disallow" me to worship or
practice my religion.
But, you see, I have heard Alison taking the toleration line more often,
saying that the government can "allow" religious practices unless those
practices are aimed at making converts.
That's a tolerationist and Erastian position, very much at odds with
Madison.
> >is the way you look at it. Religious liberty involves the idea that we
> >have a duty to our Creator that has to be freely discharged.
>
> Religious liberty means that you have the right to worship as you
> please without comfort or aid from the state.
or without interference... your Erastianism isn't compatible with that
part.
> >> > founders, including Jefferson, believed that the veracity and
> >> > trustworthiness of anyone's oath is contingent upon their belief in
> >> > rewards and punishments in the next life. If they didn't believe that,
> >>
> >> What God did Jefferson believe in?
> >
> >If you're questioning whether Jefferson believed in an afterlife, you are
>
> No, I asked what God Jefferson believed in. Nice duck.
The issue was the afterlife. Nice diversion.
> I never lie.
Yes, I suppose you hope Mason Weems to be your biographer?
RG
rgar...@my-deja.com
mcu...@inetport.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Dear Thomas,
> >> >
> >> > You are correct in stating that Locke did not offer religious liberty to
> >> > trustworthiness of anyone's oath is contingent upon their belief in
> >> > rewards and punishments in the next life. If they didn't believe that,
> >> > participating in offices of state. Thus they would be excluded from
> >> > certain privileges.
> >>
> >> Why does the U.S. Constitution permit the Presidential Oath
> >> to be taken by affirmation?
> >
> >Very simple. There were a number of Quakers in the midst of the founders.
> >The Quakers refuse to swear. They take literally the bible verse that
> >says "do not swear... let your yes be yes and your no be no."
>
> There were specific letters from Jewish constituents also, Mr.
> Gardiner.
>
> Mike Curtis
What the heck are you talking about? Jews don't generally have a
conscientious objection to oaths.
You've lost it again.
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> RevP
>
> One thing is obvious, Jefferson did not believe in the xian god.
>
> "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the
> world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one
> redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and
> mythologies" -- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Dr. Woods)
Well, maybe Rev. P knows the answer that no one else does:
Rev, where is this "Letter to Dr. Woods" to be found in Jefferson's
writings?
Guess what, Rev? It's a fabrication.
you might want to look at http://x63.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=636607608
Thomas P.
>ton...@get2net.dk (Thomas P.) wrote:
>>
>> People like John Lock were in
>> opposition to the main-line Protestant denominations of his day when
>> they advocated freedom of religious choice. None of those
>> denominations would have supported full, civil liberties for
>> Catholics, Jews or atheists. Protestant idea indeed!
>>
>> Thomas P.
>
>Dear Thomas,
>
>You are correct in stating that Locke did not offer religious liberty to
>atheists, as neither did many of the founding fathers of the U.S.A. The
>founders, including Jefferson, believed that the veracity and
>trustworthiness of anyone's oath is contingent upon their belief in
>rewards and punishments in the next life. If they didn't believe that,
>then they couldn't take the necessary oaths for testifying or
>participating in offices of state. Thus they would be excluded from
>certain privileges.
>
>You are partially correct in saying that Locke was opposed to Catholicism
>at a certainly level, viz., to become a member of the civil society of
>Britain, one had to swear allegiance to the government and renounce
>allegiance to any foreign civil government. Insofar as the Vatican
>explicitly claims itself as a civil government, no one could be a loyal
>Roman Catholic and a loyal citizen of Britain at the same time. For that
>reason, Locke would have excluded loyal Roman Catholics from British
>citizenship.
>
>As far as Jews are concerned, you are simply dead wrong with regard to
>Locke. The Carolina Constitution (which Locke authored in the 1670's)
>offers clear rights and liberty to Jews.
Please read what I wrote again. I was not talking about Locke. I was
talking about the major Protestant denominations, none of which were
in favor of religious choice.
>
>RG
>http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Thomas P.
mscu...@my-deja.com
Rev Peter <gadfl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <ehfsmsc842q8bn5i1...@4ax.com>,
> mcu...@inetport.com wrote:
> > rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > >mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Dear Thomas,
> > >> >
> > >> > You are correct in stating that Locke did not offer religious
> liberty
> > >> to
> > >> > atheists,
> > >>
> > >
> > >I explained why and you snipped it, it had nothing to do with
> theology
> > >per se; it had to do with the catholic view of civil government.
(see
> > >Locke to Henry Stubbe, Sept 1659).
> >
> > This does no one any good, Mr. Gardiner. Why don't you quote the
> > thing.
> >
> > >> toleration is not religious freedom.
> > >
> > >If you really understood the distinction made by Paine and Madison
in
> > >this regard, you would understand that you and Alison are far more
in
> the
> > >"toleration" camp than you are in the camp of "religious liberty."
> >
> > LOL!
> >
> > >Toleration smacks of allowing people to believe something stupid,
> which
> >
> > you do make your position clear with the term "stupid."
> >
> we
> > >have a duty to our Creator that has to be freely discharged.
> >
> > Religious liberty means that you have the right to worship as you
> > please without comfort or aid from the state.
> >
> > >> > trustworthiness of anyone's oath is contingent upon their
belief
> in
> > >> > rewards and punishments in the next life. If they didn't
believe
> that,
> > >>
> > >
> > >If you're questioning whether Jefferson believed in an afterlife,
you
> are
> >
> > No, I asked what God Jefferson believed in. Nice duck.
>
>
> One thing is obvious, Jefferson did not believe in the xian god.
>
> "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the
> world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity]
one
> redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and
> mythologies" -- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Dr. Woods)
At present this appears to be a bogus quote. If you'll read back through
this thread I post the results of my library search.
read this:
http://x73.deja.com/getdoc.xp?
AN=643070200&CONTEXT=963576879.913899664&hitnum=4
I'd rather rather have properly cited quotations so I snipped the next.
> Anyone who would maintain Jefferson was a Christian,
Well, Jefferson maintained he was but on his own terms which he
explained in a letter to Benjamin Rush. He did not accept Jesus as
Christ but thought of Jesus as a great philosopher. In that sense he
was a Christian. Obviously most Christians of his time wouldn't except
that as being a Christian. So when we play with words of the past let's
find the proper context and not be guilty of the same distortions Mr.
Gardiner and others use.
> Oh, and christianity does not believe in seperation of church and
state,
Well, it does. Give unto Caeser if you recall is a kind of assertion
along those lines. I think it is wrong to present the kind of
generalizations you do for it does not progress the discussion in any
substantial way.
--
Mike Curtis
rgar...@my-deja.com
ton...@get2net.dk (Thomas P.) wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:15:58 GMT, rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >ton...@get2net.dk (Thomas P.) wrote:
> >>
> >> People like John Lock were in
> >> opposition to the main-line Protestant denominations of his day when
> >> they advocated freedom of religious choice. None of those
> >> denominations would have supported full, civil liberties for
> >> Catholics, Jews or atheists. Protestant idea indeed!
> >>
> >> Thomas P.
> >
> >
> >You are correct in stating that Locke did not offer religious liberty to
> >trustworthiness of anyone's oath is contingent upon their belief in
> >rewards and punishments in the next life. If they didn't believe that,
> >participating in offices of state. Thus they would be excluded from
> >certain privileges.
> >
> >You are partially correct in saying that Locke was opposed to Catholicism
> >at a certainly level, viz., to become a member of the civil society of
> >Britain, one had to swear allegiance to the government and renounce
> >allegiance to any foreign civil government. Insofar as the Vatican
> >explicitly claims itself as a civil government, no one could be a loyal
> >Roman Catholic and a loyal citizen of Britain at the same time. For that
> >reason, Locke would have excluded loyal Roman Catholics from British
> >citizenship.
> >
> >As far as Jews are concerned, you are simply dead wrong with regard to
> >Locke. The Carolina Constitution (which Locke authored in the 1670's)
> >offers clear rights and liberty to Jews.
>
> Please read what I wrote again. I was not talking about Locke. I was
> talking about the major Protestant denominations, none of which were
> in favor of religious choice.
You are right. I really did read you wrong. What you actually wrote was
far more inaccurate than I originally thought. What you actually wrote
was that the denominations excluded religious liberty to atheists,
Catholics, and Jews, while Locke did.
Well, as I said already, Locke did not grant civil rights to atheists or
Catholics, so you're wrong on that score.
But more importantly, your suggestion that Locke was at odds with the
"main-line" denominations of his day regarding religious liberty is
really ignorant?
Where do you think Locke got his views of religious liberty? Are you not
aware that Milton, Du Molain, Owen, Stubbe, and Williams (all Calvinists)
were the formidable influences on Locke in this regard??
Here's a tip: pick up Winthrop S. Hudson, "John Locke: Heir of Puritan
Political Theorists" in CALVINISM AND THE POLITICAL ORDER, edited by
George Hunt.
RG
mscu...@my-deja.com
It was made abundantly clear to you in past posts that he was not
orthodox. He was, in fact, a Socinian.
> Here's a tip: pick up Winthrop S. Hudson, "John Locke: Heir of Puritan
> Political Theorists" in CALVINISM AND THE POLITICAL ORDER, edited by
> George Hunt.
Try reading a real Locke scholar. That would be my advice.
--
Mike Curtis
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> > Where do you think Locke got his views of religious liberty? Are you
> not
> > aware that Milton, Du Molain, Owen, Stubbe, and Williams (all
> Calvinists)
> > were the formidable influences on Locke in this regard??
>
> It was made abundantly clear to you in past posts that he was not
> orthodox. He was, in fact, a Socinian.
First of all, whether Locke was orthodox or Socinian doesn't change the
fact that he drew his views on religious toleration from the sources
identified above.
"Where did Locke derive his political ideas? With regard to his general
political principles one need not look far. They were being shouted from
the housetops during the years he was at Westminster and Oxford, and they
have been explicated again and again by the sons of Geneva [Calvinists]
with whom he was in contact all his life. Even a conservative
Presbyterian like Samuel Rutherford, in Lex Rex (1644) invoked every
argument that was later used by Locke...
When Locke secured a studentship at Christ's Church, Oxford in 1652, John
Owen, the noted independent divine and strong advocate of broad religious
toleration, was dean of Christ's Church and Vice-Chancellor of the
University. Locke's tutor at Oxford was Thomas Cole, another independent
divine. The professor of history at Oxford, whose lectures Locke was
compelled to attend, was that 'fiery' independent Louis Du Moulin. Du
Moulin was the son of Pierre Moulin, the teacher of Grotius, and he was
addicted to notions of popular sovereignty, fundamental law, natural
rights, liberty of conscience, government based on contract and popular
consent, simplification of ceremonies, and churches as voluntary
associations. None of this, of course, was new or novel. It had become
the common stock in trade of the Puritans as a whole."
--Winthrop Hudson, History Professor, Colgate Rochester.
> > Here's a tip: pick up Winthrop S. Hudson, "John Locke: Heir of Puritan
> > Political Theorists" in CALVINISM AND THE POLITICAL ORDER, edited by
> > George Hunt.
>
> Try reading a real Locke scholar. That would be my advice.
Okay, sounds good. First, let us be clear to the readers what you mean to
imply when you say Locke was a socinian. That is essentially a
theological term for saying that he denied the trinity (http://
www.newadvent.org/cathen/14113a.htm).
Now let's turn to a pure Locke Scholar, and one who is up to date on all
the latest research. How about Dr. Alan Sell, professor of philosophy of
religion at the University of Wales who has very recently published a
comprehensive and thoroughly documented book on the religion of John
Locke. His work, which is very recent and highly academic, should address
your assertion above (unsupported) that Locke was a Socinian.
"His [Locke's] motivation in replying to Stillingfleet was to distance
himself from deists and Socinians... There is no question that the Locke
of 1662 affirmed both the doctrine of the Trinity and the human-divine
nature of Christ, whilst recognizing that the human mind could not
explain how these things could be so; there is no question that
especially from the 1690's onwards he was actively reviewing the matter;
there is no hard evidence that he every repudiated the doctrine...
Locke's conviction concerning the indispensible minimum of belief,
namely, that Jesus is the Messiah, his Christology, and the lacuna
concerning Christ's satisfaction which may be detected in his
soteriology, prompted charges, ill placed in my view, of deism and
Socinianism... I am prepared to take Locke at his word: he was not a
deist or Socinian, still less an atheist. He was a Christian."
Alan P.F. Sell, JOHN LOCKE AND THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY DIVINES (University
of Wales Press, 1997), p. 214, 270-73.
mscu...@my-deja.com
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Where do you think Locke got his views of religious liberty? Are
you
> > not
> > > aware that Milton, Du Molain, Owen, Stubbe, and Williams (all
> > Calvinists)
> > > were the formidable influences on Locke in this regard??
> >
> > It was made abundantly clear to you in past posts that he was not
> > orthodox. He was, in fact, a Socinian.
>
> First of all, whether Locke was orthodox or Socinian doesn't change
the
> fact that he drew his views on religious toleration from the sources
> identified above.
No, he didn't according to scholars who studied Locke, his times and
his writings.
Mr. Gardiner’s “primary sources” have been shown to be another attempt
to misrepresent Locke:
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=574997308
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=574997312
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=574997318
http://x64.deja.com/getdoc.xp?
AN=576497508&CONTEXT=963596479.1561002025&hitnum=6
All the above shows that this has been addressed before. I hope the
folks teaching you at Marquette University realize how forgetful you
are.
[Further rhetoric snipped]
> > > Here's a tip: pick up Winthrop S. Hudson, "John Locke: Heir of
Puritan
> > > Political Theorists" in CALVINISM AND THE POLITICAL ORDER, edited
by
> > > George Hunt.
> >
> > Try reading a real Locke scholar. That would be my advice.
>
> Okay, sounds good.
Good. See the posted URLs above for such sources.
--
Mike Curtis
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> > First of all, whether Locke was orthodox or Socinian doesn't change
> > the fact that he drew his views on religious toleration from the
> > sources identified above.
>
> No, he didn't according to scholars who studied Locke, his times and
> his writings.
Your suggestion that Dr. Alan Sell and Dr. Winthrop Hudson have not
studied Locke nor his times has got to qualify as one of the top five
most idiotic things you have ever said.
Do you want to see the curriculim vitae of these scholars? Do you think
your reference (Jeff Sinclair) can really hold a candle? What's funny is
that although we can post the credentials of Sell or Hudson, Sinclair
isn't even willing to say whether he graduated high school.
You'll need a better strategy than the "i'll respond to published
reputable scholars with old posts by alison & sinclair."
Good luck
RG
mscu...@my-deja.com
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > First of all, whether Locke was orthodox or Socinian doesn't
change
> > > the fact that he drew his views on religious toleration from the
> > > sources identified above.
> >
> > No, he didn't according to scholars who studied Locke, his times and
> > his writings.
>
> Your suggestion that Dr. Alan Sell and Dr. Winthrop Hudson have not
> studied Locke nor his times has got to qualify as one of the top five
> most idiotic things you have ever said.
Show me where I say that.
> You'll need a better strategy than the "i'll respond to published
> reputable scholars with old posts by alison & sinclair."
Show me where I said that.
> Good luck
Same to you. You professors at Marquette University ought to be real
impressed with you now. :-)
--
Mike Curtis
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Your suggestion that Dr. Alan Sell and Dr. Winthrop Hudson have not
> > studied Locke nor his times has got to qualify as one of the top five
> > most idiotic things you have ever said.
>
> Show me where I say that.
No problem--
Winthrop Hudson writes:
"Where did Locke derive his political ideas? With regard to his general
political principles one need not look far. They were being shouted from
the housetops during the years he was at Westminster and Oxford, and they
have been explicated again and again by the sons of Geneva [Calvinists]
with whom he was in contact all his life. Even a conservative
Presbyterian like Samuel Rutherford, in Lex Rex (1644) invoked every
argument that was later used by Locke...
When Locke secured a studentship at Christ's Church, Oxford in 1652, John
Owen, the noted independent divine and strong advocate of broad religious
toleration, was dean of Christ's Church and Vice-Chancellor of the
University. Locke's tutor at Oxford was Thomas Cole, another independent
divine. The professor of history at Oxford, whose lectures Locke was
compelled to attend, was that 'fiery' independent Louis Du Moulin. Du
Moulin was the son of Pierre Moulin, the teacher of Grotius, and he was
addicted to notions of popular sovereignty, fundamental law, natural
rights, liberty of conscience, government based on contract and popular
consent, simplification of ceremonies, and churches as voluntary
associations. None of this, of course, was new or novel. It had become
the common stock in trade of the Puritans as a whole."
ALAN SELL WRITES:
"Locke's ideas on religious liberty were not original... Raised in the
home of one of Cromwell's captains, schooled at Westminster and then
Oxford, where his tutor was the Independent Thomas Cole and his professor
of history the Huguenot scholar Lewis Du Moulin, who published works on
liberty of conscience and toleration, Locke had the Calvinist-Puritan
tradition within his sights for his youth onwards. He was familiar with
the views of the dean of his college, Christ Church, John Owen, who in
his more open phases would have accorded freedom of worship to non-
licentious trinitarians, and these views were represented not only in his
writings, but in the Independents' modification of the Westminster
Confession."
I provided a fair summary of both of these citations from these scholars
saying
"Locke drew his views on religious toleration from the sources identified
above [the Puritans referenced in these scholars' works]."
And you said--
"No, he didn't according to scholars who studied Locke, his times and his
writings."
Since Winthrop and Sell were the scholars who indicate that he drew his
views on religious toleration from these sources, you are saying that
they are not scholars who studied Locke, his times and his writings.
You know Mike, your denial of what you say on the same day you say it
strikes me as a severe case of pathological lying. You are now, in two
concurrent threads, trying to insist a denial of words you just posted.
Do yourself a favor:
1) take a little bit of time to think before you post something erroneous
like "your bracketed John Eliot isn't going to work, because it's not
whom I meant," or "scholars say Locke didn't draw on the Puritans for his
ideas on toleration."
2) when you do blow it and hastily post something you didn't mean to,
just acknowledge it and move on. One lie begets a bigger lie, and then a
bigger one, and then a bigger one, and before you know it, your only
appeal is to make a desparate comment about Professors at Marquette.
3) take some of Dr. Gross' advice and just ease up a bit; you're far too
uptight about acknowledging error.
RG
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources
mscu...@my-deja.com
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Your suggestion that Dr. Alan Sell and Dr. Winthrop Hudson have
not
> > > studied Locke nor his times has got to qualify as one of the top
five
> > > most idiotic things you have ever said.
> >
> > Show me where I say that.
>
> No problem--
Address that which you have never addressed.
No, he didn't according to scholars who studied Locke, his times and
his writings.
Mr. Gardiner’s “primary sources” have been shown to be another attempt
to misrepresent Locke:
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=574997308
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=574997312
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=574997318
http://x64.deja.com/getdoc.xp?
AN=576497508&CONTEXT=963596479.1561002025&hitnum=6
It's all supported with primary sources and discusses the actual
writings. At Marquette University you will have to deal with the
material you are presented and not simply reply with nonsequitors.
Practice, Mr. Gardiner, practice.
--
Mike Curtis
Thomas P.
snip
>>
>> Please read what I wrote again. I was not talking about Locke. I was
>> talking about the major Protestant denominations, none of which were
>> in favor of religious choice.
>
>You are right. I really did read you wrong. What you actually wrote was
>far more inaccurate than I originally thought. What you actually wrote
>was that the denominations excluded religious liberty to atheists,
>Catholics, and Jews, while Locke did.
>
>Well, as I said already, Locke did not grant civil rights to atheists or
>Catholics, so you're wrong on that score.
How am I wrong, when I never said it? Is distortion a religious
principle with you?
>
>But more importantly, your suggestion that Locke was at odds with the
>"main-line" denominations of his day regarding religious liberty is
>really ignorant?
It is? Could you tell me which one advocated religious liberty for
even other Protestant sects? Did Martin Luther fight for the right of
people to disagree with him concerning worship or Bible
interpretation? Did Calvin? Did Knox. Did the Puritans? How about
the Church of England? I will grant that the Protestant Reformation,
by breaking the power of Christianity into smaller units, made the
gaining of freedom somewhat easier than it would have been, but it
certainly was not the intention. It was an unintended and unwelcome
(unwelcome to the churches) result. I also never said that there
were no individual Protestants who supported freedom - there were even
individual Catholics who supported freedom, but you do not argue that
freedom of choice grew out of Catholicism.
>
>Where do you think Locke got his views of religious liberty? Are you not
>aware that Milton, Du Molain, Owen, Stubbe, and Williams (all Calvinists)
>were the formidable influences on Locke in this regard??
>
>Here's a tip: pick up Winthrop S. Hudson, "John Locke: Heir of Puritan
>Political Theorists" in CALVINISM AND THE POLITICAL ORDER, edited by
>George Hunt.
Here is a tip: Don't assume that you are the only one who ever read
anything. You asked me once if I was more than 11. It is more than
likely that I am a great deal older than you. Your arguments so far
have been based on personal insults, a totally unjustified patronizing
attitude and the distortion of the other person's position. It is
actually possible and preferable to disagree with someone without
insulting them. Furthermore distorting and lying about your
opponent's position tends to make people think that you have no
argument. Your immaturity and your rather pathetic arrogance are
quite obvious.
>
>RG
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Thomas P.
rgar...@my-deja.com
> >Locke did not grant civil rights to atheists or
> >Catholics, so you're wrong on that score.
>
> How am I wrong, when I never said it? Is distortion a religious
> principle with you?
Apparently you and Curtis have the same lying disease.
You stated that the mainline denominations would not grant civil
liberties for Catholics, Jews, and atheists, and you stated that John
Lock [sic] was opposed to them in that regard
You wrote:
"People like John Lock were in opposition to the main-line Protestant
denominations of his day... None of those denominations would have
supported full, civil liberties for Catholics, Jews or atheists."
You were dead wrong.
> >But more importantly, your suggestion that Locke was at odds with the
> >"main-line" denominations of his day regarding religious liberty is
> >really ignorant?
>
> It is? Could you tell me which one advocated religious liberty for
> even other Protestant sects?
Ever heard of a Christian named Roger Williams? How about John Milton?
Perhaps you've even heard of Martin Luther.
> Did Martin Luther fight for the right of
> people to disagree with him concerning worship or Bible
> interpretation?
That was one of the pillars of Luther's theology: right of private
interpretation, also known as "the priesthood of all believers," which
means that each individual has a direct line to God and does not have to
submit to any human intermediary with regard to interpretation.
> Did Calvin? Did Knox. Did the Puritans?
Yep. They pretty much embraced the Lutheran principle of the priesthood
of all believers.
> How about
> the Church of England?
No. They were Erastian by and large.
[snip your self-righteous sermon]
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Your suggestion that Dr. Alan Sell and Dr. Winthrop Hudson have
> not
> > > > studied Locke nor his times has got to qualify as one of the top
> five
> > > > most idiotic things you have ever said.
> > >
> > > Show me where I say that.
> >
> > No problem--
>
> Address that which you have never addressed.
Ah, I see you want to change course since your challenge was met and your
face reddened.
> No, he didn't according to scholars who studied Locke, his times and
> his writings.
>
> Mr. Gardiner’s “primary sources” have been shown to be another attempt
> to misrepresent Locke:
>
> http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=574997308
> http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=574997312
> http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=574997318
>
> http://x64.deja.com/getdoc.xp?
> AN=576497508&CONTEXT=963596479.1561002025&hitnum=6
>
> It's all supported with primary sources and discusses the actual
> writings. At Marquette University you will have to deal with the
> material you are presented and not simply reply with nonsequitors.
We all note that you continually snip the data I provide and continue to
revert back to your reliance on Jeff Sinclair's habit of doing the same.
Non-sequiturs are all that one will find in your links to Jeff Sinclair's
rerun posts.
Aren't you the Mike Curtis who insist on people to "make your own
argument"? Well, Mike, where is YOUR argument?
Can you please get a new put-down than your Marquette non-sense? We've
all heard your claim that my professors at Marquette are all going to
reject me, laugh at me, refute me, hurt me, beat me, tie me up, and tap
dance on my head... and all because they will come in here and see how
stupid I am and how smart you are, how you've humiliated me at every
turn, and how I haven't learned anything at all in my graduate and
undergraduate degree programs.
Okay, Mike, you're right. Who cares about the GRE's, Phi Beta Kappa,
Magna Cum Laude honors? I'm really just a bumbling fool whose only real
historical study has been watching Little House on the Prairie. When
Marquette finds out about that, I'm sure I'll be expelled, huh?
Please entertain me a little more; the Marquette insult just isn't
clever. Especially not after the 84th cycle. You can do much better.
Thomas P.
>ton...@get2net.dk (Thomas P.) wrote:
>
>> >Locke did not grant civil rights to atheists or
>> >Catholics, so you're wrong on that score.
>>
>> How am I wrong, when I never said it? Is distortion a religious
>> principle with you?
>
>Apparently you and Curtis have the same lying disease.
>
>You stated that the mainline denominations would not grant civil
>liberties for Catholics, Jews, and atheists, and you stated that John
>Lock [sic] was opposed to them in that regard
>
>You wrote:
>
>"People like John Lock were in opposition to the main-line Protestant
>denominations of his day... None of those denominations would have
>supported full, civil liberties for Catholics, Jews or atheists."
I said he was in opposition to them. I said that none of them
supported full, civil liberties. I did not say that the exact
opposite was Locke's position, nor did I ever believe it to be so.
>
>You were dead wrong.
Sure, sure!
>
>> >But more importantly, your suggestion that Locke was at odds with the
>> >"main-line" denominations of his day regarding religious liberty is
>> >really ignorant?
>>
>> It is? Could you tell me which one advocated religious liberty for
>> even other Protestant sects?
>
>Ever heard of a Christian named Roger Williams? How about John Milton?
>Perhaps you've even heard of Martin Luther.
Are you claiming that Roger Williams, who was kicked out by the
Puritans by the way, was the head of a main line sect ? The Puritans
were a main line sect and were quite intolerant of Williams. Was John
Milton the head of any sect at all? Are you claiming that Martin
Luther supported freedom of choice, the same Martin Luther who
encouraged the German princes to strike down with brutality the
peasants who dared have their own religious opinions, the same Martin
Luther who wanted to burn all the synagogues with the Jews inside
them?
>
>> Did Martin Luther fight for the right of
>> people to disagree with him concerning worship or Bible
>> interpretation?
>
>That was one of the pillars of Luther's theology: right of private
>interpretation, also known as "the priesthood of all believers," which
>means that each individual has a direct line to God and does not have to
>submit to any human intermediary with regard to interpretation.
Tell that to the peasants murdered with the encouragement of Luther.
Tell that to the Jews. Tell that to German Catholics. All of the
major sects, Protestant and Catholic, persecuted other sects when
given the opportunity. The Puritans, for example, went to the new
world and promptly began to persecute any who disagreed with them.
They did indeed introduce a kind of democracy in their colony, but it
was only for people who believed as they believed. They would have
been shocked at the idea of tolerance - witness Roger William's fate.
>
>> Did Calvin? Did Knox. Did the Puritans?
>
>Yep. They pretty much embraced the Lutheran principle of the priesthood
>of all believers.
Religious freedom in Calvin's Geneva or in Scotland? What world do
you live in? You dare to call others ignorant! It was the priesthood
of al who believed "correctly". There was no toleration of diversity
of belief.
>
>> How about
>> the Church of England?
>
>No. They were Erastian by and large.
>
The Church of England was no different than the others in its denial
of religious freedom. Tolerance was seen as sinful.
I have a suggestion. Try responding without personal insult and
without putting your own, unique interpretation on what I have said.
It might open a whole new world for you.
>[snip your self-righteous sermon]
>
>RG
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Thomas P.
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> >ton...@get2net.dk (Thomas P.) wrote:
> >
> >> >Locke did not grant civil rights to atheists or
> >> >Catholics, so you're wrong on that score.
> >>
> >> How am I wrong, when I never said it? Is distortion a religious
> >> principle with you?
> >
> >Apparently you and Curtis have the same lying disease.
> >
>
> >You stated that the mainline denominations would not grant civil
> >liberties for Catholics, Jews, and atheists, and you stated that John
> >Lock [sic] was opposed to them in that regard
> >
> >You wrote:
> >
> >"People like John Lock were in opposition to the main-line Protestant
> >denominations of his day... None of those denominations would have
> >supported full, civil liberties for Catholics, Jews or atheists."
>
> I said he was in opposition to them. I said that none of them
> supported full, civil liberties.
Please quote and cite where it is clear in your post that you were
including John Locke in stating that he did no support full civil
liberties. I quoted where it is clear you said the opposite; I quote you
again:
"People like John Lock were in opposition to the main-line Protestant
denominations of his day... None of those denominations would have
supported full, civil liberties for Catholics, Jews or atheists."
Now please show me where you stated the opposite of what you stated here.
You didn't. You're lying again.
What you should say now, Tom, is that you "meant" to say that none of the
granted full religious liberty, but that you misspoke, and you apologize
for the confusion.
That is how a person of integrity deals with these kinds of mistakes.
But you go right on claiming you said and didn't say things which are
clearly in the record.
> I did not say that the exact
> opposite was Locke's position, nor did I ever believe it to be so.
You said he was opposed to the mainline denominations who didn't grant
religious liberties.
> >You were dead wrong.
>
> Sure, sure!
Just admit it, jeez. It's in the record. You don't have to be perfect. We
all make mistakes.
> >> It is? Could you tell me which one advocated religious liberty for
> >> even other Protestant sects?
>
> >Ever heard of a Christian named Roger Williams? How about John Milton?
> >Perhaps you've even heard of Martin Luther.
>
> Are you claiming that Roger Williams, who was kicked out by the
> Puritans by the way, was the head of a main line sect ?
Yes. Roger Williams was a Baptist. And yes, Baptists are part of the
mainstream of Christian sects, and yes, Roger Williams was a leader of
the Baptists.
> The Puritans
> were a main line sect and were quite intolerant of Williams.
Not of Williams religion, but of his politics. I have explained this to
you again and again and again and again.
The U.S. Federal government has not been "tolerant" of the beliefs of Tim
McVey, but that has nothing to do with the fact that they don't want to
accord him freedom of religion. It's his politics which makes him
dangerous. That is how the Puritans saw Williams.
> Was John
> Milton the head of any sect at all?
Milton was a Puritan leader.
> Are you claiming that Martin
> Luther supported freedom of choice,
Yes, in matters of faith, not in civil matters.
> the same Martin Luther who
> encouraged the German princes to strike down with brutality the
> peasants who dared have their own religious opinions, the same Martin
> Luther who wanted to burn all the synagogues with the Jews inside
> them?
Luther clearly stated that his problem with the anabaptists and the Jews
was NOT their doctrines of faith, but their doctrines of society. He saw
the anabaptists as anarchists and a threat to civil order; he viewed the
Jews as social misfits as well. With regard to their religion per se,
however, there are clear passages where he said they should be tolerated.
> >> Did Martin Luther fight for the right of
> >> people to disagree with him concerning worship or Bible
> >> interpretation?
>
> >That was one of the pillars of Luther's theology: right of private
> >interpretation, also known as "the priesthood of all believers," which
> >means that each individual has a direct line to God and does not have to
> >submit to any human intermediary with regard to interpretation.
>
> Tell that to the peasants murdered with the encouragement of Luther.
> Tell that to the Jews. Tell that to German Catholics.
Perhaps you should tell the Christian Scientists who are in jail today
that there is religious liberty in the U.S.A. today.
> >> Did Calvin? Did Knox. Did the Puritans?
> >
>
> >Yep. They pretty much embraced the Lutheran principle of the priesthood
> >of all believers.
>
> Religious freedom in Calvin's Geneva or in Scotland? What world do
> you live in? You dare to call others ignorant!
"Let not Geneva be forgotten or despised. Religious liberty owes it much
respect"
John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles F. Adams, ed. [1851] Vol. 6,
p. 313-314)
> The Church of England was no different than the others in its denial
> of religious freedom. Tolerance was seen as sinful.
Apparently you know very little of Jefferson & Madison's struggle against
the assessments bill in Virginia. Jefferson & Madison sided clearly with
the Baptists and Presbyterians, who wanted religious liberty, against the
Episcopalians, who wanted an establishment.
But that would require you to know more than your superficial
understanding of the 18th century.
> I have a suggestion. Try responding without personal insult and
> without putting your own, unique interpretation on what I have said.
I only respond to the very words you use, and I repost them to prove that
you said it. I can't "read your mind" and respond to what you "meant" to
say.
Perhaps you should simply check out what you post before you post it.
It might save you from having to retract and recant.
Mike Curtis
>mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> > > rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Your suggestion that Dr. Alan Sell and Dr. Winthrop Hudson have
>> not
>> > > > studied Locke nor his times has got to qualify as one of the top
>> five
>> > > > most idiotic things you have ever said.
>> > >
>> > > Show me where I say that.
>> >
>> > No problem--
>>
>> Address that which you have never addressed.
>
>Ah, I see you want to change course since your challenge was met and your
>face reddened.
Mr. Gardiner’s “primary sources” have been shown to be another attempt
to misrepresent Locke:
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=574997308
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=574997312
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=574997318
http://x64.deja.com/getdoc.xp?
AN=576497508&CONTEXT=963596479.1561002025&hitnum=6
It's all supported with primary sources and discusses the actual
writings. At Marquette University you will have to deal with the
material you are presented and not simply reply with nonsequitors.
>> No, he didn't according to scholars who studied Locke, his times and
>> his writings.
>>
>> Mr. Gardiner’s “primary sources” have been shown to be another attempt
>> to misrepresent Locke:
>>
>> http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=574997308
>> http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=574997312
>> http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=574997318
>>
>> http://x64.deja.com/getdoc.xp?
>> AN=576497508&CONTEXT=963596479.1561002025&hitnum=6
>>
>> It's all supported with primary sources and discusses the actual
>> writings. At Marquette University you will have to deal with the
>> material you are presented and not simply reply with nonsequitors.
>
>We all note that you continually snip the data I provide and continue to
>revert back to your reliance on Jeff Sinclair's habit of doing the same.
If you do not want to address those in the field of philosophy and
study Locke within his times what can I say.
>Non-sequiturs are all that one will find in your links to Jeff Sinclair's
>rerun posts.
>
>Aren't you the Mike Curtis who insist on people to "make your own
>argument"? Well, Mike, where is YOUR argument?
It is my own. In the posts above (some of the material I sent to Mr.
Sinclair) the claims are supported with citations.
>Can you please get a new put-down than your Marquette non-sense? We've
Bugs you doesn't it.
Mike Curtis
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
>
> >Can you please get a new put-down than your Marquette non-sense? We've
>
> Bugs you doesn't it.
Definitely not. It's just boring. I'm hoping that you can be a little
more creative.
Michael
develop in a Catholic country first?
The Warsaw Confederacy and the Statue of Religious Tolerance, 1573
The place designated for the election was a field at the outskirts
of the city of Warsaw. The choice of a city in the heart of Mazovia favored
the Catholic Church, as, on account of the proximity of the city, the Mazurs
could come in great numbers and sway the election.
Seeing that they were in a minority, the non-Conformists or
Dissidents formed a closer association known as the Warsaw confederacy, in
which they pledged themselves to see to it that law and order were
preserved and that complete freedom of conscience be guaranteed. This act of
the confederacy, demanding freedom of religious belief, was submitted to
the Convocation Diet and overwhelmingly, carried, only the bishops voting
against it. The act of the Warsaw Confederacy became the legal basis of the
position of the non-Conformists in the future and one of the chief organic
statutes of the Republic.
Thomas P. <ton...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
news:39705aa...@news.get2net.dk...
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:30:40 GMT, rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >ton...@get2net.dk (Thomas P.) wrote:
> >
> >> >Locke did not grant civil rights to atheists or
> >> >Catholics, so you're wrong on that score.
> >>
> >> How am I wrong, when I never said it? Is distortion a religious
> >> principle with you?
> >
> >Apparently you and Curtis have the same lying disease.
> >
>
> >You stated that the mainline denominations would not grant civil
> >liberties for Catholics, Jews, and atheists, and you stated that John
> >Lock [sic] was opposed to them in that regard
> >
> >You wrote:
> >
> >"People like John Lock were in opposition to the main-line Protestant
> >denominations of his day... None of those denominations would have
> >supported full, civil liberties for Catholics, Jews or atheists."
>
> I said he was in opposition to them. I said that none of them
> supported full, civil liberties. I did not say that the exact
> opposite was Locke's position, nor did I ever believe it to be so.
>
> >
> >You were dead wrong.
>
> Sure, sure!
>
> >
> >> >But more importantly, your suggestion that Locke was at odds with the
> >> >"main-line" denominations of his day regarding religious liberty is
> >> >really ignorant?
> >>
>
> >> It is? Could you tell me which one advocated religious liberty for
> >> even other Protestant sects?
> >
>
> >Ever heard of a Christian named Roger Williams? How about John Milton?
> >Perhaps you've even heard of Martin Luther.
>
> Are you claiming that Roger Williams, who was kicked out by the
> Puritans by the way, was the head of a main line sect ? The Puritans
> were a main line sect and were quite intolerant of Williams. Was John
> Milton the head of any sect at all? Are you claiming that Martin
> Luther supported freedom of choice, the same Martin Luther who
> encouraged the German princes to strike down with brutality the
> peasants who dared have their own religious opinions, the same Martin
> Luther who wanted to burn all the synagogues with the Jews inside
> them?
>
> >
> >> Did Martin Luther fight for the right of
> >> people to disagree with him concerning worship or Bible
> >> interpretation?
> >
>
> >That was one of the pillars of Luther's theology: right of private
> >interpretation, also known as "the priesthood of all believers," which
> >means that each individual has a direct line to God and does not have to
> >submit to any human intermediary with regard to interpretation.
>
> Tell that to the peasants murdered with the encouragement of Luther.
> Tell that to the Jews. Tell that to German Catholics. All of the
> major sects, Protestant and Catholic, persecuted other sects when
> given the opportunity. The Puritans, for example, went to the new
> world and promptly began to persecute any who disagreed with them.
> They did indeed introduce a kind of democracy in their colony, but it
> was only for people who believed as they believed. They would have
> been shocked at the idea of tolerance - witness Roger William's fate.
>
>
> >
> >> Did Calvin? Did Knox. Did the Puritans?
> >
>
> >Yep. They pretty much embraced the Lutheran principle of the priesthood
> >of all believers.
>
> Religious freedom in Calvin's Geneva or in Scotland? What world do
> you live in? You dare to call others ignorant! It was the priesthood
> of al who believed "correctly". There was no toleration of diversity
> of belief.
>
>
> >
> >> How about
> >> the Church of England?
> >
>
> >No. They were Erastian by and large.
> >
>
> The Church of England was no different than the others in its denial
> of religious freedom. Tolerance was seen as sinful.
>
>
> I have a suggestion. Try responding without personal insult and
> without putting your own, unique interpretation on what I have said.
> It might open a whole new world for you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >[snip your self-righteous sermon]
> >
> >RG
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
>
> Thomas P.
>
>
>
>
rgar...@my-deja.com
few isolated thinkers in the sixteenth century conceived of legal
religious toleration as a thing desirable. That impression is very far
from the truth"
Professor J.W. Allen, University of London, in A HISTORY OF POLITICAL
THOUGHT IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY (Barnes & Noble, 1960), p. 73.
You see, your facts about the Warsaw Confederacy is true, but it's hardly
where the concept developed. Fifty years before that pact, Luther had
written:
"The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and
property and what is external upon earth. For over the soul God can and
will let no one rule but himself. Therefore, where temporal power
presumes to prescribe laws for the soul, it encroaches upon God's
government and only misleads and destroys souls. We desire to make this
so clear that every one shall grasp it, and that the princes and bishops
may see what fools they are when they seek to coerce the people with
their laws and commandments into believing one thing or another.
We are to be subject to governmental power and do what it bids, as long
as it does not bind our conscience but legislates only concerning outward
matters.... But if it invades the spiritual domain and constrains the
conscience, over which God only must preside and rule, we should not obey
it at all... Temporal authority and government extend no further than to
matters which are external and corporeal."
Castellion had written his treatise On Toleration in 1554. Philip Mornay
was pushing the same line in France & Holland just after the St.
Bartholomew's day massacre.
So your information is interesting, but it is anachronistic. The idea of
religious liberty in Europe had already gone to seed by the time of the
Warsaw Confederacy.
RG
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources
"Michael" <mwr...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> I wonder if the idea of religious liberty and tolerance really didn't
> develop in a Catholic country first?
>
> The Warsaw Confederacy and the Statue of Religious Tolerance, 1573
> The place designated for the election was a field at the outskirts
> of the city of Warsaw. The choice of a city in the heart of Mazovia favored
> the Catholic Church, as, on account of the proximity of the city, the Mazurs
> could come in great numbers and sway the election.
> Seeing that they were in a minority, the non-Conformists or
> Dissidents formed a closer association known as the Warsaw confederacy, in
> which they pledged themselves to see to it that law and order were
> preserved and that complete freedom of conscience be guaranteed. This act of
> the confederacy, demanding freedom of religious belief, was submitted to
> the Convocation Diet and overwhelmingly, carried, only the bishops voting
> against it. The act of the Warsaw Confederacy became the legal basis of the
> position of the non-Conformists in the future and one of the chief organic
> statutes of the Republic.
Robert J. Kolker
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> We are to be subject to governmental power and do what it bids, as long
> as it does not bind our conscience but legislates only concerning outward
> matters.... But if it invades the spiritual domain and constrains the
> conscience, over which God only must preside and rule, we should not obey
> it at all... Temporal authority and government extend no further than to
> matters which are external and corporeal."
That pretty well says it. Government may regulate our external
behaviour but it has no business telling us what we must
* believe *.
Bob Kolker
Michael
states prior to Poland.
Read the Peace of Augsburg to find out how much people listened to what
Luther had to say on
the subject of Religious Freedom.
<rgar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8kqiot$nq1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> "There seems still to exist an impression, in some quarters, that only a
> few isolated thinkers in the sixteenth century conceived of legal
> religious toleration as a thing desirable. That impression is very far
> from the truth"
>
> Professor J.W. Allen, University of London, in A HISTORY OF POLITICAL
> THOUGHT IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY (Barnes & Noble, 1960), p. 73.
>
> You see, your facts about the Warsaw Confederacy is true, but it's hardly
> where the concept developed. Fifty years before that pact, Luther had
> written:
>
> "The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and
> property and what is external upon earth. For over the soul God can and
> will let no one rule but himself. Therefore, where temporal power
> presumes to prescribe laws for the soul, it encroaches upon God's
> government and only misleads and destroys souls. We desire to make this
> so clear that every one shall grasp it, and that the princes and bishops
> may see what fools they are when they seek to coerce the people with
> their laws and commandments into believing one thing or another.
>
> We are to be subject to governmental power and do what it bids, as long
> as it does not bind our conscience but legislates only concerning outward
> matters.... But if it invades the spiritual domain and constrains the
> conscience, over which God only must preside and rule, we should not obey
> it at all... Temporal authority and government extend no further than to
> matters which are external and corporeal."
>
> Castellion had written his treatise On Toleration in 1554. Philip Mornay
> was pushing the same line in France & Holland just after the St.
> Bartholomew's day massacre.
>
> So your information is interesting, but it is anachronistic. The idea of
> religious liberty in Europe had already gone to seed by the time of the
> Warsaw Confederacy.
>
> RG
> http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources
>
> "Michael" <mwr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >
rgar...@my-deja.com
> Name the enabling acts that established religious freedom in the European
> states prior to Poland.
Try the first paragraph of the Magna Charta, for starters.
> Read the Peace of Augsburg to find out how much people listened to what
> Luther had to say on
> the subject of Religious Freedom.
Read Castellion to find out how much people listened to what Luther had
to say on the subject of Religious Freedom.
rgar...@my-deja.com
> > as it does not bind our conscience but legislates only concerning outward
> > matters.... But if it invades the spiritual domain and constrains the
> > conscience, over which God only must preside and rule, we should not obey
> > it at all... Temporal authority and government extend no further than to
> > matters which are external and corporeal."
>
> behaviour but it has no business telling us what we must
> * believe *.
>
> Bob Kolker
I'm glad we have seen eye to eye on something. :)
Carol Lee Smith
money and in our pledge and in that one verse of the national anthem!
Let's get it out of there!
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > We are to be subject to governmental power and do what it bids, as long
> > as it does not bind our conscience but legislates only concerning outward
> > matters.... But if it invades the spiritual domain and constrains the
> > conscience, over which God only must preside and rule, we should not obey
> > it at all... Temporal authority and government extend no further than to
> > matters which are external and corporeal."
> That pretty well says it. Government may regulate our external
> behaviour but it has no business telling us what we must
> * believe *.
>
> Bob Kolker
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these
shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood
for centuries" [James Madison, 1803 letter objecting to the use of
government
land for churches]
http://195.7.48.75/release/new/dallas/morning/dallasreligion/p1s2m.htm
http://www.connect.usq.edu.au/students/q9920223/
http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/index.htm
Carol Lee Smith
unnecessary and unconstitutional for the government to mandate
monotheism?
Case in point. Presently the government mandates monotheism on our money,
in our pledge, and in one verse of the national anthem.
I am sure Mr. Gardiner would support removing such material since he
believes the government's business is to tell us what we should *believe*
!!
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@usa.net> wrote:
> > That pretty well says it. Government may regulate our external
> > behaviour but it has no business telling us what we must
> > * believe *.
> >
> > Bob Kolker
>
> I'm glad we have seen eye to eye on something. :)
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
>
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these
rgar...@my-deja.com
Carol Lee Smith <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
> Then I would suppose that Richard Gardiner would agree it is absolutely
> unnecessary and unconstitutional for the government to mandate
> monotheism?
>
> Case in point. Presently the government mandates monotheism on our money,
> in our pledge, and in one verse of the national anthem.
Yea, and when they put Tuesday, January 12, 2000, A.D. on a document,
they are "mandating" belief in the Norse god Tiws, the Greek god Janus,
and, of course, the dominus jesus christ.
I am sure Ms. Smith would support removing such material since she
believes the government's business is not to tell us what we should *
believe* !!
Actually, I'll bet that she'd support the removal of only the part of the
calendar which has a christian cultural genesis, but leave the pagan
stuff there.
Carrying a piece of paper with the words IN GOD WE TRUST no more "forces"
you to believe in a monotheistic god then the symbols on same paper force
me to believe in Masonic rituals.
There is a difference between separating church and state and attempting
to separate government from its socio-cultural milieu. Just because the
federal government tells me today is Saturday doesn't mean they are
forcing paganism on me.
Thomas P.
My words stand. You have misread them. I can see, however, how you
could have read them in the way you claim. If you were not so fond of
insulting people and assuming immediately they were liars, you just
might see the possibility of a misunderstanding. There is nothing
more to be said, but I am quite certain you will not let that stop
you.
>
>What you should say now, Tom, is that you "meant" to say that none of the
>granted full religious liberty, but that you misspoke, and you apologize
>for the confusion.
>
>That is how a person of integrity deals with these kinds of mistakes.
>
>But you go right on claiming you said and didn't say things which are
>clearly in the record.
I see, the possibility that you misread what I wrote is totally out of
the question. The only possible explanation is that I am a liar.
Where did you get such hostility and arrogance?
>
>> I did not say that the exact
>> opposite was Locke's position, nor did I ever believe it to be so.
>
>You said he was opposed to the mainline denominations who didn't grant
>religious liberties.
>
>> >You were dead wrong.
>>
>> Sure, sure!
>
>Just admit it, jeez. It's in the record. You don't have to be perfect. We
>all make mistakes.
Irony alert! Irony alert! No, seriously, I am glad that you admit
that we all make mistakes. It is a clear sign of progress in your
social development.
>
>> >> It is? Could you tell me which one advocated religious liberty for
>> >> even other Protestant sects?
>>
>> >Ever heard of a Christian named Roger Williams? How about John Milton?
>> >Perhaps you've even heard of Martin Luther.
>>
>> Are you claiming that Roger Williams, who was kicked out by the
>> Puritans by the way, was the head of a main line sect ?
>
>Yes. Roger Williams was a Baptist. And yes, Baptists are part of the
>mainstream of Christian sects, and yes, Roger Williams was a leader of
>the Baptists.
"Are" is, I believe, a present tense verb. When Roger Williams was
kicked out by the "freedom-loving" Puritans, he was not the head of a
major sect.
>
>> The Puritans
>> were a main line sect and were quite intolerant of Williams.
>
>Not of Williams religion, but of his politics. I have explained this to
>you again and again and again and again.
Oh, his politics. That's it! It was his politics. The Puritans
never persecuted people for their religious beliefs. The Puritans
never publicly whipped Quakers, and, if they did, it was for their
politics. There was never any religious persecution, it was all
politics. That explains everything. That is probably why the witches
were burned. They voted for the wrong party. Politics can be
vicious.
>
>The U.S. Federal government has not been "tolerant" of the beliefs of Tim
>McVey, but that has nothing to do with the fact that they don't want to
>accord him freedom of religion. It's his politics which makes him
>dangerous. That is how the Puritans saw Williams.
Hold on to that idea. It is surely better than admitting that you are
wrong. Of course, Tim McVey was not prosecuted for his politics, but
don't let that bother you.
>
>> Was John
>> Milton the head of any sect at all?
>
>Milton was a Puritan leader.
Was he the head of any sect. Was he even a minister? He was neither.
There was no religious freedom in England under the Commonwealth when
the Puritans were in charge. There was no religious freedom in New
England when the Puritans were in charge there.
>
>> Are you claiming that Martin
>> Luther supported freedom of choice,
>
>Yes, in matters of faith, not in civil matters.
>
>> the same Martin Luther who
>> encouraged the German princes to strike down with brutality the
>> peasants who dared have their own religious opinions, the same Martin
>> Luther who wanted to burn all the synagogues with the Jews inside
>> them?
>
>Luther clearly stated that his problem with the anabaptists and the Jews
>was NOT their doctrines of faith, but their doctrines of society. He saw
>the anabaptists as anarchists and a threat to civil order; he viewed the
>Jews as social misfits as well. With regard to their religion per se,
>however, there are clear passages where he said they should be tolerated.
Curiouser and curiouser. The Jews and anabaptists, by the fact of
their being Jews or anabaptists were criminals to be punished.
However they should be free to practice their religion, which made
them criminals. No, let's be fair. You did say their religion per
se. What part of their religion was not their religion, and what part
was their religion per se? Who was to decide this, Luther?
>
>> >> Did Martin Luther fight for the right of
>> >> people to disagree with him concerning worship or Bible
>> >> interpretation?
>>
>> >That was one of the pillars of Luther's theology: right of private
>> >interpretation, also known as "the priesthood of all believers," which
>> >means that each individual has a direct line to God and does not have to
>> >submit to any human intermediary with regard to interpretation.
>>
>> Tell that to the peasants murdered with the encouragement of Luther.
>> Tell that to the Jews. Tell that to German Catholics.
>
>Perhaps you should tell the Christian Scientists who are in jail today
>that there is religious liberty in the U.S.A. today.
What does that have to do with your argument? Oh, I see. It was all
political or they were all criminals. Good argument! All of the
other religions were outlawed, but it was only because they were all
criminals not because of their religion. What could make more sense?
>
>> >> Did Calvin? Did Knox. Did the Puritans?
>> >
>>
>> >Yep. They pretty much embraced the Lutheran principle of the priesthood
>> >of all believers.
>>
>> Religious freedom in Calvin's Geneva or in Scotland? What world do
>> you live in? You dare to call others ignorant!
>
>"Let not Geneva be forgotten or despised. Religious liberty owes it much
>respect"
>
>John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles F. Adams, ed. [1851] Vol. 6,
>p. 313-314)
Nice quote, but I asked if there was religious freedom in Calvin's
Geneva or in Scotland. I notice that you did not answer it. Allow
me, there was no religious freedom at that time in Geneva or in
Scotland.
>
>> The Church of England was no different than the others in its denial
>> of religious freedom. Tolerance was seen as sinful.
>
>Apparently you know very little of Jefferson & Madison's struggle against
>the assessments bill in Virginia. Jefferson & Madison sided clearly with
>the Baptists and Presbyterians, who wanted religious liberty, against the
>Episcopalians, who wanted an establishment.
>
>But that would require you to know more than your superficial
>understanding of the 18th century.
What in the hell are you talking about? When did I even suggest that
Jefferson or Madison did not want religious freedom? The state of
Virgina had an established church, the Episcopalian, of course the
other churches were in favor of that ending. On the other hand the
Presbyterians in Scotland had nothing against their church being the
established church of Scotland. Oh, wait, I know; the other churches
in Scotland were made up of criminals. They were persecuted in
Scotland because of politics not religion. In America, on the other
hand, they had stopped being criminals and could be allowed. I think
you should write a book.
>
>> I have a suggestion. Try responding without personal insult and
>> without putting your own, unique interpretation on what I have said.
>
>I only respond to the very words you use, and I repost them to prove that
>you said it. I can't "read your mind" and respond to what you "meant" to
>say.
>
>Perhaps you should simply check out what you post before you post it.
>
>It might save you from having to retract and recant.
Well, it was only a suggestion. If insulting everyone who dares to
disagree with you is necessary for your self-esteem, carry on. I am
not the one who ends up looking like a spoiled, ill-mannered child.
>
>RG
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Thomas P.
Michael
of Catholics and Jews.
Jews were less than second class citizens. Read "Ivanhoe."
Try again.
<rgar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8kqt0v$uf0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> "Michael" <mwr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> > Name the enabling acts that established religious freedom in the
European
> > states prior to Poland.
>
> Try the first paragraph of the Magna Charta, for starters.
>
> > Read the Peace of Augsburg to find out how much people listened to what
> > Luther had to say on
> > the subject of Religious Freedom.
>
> Read Castellion to find out how much people listened to what Luther had
> to say on the subject of Religious Freedom.
>
>
Michael
<rgar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8kqt0v$uf0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> "Michael" <mwr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> > Name the enabling acts that established religious freedom in the
European
> > states prior to Poland.
>
> Try the first paragraph of the Magna Charta, for starters.
>
> > Read the Peace of Augsburg to find out how much people listened to what
> > Luther had to say on
> > the subject of Religious Freedom.
>
> Read Castellion to find out how much people listened to what Luther had
> to say on the subject of Religious Freedom.
..Speaking of the people. Did you know that Luther found the peasants
illeterate and ingnorant and much to the happiness of the German princes, he
stated that the power of the prince should control the activities of the
people, because the chruch did not have the capability to strongly enforce
their "moral" authority.
..Read History to find out how all this reading and believing was put into
practice.
..If you want to read, you should read Martin Luther's "Secular Authority
and To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed." (1523):
"The power that is everywhere is ordained of God. He then who resists the
power resists God's ordinance. But he who resists God's ordinances shall
bring condemnation."
..Sounds to me that he believes in the divine right of "secular" (princely)
authority. The prince's civil authority came from God according to Luther.
There goes seperation of church and state....Poof! Like everyone else I'm
only ignorant.
rgar...@my-deja.com
The Magna Charta begins with a clause freeing the church from the state's
control.
> England was made up
> of Catholics and Jews.
> Jews were less than second class citizens. Read "Ivanhoe."
Uh, is that how you learn your history: via novels and other sorts of
fiction? I am not surprised.
> Try again.
what else? should I watch "wizard of oz" to get your next point?
Robert J. Kolker
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Uh, is that how you learn your history: via novels and other sorts of
> fiction? I am not surprised.
As a matter of historical fact, Jews were expelled
from England.
Bob Kolker
Thomas P.
>"Michael" <mwr...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>
>> The Magna Carta does not establish religious freedom.
>
>The Magna Charta begins with a clause freeing the church from the state's
>control.
It was one Church. That one Church was allowed freedom.
Separation of church and state is being discussed not Church and
state.
>
>> England was made up
>> of Catholics and Jews.
>> Jews were less than second class citizens. Read "Ivanhoe."
>
>Uh, is that how you learn your history: via novels and other sorts of
>fiction? I am not surprised.
If you think the fact that the Catholic Church was legally beyond
secular control has something to do with the modern concept of
separation of church and state or with religious freedom, your
position is quite bizarre.
>
>> Try again.
>
>what else? should I watch "wizard of oz" to get your next point?
Please explain how excusing one organisation and one organisation only
from the control of secular law equates with freedom of religion or
has any connection with separation of church and state.
Thomas P.
wrote:
You are so ignorant that you can not see that granting the Catholic
Church full control over religion is the same as granting religious
freedom. I do not understand it either, but I suppose we should
listen to our betters.
Michael
between having the ability to pursue your own
religious faith and freeing the church from state control. Here's
something you should be able to understand.church is an institution an
organization, not thought or belief. The king would no longer interfere
in church internal business.
You apparently read but don't comprehend. Which one of your professors at
Princeton told you the Magna Carta was a religious freedom document. Get
him to post here to support you.
<rgar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ksc8r$snn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> "Michael" <mwr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >
> > The Magna Carta does not establish religious freedom.
>
> The Magna Charta begins with a clause freeing the church from the state's
> control.
>
> > England was made up
> > of Catholics and Jews.
> > Jews were less than second class citizens. Read "Ivanhoe."
>
> Uh, is that how you learn your history: via novels and other sorts of
> fiction? I am not surprised.
Ivanhoe for the uninitiated is a historical fiction novel telling a story of
life and social conditions in medeival England.
That makes it similar to the historical fiction of the bible.
>
> > Try again.
>
> what else? should I watch "wizard of oz" to get your next point?
Sure go ahead.
Michael
in pursuing the separation of church and state
in the birthing days of the nation.
My personal belief is that religion is private. Live your spiritual life or
atheistic life as you choose and I'll do the same.
As long as no one gets hurt everything will be fine.
Thomas P. <ton...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
news:3971cfa6...@news.get2net.dk...
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 08:48:59 -0400, "Michael" <mwr...@localnet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> ><rgar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> >"People like John Lock were in opposition to the main-line Protestant
> >denominations of his day... None of those denominations would have
> >supported full, civil liberties for Catholics, Jews or atheists."
> >
>
> >
> >You didn't. You're lying again.
>
> My words stand.
Yes they do. They are posted right above here. Words have meaning.
Grammar and syntax denote the meaning of the sentence.
When you said that John Lock [sic] opposed the mainline denominations,
you really meant with regard to their favorite flavor of ice cream,
right? That won't fly pal. You DENOTED that he opposed the fact that they
didn't grant civil liberty to Catholics, Jews, and Atheists.
You were not only wrong on what the mainline protestants tolerated, but
also on whether Locke was in opposition to them.
Case closed. Move along now.
> Irony alert! Irony alert! No, seriously, I am glad that you admit
> that we all make mistakes. It is a clear sign of progress in your
> social development.
Some people can admit to mistakes, others do backflips and manipulation
of words and sentences to try to deny writing what they have clearly
written.
You blew it on Locke. If you could admit to it, you'd probably gain
points with the gallery. As it stands, your inability to own error
betrays you.
> >Yes. Roger Williams was a Baptist. And yes, Baptists are part of the
> >mainstream of Christian sects, and yes, Roger Williams was a leader of
> >the Baptists.
>
> "Are" is, I believe, a present tense verb. When Roger Williams was
> kicked out by the "freedom-loving" Puritans, he was not the head of a
> major sect.
Yes, the Baptists *WERE* a major sect. Williams was a minister/leader of
that particular sect. If you are asking me if he was the founder of the
Baptists, perhaps not, but what does that matter? Are you suggesting that
only the opinions of the persons who founded a particular sect get to
speak for that sect?
> >Not of Williams religion, but of his politics. I have explained this
> >to you again and again and again and again.
>
> Oh, his politics. That's it! It was his politics. The Puritans
> never persecuted people for their religious beliefs. The Puritans
> never publicly whipped Quakers, and, if they did, it was for their
> politics.
Right on. Perhaps you've been reading up.
They were whipped for coming into the puritan congregations, naked,
breaking bottles and disturbing the peace.
Even Anne Hutchinson was not condemned by the civil magistrates for her
religious beliefs; read the trial, Michael. The charges that got her
exiled were disturbing the peace of the community.
> There was never any religious persecution, it was all
> politics. That explains everything. That is probably why the witches
> were burned.
If you can give me the name of one single witch that was burned by
Puritans in New England, I'll humble myself in sackcloth and ashes. If
not, you need to retract this wild assertion.
> >The U.S. Federal government has not been "tolerant" of the beliefs of Tim
> >McVey, but that has nothing to do with the fact that they don't want to
> >accord him freedom of religion. It's his politics which makes him
> >dangerous. That is how the Puritans saw Williams.
>
> Hold on to that idea. It is surely better than admitting that you are
> wrong. Of course, Tim McVey was not prosecuted for his politics, but
> don't let that bother you.
McVey was prosecuted for what his politics led to, as was Williams, as
was Hutchinson, as were the Catholics in England and Ireland.
In Puritan New England you could believe whatever you wanted, but once
the practice of those beliefs started to affect the good of the
community, you would be thrown out.
Again, read the trial of Anne Hutchinson. It is available in its
entirety.
> >Milton was a Puritan leader.
>
> Was he the head of any sect. Was he even a minister? He was neither.
Milton was a Puritan theologian. Why do you keep using this word "head"?
do you think that only the founders of a sect speak for the sect?
> There was no religious freedom in England under the Commonwealth when
> the Puritans were in charge.
Have you read their constitution? Apparently not. Your unqualified
statement is betrayed by the historical evidence.
The Cromwellian Constitution is available at Fordham's site:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1653intrumentgovt.html
Note paragraphs 36-38: No compulsion or punishments were to be imposed by
the civil government for disagreeing in matters of religion, SO LONG AS
one didn't cause physical harm to the community.
It's nice to learn something new, isn't it? But I bet this won't stop you
from spinning your distortions about the 17th century.
> There was no religious freedom in New
> England when the Puritans were in charge there.
The Puritans were far more nuanced than you think. You might want to pick
up one of the volumes by Perry Miller, the Harvard scholar who dedicated
his life to the Puritans.
Of course there was no religious freedom for church members who had taken
an oath to accept the confessions of their church (which was most of the
people who lived in New England early on); it is the very nature of a
church to define what it's members are committed to believing.
In the civil realm, however, the Puritans generally accepted Luther's
principles and as long as a person was not a harm to the community, they
could believe in the privacy of their homes whatever they wished without
fear of punishment.
> >Luther clearly stated that his problem with the anabaptists and the Jews
> >was NOT their doctrines of faith, but their doctrines of society. He saw
> >the anabaptists as anarchists and a threat to civil order; he viewed the
> >Jews as social misfits as well. With regard to their religion per se,
> >however, there are clear passages where he said they should be tolerated.
>
> Curiouser and curiouser. The Jews and anabaptists, by the fact of
> their being Jews or anabaptists were criminals to be punished.
Who said that? The anabaptists were perceived as anarchists, which Luther
felt was a threat to civil order.
The Jews were perceived (wrongly) by Luther as usurious, defamatory, and
perjurious... all criminal acts.
> However they should be free to practice their religion, which made
> them criminals.
Sometimes practicing one's religion does make one a criminal: to wit, the
man who believes that god wants him to sacrifice his first born becomes a
criminal when he practices what he believes.
> No, let's be fair. You did say their religion per
> se. What part of their religion was not their religion, and what part
> was their religion per se? Who was to decide this, Luther?
It was commonly accepted then (and now) that the two forums are the forum
of conscience, which pertains to religious beliefs, and the forum of the
world, which pertains to behavior and society.
Almost every protestant has believed that the civil government cannot
regulate in any way the previous forum, UNTIL AND UNLESS it becomes
harmfully manifested in the latter forum.
This is really all just standard Lockean, Jeffersonian fare.
> >Perhaps you should tell the Christian Scientists who are in jail today
> >that there is religious liberty in the U.S.A. today.
>
> What does that have to do with your argument?
Christian Scientists believe sincerely and conscientiously against going
to the hospital. We don't allow them to practice that belief because of
the impact it has on their children. We punish them for their sincerely
held religious beliefs once they practice them.
> >"Let not Geneva be forgotten or despised. Religious liberty owes it much
> >respect"
> >
> >John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles F. Adams, ed. [1851] Vol. 6,
> >p. 313-314)
>
> Nice quote, but I asked if there was religious freedom in Calvin's
> Geneva or in Scotland. I notice that you did not answer it. Allow
> me, there was no religious freedom at that time in Geneva or in
> Scotland.
You'll need to post more than just your opinion, viz. some evidence, to
prove the erudite President Adams a fool.
> >> The Church of England was no different than the others in its denial
> >> of religious freedom. Tolerance was seen as sinful.
> >
>
> >Apparently you know very little of Jefferson & Madison's struggle against
> >the assessments bill in Virginia. Jefferson & Madison sided clearly with
> >the Baptists and Presbyterians, who wanted religious liberty, against the
> >Episcopalians, who wanted an establishment.
> >
> >But that would require you to know more than your superficial
> >understanding of the 18th century.
>
> What in the hell are you talking about? When did I even suggest that
> Jefferson or Madison did not want religious freedom? The state of
> Virgina had an established church, the Episcopalian, of course the
> other churches were in favor of that ending.
Yes, and so there was a big difference between the opinion of the
Episcopal church and the Presbyterians regarding religious liberty,
wasn't there? You said that "all of the denominations were the same" in
this regard.
The Presbyterians & Baptists were the force behind the Virginia Statute
for Religious Freedom, authored by Jefferson and noted on his grave.
see http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/repehtml/relpetdateindex.html
> I think
> you should write a book.
Thanks. I have. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0914513516/qid=
916030398/sr=1-1/002-9495285-5350642
> >I only respond to the very words you use, and I repost them to prove that
> >you said it. I can't "read your mind" and respond to what you "meant" to
> >say.
> >
> >Perhaps you should simply check out what you post before you post it.
> >
> >It might save you from having to retract and recant.
>
> Well, it was only a suggestion. If insulting everyone who dares to
> disagree with you is necessary for your self-esteem, carry on. I am
> not the one who ends up looking like a spoiled, ill-mannered child.
Look, just stick to history and stop moralizing. If you want to moralize,
go post in alt.born-again.biblethumper
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> >"Michael" <mwr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> England was made up
> >> of Catholics and Jews.
> >> Jews were less than second class citizens. Read "Ivanhoe."
>
> >Uh, is that how you learn your history: via novels and other sorts of
> >fiction? I am not surprised.
>
> secular control has something to do with the modern concept of
> separation of church and state or with religious freedom, your
> position is quite bizarre.
My position is quite mainstream.
see e.g.,
W.K. Jordan, The Development of Religious Toleration in England (four
vols., Cambridge: Harvard Press, 1940)
H. Kamen, The Rise of Toleration (London, 1967)
Most all scholarly works on the seeds of religious liberty look back to
the divestiture controversy of the 11th century as a crucial beginning to
these discussions.
William the Conquerer himself took measures to separate church and state:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/ordwill.htm
> Please explain how excusing one organisation and one organisation only
> from the control of secular law equates with freedom of religion or
> has any connection with separation of church and state.
The beginning of separation of church and state is the move to prevent
the secular authorities from dabbling in the affairs of the church.
I don't see what's so hard about that?
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources
rgar...@my-deja.com
It freed the church from the control of the state. It was a very
important move toward the separation of church and state which we now
enjoy.
> There's a difference
> between having the ability to pursue your own
> religious faith and freeing the church from state control.
If the state can't control my church, then as a member of that church I
can believe what I want.
You can't divorce these two concepts. Try as you may.
> You apparently read but don't comprehend. Which one of your professors at
> Princeton told you the Magna Carta was a religious freedom document. Get
> him to post here to support you.
Here's even better, a scholar who gave his life work to this issue:
From W.K. Jordan, The Development of Religious Toleration in England, 4
volumes.
"Their [the words of the Magna Charta] impact in proclaiming limits on
the scope of secular power, in posing check to royal pride, and in
advancing the Western concept of separate spheres allotted to church and
state, is manifest."
> > > England was made up
> > > of Catholics and Jews.
> > > Jews were less than second class citizens. Read "Ivanhoe."
> >
> > Uh, is that how you learn your history: via novels and other sorts of
> > fiction? I am not surprised.
>
> Ivanhoe for the uninitiated is a historical fiction novel telling a story of
> life and social conditions in medeival England.
So is Monty Python's Holy Grail.
> > what else? should I watch "wizard of oz" to get your next point?
>
> Sure go ahead.
Thanks, I did. And now I understand your whole position: you represent
the lollipop guild in your land of historical make-believe.
Robert J. Kolker
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Yes they do. They are posted right above here. Words have meaning.
> Grammar and syntax denote the meaning of the sentence.
Strictly speaking grammar and syntax indicate the proper
* forms * of sentences. A perfectly grammatical sentence
may be devoid of meaning. For example: Flies like an arrow.
This is a grammatical sentence, but it is doubtful whether
flies (the kind that grow in garbage and buzz) like anything.
It is semantics that deals with the meaning of linguistic constructs.
Bob Kolker
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> > Uh, is that how you learn your history: via novels and other sorts of
> > fiction? I am not surprised.
>
> from England.
Fine, but for god's sake, don't point me to a novel to prove it.
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> ..Speaking of the people. Did you know that Luther found the peasants
> illeterate
(Huge belly laugh), Illeterate, huh?
> ..Read History to find out how all this reading and believing was put into
> practice.
>
> ..If you want to read, you should read Martin Luther's "Secular Authority
> and To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed." (1523):
> "The power that is everywhere is ordained of God. He then who resists the
> power resists God's ordinance.
If you were a little more knowledgeable you would know that what you have
posted from Luther is just a close paraphrase of the Bible:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=KJV&
passage=Romans+13
But if you had read the treatise you cited a bit more thoroughly, you
would have found that Luther is far more nuanced, and carefully qualified
this Biblical principle:
"We are to be subject to governmental power and do what it bids, as long
as it does not bind our conscience but legislates only concerning outward
matters.... But if it invades the spiritual domain and constrains the
conscience, over which God only must preside and rule, we should not obey
it at all but rather lose our necks. Temporal authority and government
extend no further than to matters which are external and corporeal."
The whole treatise is available online at
http://www.universitylake.org/history/luthersecular.html
Do yourself a favor and read the entirety of the document.
> There goes seperation of church and state....Poof! Like everyone else I'm
> only ignorant.
Because you didn't read the whole document. It includes a clear
formulation of separation of church and state:
"...God has ordained the two governments: the spiritual, which by the
Holy Spirit under Christ makes Christians and pious people; and the
secular, which restrains the unchristian and wicked so that they are
obliged to keep the peace outwardly...
"The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and
property and what is external upon earth. For over the soul God can and
will let no one rule but himself. Therefore, where temporal power
presumes to prescribe laws for the soul, it encroaches upon God's
government and only misleads and destroys souls. We desire to make this
so clear that every one shall grasp it, and that the princes and bishops
may see what fools they are when they seek to coerce the people with
their laws and commandments into believing one thing or another."
rgar...@my-deja.com
> This NG topic has really made me appreciate Thomas Jefferson and his wisdom
> in pursuing the separation of church and state
> in the birthing days of the nation.
>
> My personal belief is that religion is private. Live your spiritual life or
> atheistic life as you choose and I'll do the same.
> As long as no one gets hurt everything will be fine.
You sound much like the Puritan John Milton--
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/civil_power/index.html
rgar...@my-deja.com
> > Grammar and syntax denote the meaning of the sentence.
>
> * forms * of sentences. A perfectly grammatical sentence
> may be devoid of meaning. For example: Flies like an arrow.
> This is a grammatical sentence, but it is doubtful whether
> flies (the kind that grow in garbage and buzz) like anything.
The flies in my garbage like a lot of things. And I can imagine that a
bloody arrow would be one of the things they would like very much, thus,
the sentence "Flies like an arrow" could have a perfectly useful meaning.
But, Bob, you have to admit that you have taken us on a very wild tangent
here.
Michael
<rgar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8kt3eu$c1e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> "Michael" <mwr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >
> > ..Speaking of the people. Did you know that Luther found the peasants
> > illeterate
>
> (Huge belly laugh), Illeterate, huh?
Yes, Illiterate. - Do you believe most people in Europe could read?
>
> > ..Read History to find out how all this reading and believing was put
into
> > practice.
> >
> > ..If you want to read, you should read Martin Luther's "Secular
Authority
> > and To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed." (1523):
> > "The power that is everywhere is ordained of God. He then who resists
the
> > power resists God's ordinance.
>
> If you were a little more knowledgeable you would know that what you have
> posted from Luther is just a close paraphrase of the Bible:
If you read the letter, you would see that the paraphrase is in the letter.
>
> http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=KJV&
> passage=Romans+13
>
> But if you had read the treatise you cited a bit more thoroughly, you
> would have found that Luther is far more nuanced, and carefully qualified
> this Biblical principle:
>
> "We are to be subject to governmental power and do what it bids, as long
> as it does not bind our conscience but legislates only concerning outward
> matters.... But if it invades the spiritual domain and constrains the
> conscience, over which God only must preside and rule, we should not obey
> it at all but rather lose our necks. Temporal authority and government
> extend no further than to matters which are external and corporeal."
>
> The whole treatise is available online at
>
> http://www.universitylake.org/history/luthersecular.html
>
> Do yourself a favor and read the entirety of the document.
>
> > There goes seperation of church and state....Poof! Like everyone else
I'm
> > only ignorant.
>
> Because you didn't read the whole document. It includes a clear
> formulation of separation of church and state:
>
> "...God has ordained the two governments: the spiritual, which by the
> Holy Spirit under Christ makes Christians and pious people; and the
> secular, which restrains the unchristian and wicked so that they are
> obliged to keep the peace outwardly...
Christians as a pious person is a copout. All one need do if a Christian
behaves badly is say the person was not a Christian.
It's like the NRA argument that if you control guns you keep the guns away
from law abiding citizens. That's a use of words,
because a law abiding citizen could never commit a gun crime. The reason
being, as soon as he did, he would be a criminal.
So the laws were made to actually control Christians and the non-believers.
Luther believed that all power came from God. As a result, all leadership
is subject to what he believes is the
rule of God. That implies, he did not believe in the separation of church
and state in a political sense. Because he believed (Biblically - I believe
from Peter) all power comes from God who established behavior for the
rulers. And as such it would be impossible for a non-Christian to ever
become a ruler of Christian German state. The Peace of Augsburg and Treaty
of Westphalia actually identifies the religious conditions for a prince and
what happens to his property should he change faiths. That doesn't sound
anything like the guidines for separation of church and state.
His idea of separation of church and state implied that the state should not
meddle in church affairs, hierarchy, faith, etc., while the princes would
still be bound by the precepts and judgement of Christianity. The power to
call a prince a heretic or blasphemer is quite a sword to have at your
disposal.
> "The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and
> property and what is external upon earth. For over the soul God can and
> will let no one rule but himself. Therefore, where temporal power
> presumes to prescribe laws for the soul, it encroaches upon God's
> government and only misleads and destroys souls. We desire to make this
> so clear that every one shall grasp it, and that the princes and bishops
> may see what fools they are when they seek to coerce the people with
> their laws and commandments into believing one thing or another."
So in Luther's world Catholics and Jews were his earthly brothers to be
treated fairly and justly?
That should require a simple yes or no answer.
Michael
church and state revolves around keeping religion out of government and not
keeping government out of religion.
<rgar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8kt0fr$9u7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> ton...@get2net.dk (Thomas P.) wrote:
> >
> > >"Michael" <mwr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> England was made up
> > >> of Catholics and Jews.
> > >> Jews were less than second class citizens. Read "Ivanhoe."
> >
> > >Uh, is that how you learn your history: via novels and other sorts of
> > >fiction? I am not surprised.
> >
> > If you think the fact that the Catholic Church was legally beyond
> > secular control has something to do with the modern concept of
> > separation of church and state or with religious freedom, your
> > position is quite bizarre.
>
> My position is quite mainstream.
>
> see e.g.,
>
> W.K. Jordan, The Development of Religious Toleration in England (four
> vols., Cambridge: Harvard Press, 1940)
>
> H. Kamen, The Rise of Toleration (London, 1967)
>
> Most all scholarly works on the seeds of religious liberty look back to
> the divestiture controversy of the 11th century as a crucial beginning to
> these discussions.
>
> William the Conquerer himself took measures to separate church and state:
>
> http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/ordwill.htm
>
> > Please explain how excusing one organisation and one organisation only
> > from the control of secular law equates with freedom of religion or
> > has any connection with separation of church and state.
>
> The beginning of separation of church and state is the move to prevent
> the secular authorities from dabbling in the affairs of the church.
>
> I don't see what's so hard about that?
>
> http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources
>
>
Michael
since the time of Lao Tzu 2500 years ago, The Islamic
Sufis believe it, the Unitarians believe it, etc.
<rgar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8kt3m5$caq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Thomas P.
wrote:
>This NG topic has really made me appreciate Thomas Jefferson and his wisdom
>in pursuing the separation of church and state
>in the birthing days of the nation.
>
>My personal belief is that religion is private. Live your spiritual life or
>atheistic life as you choose and I'll do the same.
>As long as no one gets hurt everything will be fine.
I hope you understood that I was supporting you, that my response was
sarcastic. I assumed that you were pointing out that Luther was not a
supporter of individual religious freedom, and I agreed with you. If
I was wrong I apologise for my error.
>
>Thomas P. <ton...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
>news:3971cfa6...@news.get2net.dk...
>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 08:48:59 -0400, "Michael" <mwr...@localnet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><rgar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8kqt0v$uf0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> >> "Michael" <mwr...@localnet.com> wrote:
>> >> > Name the enabling acts that established religious freedom in the
>> >European
>> >> > states prior to Poland.
>> >>
>> >> Try the first paragraph of the Magna Charta, for starters.
>> >>
>> >> > Read the Peace of Augsburg to find out how much people listened to
>what
>> >> > Luther had to say on
>> >> > the subject of Religious Freedom.
>> >>
>> >> Read Castellion to find out how much people listened to what Luther had
>> >> to say on the subject of Religious Freedom.
>> >
>> >..Speaking of the people. Did you know that Luther found the peasants
>> >illeterate and ingnorant and much to the happiness of the German princes,
>he
>> >stated that the power of the prince should control the activities of the
>> >people, because the chruch did not have the capability to strongly
>enforce
>> >their "moral" authority.
>> >
>> >..Read History to find out how all this reading and believing was put
>into
>> >practice.
>> >
>> >..If you want to read, you should read Martin Luther's "Secular Authority
>> >and To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed." (1523):
>> >"The power that is everywhere is ordained of God. He then who resists
>the
>> >power resists God's ordinance. But he who resists God's ordinances shall
>> >bring condemnation."
>> >
>> >..Sounds to me that he believes in the divine right of "secular"
>(princely)
>> >authority. The prince's civil authority came from God according to
>Luther.
>> >
>> >There goes seperation of church and state....Poof! Like everyone else
>I'm
>> >only ignorant.
>>
>> You are so ignorant that you can not see that granting the Catholic
>> Church full control over religion is the same as granting religious
>> freedom. I do not understand it either, but I suppose we should
>> listen to our betters.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> >> Before you buy.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Thomas P.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Thomas P.
John Popelish
>
> I'm quite certain that in the United States the debate over seperation of
> church and state revolves around keeping religion out of government and not
> keeping government out of religion.
Are you willing to admit that a person who is quite certain about
something can also be mistaken? If so, we can discuss the basis of
your certainty to find out if it might be a mistaken certainty. If
not, the discussion would be pointless.
--
John Popelish
Richard A. Schulman
wrote:
>I'm quite certain that in the United States the debate over seperation...
You must set a wonderful example for your students when you put
misspelled words up on the blackboard. It takes a special skill to
misspell a word that is correctly spelled an inch or two away in the
subject line of one's news reader.
---
Richard Schulman
To email me, remove the "XYZ"
Paul Madison
>atheists, as neither did many of the founding fathers of the U.S.A. The
>founders, including Jefferson, believed that the veracity and
>trustworthiness of anyone's oath is contingent upon their belief in
>rewards and punishments in the next life. If they didn't believe that,
>then they couldn't take the necessary oaths for testifying or
>participating in offices of state. Thus they would be excluded from
>certain privileges.
> RG
Hey-diddly-hi there neighbors. Been out of town, please excuse the
reticence.
I would like to see you back back up your assertions about Jefferson.
I am also curious; if you were made King tommorrow, would you extend
the rights of citizenship to atheists?
Publius
--
'Well, what liberty should the legislators permit people to have?
Liberty of conscience?
(But if this were permitted, we would see the people taking this
opportunity to become atheists.)' F. Bastiat - 'The Law'
Paul Madison
>> toleration is not religious freedom.
>
>If you really understood the distinction made by Paine and Madison in
>this regard, you would understand that you and Alison are far more in the
>"toleration" camp than you are in the camp of "religious liberty."
>
>Toleration smacks of allowing people to believe something stupid, which
>is the way you look at it. Religious liberty involves the idea that we
>have a duty to our Creator that has to be freely discharged.
That is a contemporary definition.
At the time, English laws of Toleration extended the right to vote to a
finite list of religions, not all religions, and it existed alongside of
an established, priviledged religion.
As Thomas Paine said, "Toleration is not the opposite of intoleration, but
is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself
the right of withholding liberty of conscience, and the other of
granting it."
Publius
Paul
Paul Madison
>
>Rev, where is this "Letter to Dr. Woods" to be found in Jefferson's
>writings?
After consuming this NG for two weeks, I have yet figure out what the
signifigance of this Dr Woods character is. Could someone please
reiterate?
Publius
>Guess what, Rev? It's a fabrication.
>
>you might want to look at http://x63.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=636607608
>
>RG
Paul Madison
state emblems and mottos. The later are frequently used by demagogues, and
believed by those that aren't capable of knowing any better, to argue that
our founding fathers established a Godly nation. Changing them would have
few, if any, lasting consequences. Calenders however effect posterity. For
instance, it is difficult for archeologists to use written dates on
monuments in areas where the years were frequently changed to start at the
first year of the newest God-Emporer.
Publius
>Yea, and when they put Tuesday, January 12, 2000, A.D. on a document,
>they are "mandating" belief in the Norse god Tiws, the Greek god Janus,
>and, of course, the dominus jesus christ.
>
>I am sure Ms. Smith would support removing such material since she
>believes the government's business is not to tell us what we should *
>believe* !!
>
>Carrying a piece of paper with the words IN GOD WE TRUST no more "forces"
>you to believe in a monotheistic god then the symbols on same paper force
>me to believe in Masonic rituals.
>
>There is a difference between separating church and state and attempting
>to separate government from its socio-cultural milieu. Just because the
>federal government tells me today is Saturday doesn't mean they are
>forcing paganism on me.
>
>RG
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> I'm quite certain that in the United States the debate over seperation of
> church and state revolves around keeping religion out of government and not
> keeping government out of religion.
Oh, Michael, Michael, Michael.
Have you ever read the transcripts of those debates? They are available
on line you know.
According to the principal author of the first amendment, James Madison,
here is the meaning of the first amendment:
"Mr. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that
Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal
observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner
contrary to their conscience."
Source: Annals of Congress:
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llac/001/0300/03810757.gif
The import of the amendment was to prevent the government from telling
people what to believe, i.e., keeping government out of religion.
rgar...@my-deja.com
"Michael" <mwr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> It's a fairly universal philosophy. The Chinese Taoists have followed it
> since the time of Lao Tzu 2500 years ago, The Islamic
> Sufis believe it, the Unitarians believe it, etc.
Perhaps. But Milton is of far more importance here insofar as Thomas
Jefferson explicitly drew his thoughts on separation of church and state
from John Milton.
You won't be able to show that the U.S. doctrine in this regard comes
from the Taoists, Islamics, etc., but from Puritans like Milton.
> > > My personal belief is that religion is private. Live your spiritual
> life or
> > > atheistic life as you choose and I'll do the same.
> > > As long as no one gets hurt everything will be fine.
> >
> > You sound much like the Puritan John Milton--
> >
> > http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/civil_power/index.html
Kenneth Childress
Paul Madison <shos...@primenet.com> wrote:
>I see a *big* difference between calendrical issues and those of money,
>state emblems and mottos. The later are frequently used by demagogues, and
>believed by those that aren't capable of knowing any better, to argue that
>our founding fathers established a Godly nation. Changing them would have
>few, if any, lasting consequences.
Please list, in detail, any harmful effects of our national motto
present on our money. [Note: This should prove to be humorous, if a
serious attempt is made to actually address the request.]
Removing them would allow idiots who aren't capable of knowing any
better, to argue that our founding fathers were an irreligious lot that
despised any reference to a higher power.
Why not try addressing Mr. Gardiner's comments, rather than posting the
oft regurgitated nonsense you did above?
>Calenders however effect posterity. For
>instance, it is difficult for archeologists to use written dates on
>monuments in areas where the years were frequently changed to start at the
>first year of the newest God-Emporer.
>
>Publius
>
>>Yea, and when they put Tuesday, January 12, 2000, A.D. on a document,
>>they are "mandating" belief in the Norse god Tiws, the Greek god Janus,
>>and, of course, the dominus jesus christ.
>>
>>I am sure Ms. Smith would support removing such material since she
>>believes the government's business is not to tell us what we should *
>>believe* !!
>>
>>Carrying a piece of paper with the words IN GOD WE TRUST no more "forces"
>>you to believe in a monotheistic god then the symbols on same paper force
>>me to believe in Masonic rituals.
>>
>>There is a difference between separating church and state and attempting
>>to separate government from its socio-cultural milieu. Just because the
>>federal government tells me today is Saturday doesn't mean they are
>>forcing paganism on me.
>>
>>RG
>>
>>
>>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>>Before you buy.
>
>
>--
>'Well, what liberty should the legislators permit people to have?
>Liberty of conscience?
>(But if this were permitted, we would see the people taking this
>opportunity to become atheists.)' F. Bastiat - 'The Law'
--
rgar...@my-deja.com
shos...@primenet.com (Paul Madison) wrote:
> >You are correct in stating that Locke did not offer religious liberty to
> >atheists, as neither did many of the founding fathers of the U.S.A. The
> >founders, including Jefferson, believed that the veracity and
> >trustworthiness of anyone's oath is contingent upon their belief in
> >rewards and punishments in the next life. If they didn't believe that,
> >then they couldn't take the necessary oaths for testifying or
> >participating in offices of state. Thus they would be excluded from
> >certain privileges.
> > RG
>
> Hey-diddly-hi there neighbors. Been out of town, please excuse the
> reticence.
>
> I would like to see you back back up your assertions about Jefferson.
"It is significant that Jefferson included the 'prospects of a future
state' among the ingredients he thought necessary for inculcating moral
behavior among people. In a well-considered ltter to Thomas Law, he
listed moral education and 'the prospects of a future state of
retribution for the evil as well as the good while done here' among the
moral forces necessary to motivate individuals to live good lives in
society...
Continuing legal and social studies gave Jefferson a belief in the
sanctions of law and social approval to encourage moral behavior in order
to improve society. As a student of law and history and a practicing
lawyer and statesman, he saw the importance of a belief in eternal
judgment for encouraging a moral life of service to society."
SOURCE: Charles B. Sanford, THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON
(Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1984), 145.
The legal concepts which are referred to above by Sanford are the popular
legal treatises studied by lawyers in Jefferson's day, most notably those
from Blackstone and Locke:
SOURCE: Sir William Blackstone, Knt., Commentaries on the Laws of England
Book IV, Chapter IV
"Basis of Judicial Oaths.
The belief in a future state of rewards and punishments, the entertaining
just ideas of the attributes of the Supreme Being, and a firm persuasion
that He superintends and will finally compensate every action in human
life, are the grand foundation of judicial oaths, which call God to
witness the truth of those facts, which perhaps may only be known to him
and the party attesting. All moral evidence, all confidence in human
veracity [are] weakened by apostasy, and overthrown by total
infidelity..."
Blackstone was expanding on John Locke, who wrote:
"those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of God.
Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can
have no hold upon an atheist."
SOURCE: John Locke, Treatise of Civil Government and A Letter Concerning
Toleration, Chas. Sherman ed. (NY: Appleton-Century, 1937) pp. 212-13.
As Sanford wrote, Jefferson was simply following the legal concepts of
the period.
The sentiment was grafted into many state constitutions. For example,
the Tennessee Constitution of 1796; Article VIII, Section 2 reads:
"no person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and
punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this
State."
And in 1828, the Connecticut Supreme Court "disbelievers in
accountability to God or in an afterlife were not competent witnesses."
SOURCE: Anson Phelps Stokes & Leo Pfeffer, Church and State in the United
States (1964), 489.
As late as 1939, five states and the District of Columbia excluded the
testimony of those professing a disbelief in God (SOURCE: ibid, 490).
> I am also curious; if you were made King tommorrow, would you extend
> the rights of citizenship to atheists?
Of course. But, like the founders, when I hear a person testify in court,
I am more confident that they are telling the truth if I am certain that
they have a fear of divine retribution for lying.
Michael
religion.
This I've got to see.
John Popelish <jpop...@rica.net> wrote in message
news:397322DF...@rica.net...
> Michael wrote:
> >
> > I'm quite certain that in the United States the debate over seperation
of
> > church and state revolves around keeping religion out of government and
not
> > keeping government out of religion.
>
Michael
Richard A. Schulman <RichardAS...@att.net> wrote in message
news:bra6nssidjin4ulen...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 10:26:53 -0400, "Michael" <mwr...@localnet.com>
Michael
because you will notice that I do not mention
anything about the 1st amendment.
I'm quite certain that in the United States
church and state revolves around keeping religion
out of government and not
keeping government out of religion.
The government is not trying to inject itself into religion. People like
you are attempting to inject religion
into government. You have stated on this newsgroup that the U.S. was
founded as a Christian nation.
<rgar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8l0254$grj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> "Michael" <mwr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm quite certain that in the United States the debate over seperation
of
> > church and state revolves around keeping religion out of government and
not
> > keeping government out of religion.
>
> Oh, Michael, Michael, Michael.
>
> Have you ever read the transcripts of those debates? They are available
> on line you know.
>
> According to the principal author of the first amendment, James Madison,
> here is the meaning of the first amendment:
>
> "Mr. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that
> Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal
> observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner
> contrary to their conscience."
>
> Source: Annals of Congress:
> http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llac/001/0300/03810757.gif
>
> The import of the amendment was to prevent the government from telling
> people what to believe, i.e., keeping government out of religion.
Michael
prostelyze. I don't feel the need to have to validate my faith by
convincing others to jump on board. And that's why I appreciate Jefferson
more. Religion and non-Religion should be personal. No error, no apology
needed.
Thx.
Thomas P. <ton...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
news:39731be...@news.get2net.dk...
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 12:38:35 -0400, "Michael" <mwr...@localnet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >This NG topic has really made me appreciate Thomas Jefferson and his
wisdom
> >in pursuing the separation of church and state
> >in the birthing days of the nation.
> >
> >My personal belief is that religion is private. Live your spiritual life
or
> >atheistic life as you choose and I'll do the same.
> >As long as no one gets hurt everything will be fine.
>
> I hope you understood that I was supporting you, that my response was
> sarcastic. I assumed that you were pointing out that Luther was not a
> supporter of individual religious freedom, and I agreed with you. If
> I was wrong I apologise for my error.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >Thomas P. <ton...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
> >news:3971cfa6...@news.get2net.dk...
> >> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 08:48:59 -0400, "Michael" <mwr...@localnet.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> ><rgar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> >> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >> >> Before you buy.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Thomas P.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> Thomas P.
>
>
>
>
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> I see a *big* difference between calendrical issues and those of money,
I'm glad that you disagree with the large contingent of atheists who have
been pushing to take the A.D. and the B.C. off of calendrical forms.
If you haven't heard of that movement, a quick search of the net will
reveal several atheists of sorts have tried taking it to court.
RG
Robert J. Kolker
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> If you haven't heard of that movement, a quick search of the net will
> reveal several atheists of sorts have tried taking it to court.
This will not fly. AD and BC are in such common use that
they will not be discontinue. I happen to prefer B.C.E. and
C.E. myself but custom will rule.
Bob Kolker
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> People like
> you are attempting to inject religion
> into government. You have stated on this newsgroup that the U.S. was
> founded as a Christian nation.
You simply can't stop lying, can you Michael?
I have NEVER stated that "the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation."
Nope, not once. Kindly refer me to the post where I did so, or offer a
courteous apology for lying and misrepresenting me.
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: Please tell us how the U.S. government is trying to gain control over
: religion.
: This I've got to see.
Yeah, that's silly.
It's religion that is trying to gain control over the U.S. government.
--
*************************************************************
Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not
understand it. But if they called everything divine
which they do not understand, why, there would be no
end of divine things.
Hippocrates of Cos
*************************************************************
Paul Madison
>>I see a *big* difference between calendrical issues and those of money,
>>state emblems and mottos. The later are frequently used by demagogues, and
>>believed by those that aren't capable of knowing any better, to argue that
>>our founding fathers established a Godly nation. Changing them would have
>>few, if any, lasting consequences.
>
>Please list, in detail, any harmful effects of our national motto
>present on our money. [Note: This should prove to be humorous, if a
>serious attempt is made to actually address the request.]
You misunderstood me. Please reread the first paragraph.
>Removing them would allow idiots who aren't capable of knowing any
>better, to argue that our founding fathers were an irreligious lot that
>despised any reference to a higher power.
>
>Why not try addressing Mr. Gardiner's comments, rather than posting the
>oft regurgitated nonsense you did above?
I will, but not just yet. I am creating a new thread to try and
steer the topic back to RG's post concerning the protestant
origins of US separationism.
Publius
Proverbs 17,28:
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that
shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
buc...@exis.net
>:|In article <8kvugo$an0$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>,
>:| shos...@primenet.com (Paul Madison) wrote:
>:|> >You are correct in stating that Locke did not offer religious liberty to
>:|> >atheists, as neither did many of the founding fathers of the U.S.A. The
>:|> >founders, including Jefferson, believed that the veracity and
>:|> >trustworthiness of anyone's oath is contingent upon their belief in
>:|> >rewards and punishments in the next life. If they didn't believe that,
>:|> >then they couldn't take the necessary oaths for testifying or
>:|> >participating in offices of state. Thus they would be excluded from
>:|> >certain privileges.
>:|> > RG
>:|>
>:|> Hey-diddly-hi there neighbors. Been out of town, please excuse the
>:|> reticence.
>:|>
>:|> I would like to see you back back up your assertions about Jefferson.
>:|
>:|"It is significant that Jefferson included the 'prospects of a future
>:|state' among the ingredients he thought necessary for inculcating moral
>:|behavior among people. In a well-considered ltter to Thomas Law, he
>:|listed moral education and 'the prospects of a future state of
>:|retribution for the evil as well as the good while done here' among the
>:|moral forces necessary to motivate individuals to live good lives in
>:|society...
>:|
We've already exposed your careful pick and choose approach to the Thomas
Law letter, and how the letter as a whole doesn't really support you.
>:|Continuing legal and social studies gave Jefferson a belief in the
>:|sanctions of law and social approval to encourage moral behavior in order
>:|to improve society. As a student of law and history and a practicing
>:|lawyer and statesman, he saw the importance of a belief in eternal
>:|judgment for encouraging a moral life of service to society."
>:|
>:|SOURCE: Charles B. Sanford, THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON
>:|(Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1984), 145.
>:|
What year did Jefferson give up his practice of law?
Wonder what time period sanford is talking about above? Since he said as a
practicing lawyer, it must have been very early on in Jefferson's life
It is nice that you finally actually began to study something about
Jefferson and that you discovered this book by Sanford.
You can also run across other sources that indicate that Jefferson might
not have been so sure of a life after life.
Either way, your repeated attempts to claim Jefferson gets a bit comical
after awhile.
The fact is, he wasn't in your camp.
>:|The legal concepts which are referred to above by Sanford are the popular
>:|legal treatises studied by lawyers in Jefferson's day, most notably those
>:|from Blackstone and Locke:
>:|
>:|SOURCE: Sir William Blackstone, Knt., Commentaries on the Laws of England
>:|Book IV, Chapter IV
Jefferson didn't study Blackstone, in fact he had very little use for
Blackstone trained lawyers.
Jefferson stated that Christianity was not part of the Common Law of
England
Did you forget that?
>:|
>:|"Basis of Judicial Oaths.
>:|
>:|The belief in a future state of rewards and punishments, the entertaining
>:|just ideas of the attributes of the Supreme Being, and a firm persuasion
>:|that He superintends and will finally compensate every action in human
>:|life, are the grand foundation of judicial oaths, which call God to
>:|witness the truth of those facts, which perhaps may only be known to him
>:|and the party attesting. All moral evidence, all confidence in human
>:|veracity [are] weakened by apostasy, and overthrown by total
>:|infidelity..."
>:|
>:|Blackstone was expanding on John Locke, who wrote:
>:|
>:|"those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of God.
>:|Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can
>:|have no hold upon an atheist."
>:|
>:|SOURCE: John Locke, Treatise of Civil Government and A Letter Concerning
>:|Toleration, Chas. Sherman ed. (NY: Appleton-Century, 1937) pp. 212-13.
Yes of course, Luther = Calvin = a whole host of philosophers you name drop
= Jefferson = Madison = U S Constitution = Christian nation, etc.
Everyone quotes these people, no one ever differed with any of them, no
one ever had an original thought of their own, everyone totally defied
human nature and scientific evidence in that each person fully understood
what each of these people meant, never altered what they said or meant, or
They were all on the same page at all times, etc.
yea, right.
|
>:|As Sanford wrote, Jefferson was simply following the legal concepts of
>:|the period.
Like Christianity was part of the Common Law, huh?
>:|
>:|The sentiment was grafted into many state constitutions. For example,
>:|the Tennessee Constitution of 1796; Article VIII, Section 2 reads:
>:|
>:|"no person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and
>:|punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this
>:|State."
>:|
Yes, that is a very good example of religious freedom, isn't it? You should
hold this up as a example of that religious freedom of Luther and Calvin.
>:|And in 1828, the Connecticut Supreme Court "disbelievers in
>:|accountability to God or in an afterlife were not competent witnesses."
>:|
Yes, another shinning exampl;e or religious freedom that you advocate, huh?
LOL
>:|SOURCE: Anson Phelps Stokes & Leo Pfeffer, Church and State in the United
>:|States (1964), 489.
>:|
>:|As late as 1939, five states and the District of Columbia excluded the
>:|testimony of those professing a disbelief in God (SOURCE: ibid, 490).
Yes, and this means what, other then the ignorance of some politicians.
BTW, have you ever heard of Torcaso v Watkins (1961)
>:|
>:|> I am also curious; if you were made King tommorrow, would you extend
>:|> the rights of citizenship to atheists?
>:|
>:|Of course. But, like the founders, when I hear a person testify in court,
>:|I am more confident that they are telling the truth if I am certain that
>:|they have a fear of divine retribution for lying.
LOL,
**********************************************
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
>:|Why not try addressing Mr. Gardiner's comments, rather than posting the
>:|oft regurgitated nonsense you did above?
>:|
The hatchet man is back. Why don't you bring your "vast' historical
knowledge to bear in this discussion. :O)
Nonsense in your opinion Kenny. You keep forgetting to add that.
Gardiner's comments have been addressed on this subject for 15 months, by a
wide variety of people, using a wide variety of sources and scholars.
But then you are blind to any of that.
Whatever so called separation of church and state that might have evolved
in Europe is not the same thing that was embodied in the Constitution of
this nation. Gardiner can scream it was till the cows come home, it wasn't.
Gardiner can try over and over again to bring Jefferson, Madison and any
and all of the other strict separationists into his camp, but they were not
members of that camp.
He can claim those like Davies, Ellsworth, Story, Jasper Adams, Henry,
Dwight, Witherspoon, Jay, Ames, and others and he will be right, they were
accommodationists, they felt that Protestant Christianity should be
protected and supported by the government. Many of those found no problems
with establishments of religion and thought toleration was good enough.
Toleration is not the goal, freedom and equality is the goal.
Toleration is, in the words of Thomas Paine, "Toleration is not the
opposite of intolerance, but is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms.
The one assumes to itself the right of with-holding Liberty of Conscience,
and the other of granting it. The one is the pope armed with fire and
faggot, and the other is the pope selling or granting indulgences. The
former is church and state, and the latter is church and traffic."
(Thomas Paine, RIGHTS OF MAN)
Toleration is based on superiority and inferiority, it is based on the
concept of, "We are top dog here, but out of the goodness of our heart we
will ALLOW you to worship your God in your own way, provided, of course it
doesn't get in the way of how we do our thing."
That which allows can also disallow anytime it wants.
Religious freedom is not based on toleration. It is based on
religious equality.There is nothing unfair about that at all. There are
several factors involved in the above example. The first factor is, of
course, the Constitution of the United States. Separation of church and
state and all that.
>:|Religious liberty involves the idea that we
>:|have a duty to our Creator that has to be freely discharged.
The above might be your idea of what you call religious liberty is all
about, but I choose to use the words religious freedom. That is not what
religious freedom is all about at all.
That side lost the battle.
One additional detail:
It
is in this structuralist role--when invoked to keep civil government in the
right relationship with religion--that the Establishment Clause broke with
older European patterns (19) and made its most unique and celebrated
contribution to the American constitutional settlement. (20)
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Differentiating the free Exercise and Establishment
Clauses, by Carl H. Esbeck. Journal of Church and State, Volume 42, Number
2, Spring 2000, pp 311-334.
=====================================================
While Luther's ideas and the chain of events he set into motion
are crucial to world history, it is important to keep in mind that Luther,
as important as he is to the development of religious liberty hundreds
of years later across the sea in North America, did have faults. For
instance, Luther did not believe in religious liberty as we understand
the concept today. Although he sought the freedom to interpret the
Bible in a way that differed from the view of the Catholic Church,
Luther then assumed that his interpretation was the only correct one
and persecuted those who disagreed. He was convinced that those who
took issue with his views were inspired by Satan and called the pope
the Anti-Christ. Luther was also a virulent anti-Semite who wanted
to exterminate the Jews. Like so many early dissenters from established
churches, Luther sought freedom only for himself and those who believed
exactly as he did.
Although Luther's ideas did spread to England, they had little impact
there. The Reformation in England was sparked by a wholly different
chain of events.
In what is today Switzerland, Reformation leader John Calvin
founded a Protestant church based on a rigid code of beliefs he spelled out
in a 1536 work titled 'The institutes of the Christian Religion. Calvin
and his followers eventually took over the city of Geneva and established
Calvinism there.
Unfortunately, Calvin had absolutely no understanding of the
concept of religious liberty. Calvin's Geneva was a harsh theocracy where
the clergy controlled all aspects of the lives of the citizens. Laws
prohibiting dancing and gambling, for example, were strictly enforced, and
violations brought swift punishment. Calvin's enforcers closed down the
theaters and tried to rid the city of its taverns. One unfortunate man,
Michael Servetus, who held Unitarian-style beliefs, was burned at the stake
by Calvin's henchmen because he disagreed with Calvin's interpretation of
the Trinity. The world still had a long way to go before anything
resembling true religious freedom came into being.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Why The Religious Right is Wrong About Separation
of Church & State, by Robert Boston. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY. (1993)
pp 45-48
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The brand of religious freedom that was advocated by men like Jefferson and
Madison and embodied in the Federal Constitution and eventually in the
various State Constitutions of this nation was quite different then that
which had ever existed in the old world and quite different then anything
advocated by Luther and Calvin.
Gardiner has found one letter, out of all the letters written by Madison,
that mentions Luther, none mentioning Calvin.
He has produced none, yet, from Jefferson that mentions Luther, and the
only ones by Jefferson mentioning Calvin are full of language not fit for
polite society. In short, Jefferson had no use for Calvin and any of his
ideas about religion.
mscu...@my-deja.com
shos...@primenet.com (Paul Madison) wrote:
> >Well, maybe Rev. P knows the answer that no one else does:
> >
> >Rev, where is this "Letter to Dr. Woods" to be found in Jefferson's
> >writings?
>
> After consuming this NG for two weeks, I have yet figure out what the
> signifigance of this Dr Woods character is. Could someone please
> reiterate?
A claim was made that there is a letter by Jefferson to a Dr. Woods.
The letter is supposed to contain phrasing that says:
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the
world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity]
one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and
mythologies" -- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Dr. Woods)
And this is supposed to be cited in a circa-1905 book about Jefferson.
But it is cited like the above. So I spent a morning at two major
university libraries tracing down the printed sources available up to
1905. I found no letter to a Dr. Woods. I did find a letter by
Jefferson that mentions a Dr. Woods who went on a hunting trip with
him. To also found a letter to Short using the phrase "our particular
superstition."
Mr. Gardiner was taken aback because a quote he used in the past and a
book he has in his book is a bogus J. Q. Adams quote. So he's beating
the possible bogus quote above into the ground.
What was done by myself is very unimportant to him.
--
Mike Curtis