A CHALLENGE TO ANYONE
buckeye
I challenge you or anyone else to show, with valid primary souce historical
documentation, valid secondary source documentation/commentary, cites etc
by respected scholars that THIS COUNTRY was ever founded as a CHRISTIAN
NATION. (That perhaps most of the citizens who were religious were
Christian does not qualify)
I doubt that you or anyone else would ever accept this challeged because it
is a myth and therefore can''t be shown to be true.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
ZerkonX
> I challenge you or anyone else to show, with valid primary souce
> historical documentation, valid secondary source
> documentation/commentary, cites etc by respected scholars that THIS
> COUNTRY was ever founded as a CHRISTIAN NATION. (That perhaps most of
> the citizens who were religious were Christian does not qualify)
You can not dismiss the religion of the citizens nor the religion of the
founders. You may want to re-think the ambiguous "CHRISTIAN NATION".
Maybe use something more specific like founded as a christian theocracy.
Also, making this christian specific dilutes what some, maybe most, of us
see as the original intent in that power of church, any church, was to be
kept out of the state.
For the sake of argument, if most people who founded the nation were
christian then it was, in fact, a self-evident christian nation. It does
not follow necessarily that it was founded on the principles of a
christian church, book or god.
Your position, which is seen in all your posts that I have read, also
starts with a false given. The same fallacy your opponents demand as a
given, interestingly enough. That is; a monolithic entity called
'Christianity'. There is no such thing. I do not think there was ever
such a thing. It isn't too far flung to say that this was the central
pragmatic behind the necessity to have a church/state separation to begin
with.
El Guapo
> christian then it was, in fact, a self-evident christian nation.
True, but of those that founded the nation how many were Christian?
How many pantheists or deists? Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin,
Ethan Allen, James Madison, James Monroe, etc... professed deism. Then
there is John Adams and the Treaty of Tripoli that states verbatim
that the US was not founded on Christianity. So perhaps for the sake
of argument, it should be seen that the modern (and perhaps last
century) Christian movement wishes and has in some part succeeded in
inserting Christianity into the impetus of the founding of the nation,
whether that be the case or not.
Christopher A. Lee
What their own beliefs were, is irrelevant because they founded a
secular nation with a secular constitution. They knew about the evils
of official religion from recent European and colonial history and
didn't want it to happen in the new nation they founded.
Christians who pretend otherwise lie through their teeth, and make
themselves an example of the evil the founders tried to avoid.
4005 Dead
>On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 07:46:56 -0400, buckeye wrote:
>
>> I challenge you or anyone else to show, with valid primary souce
>> historical documentation, valid secondary source
>> documentation/commentary, cites etc by respected scholars that THIS
>> COUNTRY was ever founded as a CHRISTIAN NATION. (That perhaps most of
>> the citizens who were religious were Christian does not qualify)
>
>You can not dismiss the religion of the citizens nor the religion of the
>founders. You may want to re-think the ambiguous "CHRISTIAN NATION".
>Maybe use something more specific like founded as a christian theocracy.
I doubt that Buckeye will be much interested in erecting your strawmen
for you. Why should he have to posit a claim so extreme even you can
dispute it?
In the meantime, there is a little something in the Constitution that
shows, once and for all, that the founders had the firm intent of
keeping government and religion apart, forever:
"...but no Religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to
any Office or public Trust under the United States."
When you combine that with the 1st and 5th amendments, which
guarrantee the same rights to ALL people in America and not just
Anglicans, pretty much kills the notion that religion was meant to
play any significant role in the daily funtioning of government, let
alone government poliicy.
>
>Also, making this christian specific dilutes what some, maybe most, of us
>see as the original intent in that power of church, any church, was to be
>kept out of the state.
>
>For the sake of argument, if most people who founded the nation were
>christian then it was, in fact, a self-evident christian nation. It does
>not follow necessarily that it was founded on the principles of a
>christian church, book or god.
Except, of course, it wasn't. I defy you to point to anything in
common law that is a) biblical in origin and b) unique to
Christianity.
>
>Your position, which is seen in all your posts that I have read, also
>starts with a false given. The same fallacy your opponents demand as a
>given, interestingly enough. That is; a monolithic entity called
>'Christianity'. There is no such thing. I do not think there was ever
>such a thing. It isn't too far flung to say that this was the central
>pragmatic behind the necessity to have a church/state separation to begin
>with.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
buckeye
>:|On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 07:46:56 -0400, buckeye wrote:
>:|
>:|> I challenge you or anyone else to show, with valid primary souce
>:|> historical documentation, valid secondary source
>:|> documentation/commentary, cites etc by respected scholars that THIS
>:|> COUNTRY was ever founded as a CHRISTIAN NATION. (That perhaps most of
>:|> the citizens who were religious were Christian does not qualify)
>:|
>:|You can not dismiss the religion of the citizens nor the religion of the
>:|founders. You may want to re-think the ambiguous "CHRISTIAN NATION".
>:|Maybe use something more specific like founded as a christian theocracy.
Nope, the term is the one used by the RRR most often
I point you to this comment
>:|http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=73679
Isn't it a shame that an attorney is either so stupid or such a liar and
propagandist that they would even resort to saying the following:
"This country was founded as a Christian nation. Yes, there is religious
pluralism, but we don't need to lie about the past." Instead, says
Fitschen, Americans "need to honor ... and build on the past -- not rewrite
history." Attorney and president of the National Legal Foundation, Steven
W. Fitschen,
*************************************
There is another way that is followed to arrive at the same place. That way
is the argument that Christianity if part and parcel of the Common Law, and
of course English Common law was the foundation of our legal system, thus
our nation was founded as a Christian Nation.
**********************************************
The Christian nation myth is the foundation for the various claims that our
legal system or laws are founded on the Ten sound bites oops
Commandments or that they somehow form a basis of our laws, thus should be
posted in public buildings, etc.
Make no mistake about it, those who claim this nation is a Christian nation
or was so founded mean it literally and mean it legally and officially and
they do not mean most religious folks were Christian
>:|
>:|Also, making this christian specific dilutes what some, maybe most, of us
>:|see as the original intent in that power of church, any church, was to be
>:|kept out of the state.
>:|
>:|For the sake of argument, if most people who founded the nation were
>:|christian then it was, in fact, a self-evident christian nation.
Nope, not at all. Founded as a Christian nation is a very specific. It
means exactly what it says, It does not refer to the population makeup.
The majority of the citizens of this nation at the time of the founding
were white but you would be hard pressed to find any respected scholars who
would claim this country was founded as a white nation.
You mentioned founders. Well many would like to claim that the founders
were Christian. If one would accept those claims they would still be faced
with the fact that those "Christian" founders created a secular nation.
>:|It does
>:|not follow necessarily that it was founded on the principles of a
>:|christian church, book or god.
>:|
>:|Your position, which is seen in all your posts that I have read, also
>:|starts with a false given. The same fallacy your opponents demand as a
>:|given, interestingly enough. That is; a monolithic entity called
>:|'Christianity'. There is no such thing. I do not think there was ever
>:|such a thing. It isn't too far flung to say that this was the central
>:|pragmatic behind the necessity to have a church/state separation to begin
>:|with.
>:|
Now if you have no ability or desire to address the actual challenge you
are wasting your time replying.
Steve
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:53:51 +0000, ZerkonX <Z...@X.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 07:46:56 -0400, buckeye wrote:
>>
>>> I challenge you or anyone else to show, with valid primary souce
>>> historical documentation, valid secondary source
>>> documentation/commentary, cites etc by respected scholars that THIS
>>> COUNTRY was ever founded as a CHRISTIAN NATION. (That perhaps most of
>>> the citizens who were religious were Christian does not qualify)
>>
>>You can not dismiss the religion of the citizens nor the religion of the
>>founders. You may want to re-think the ambiguous "CHRISTIAN NATION".
>>Maybe use something more specific like founded as a christian theocracy.
>
>I doubt that Buckeye will be much interested in erecting your strawmen
>for you. Why should he have to posit a claim so extreme even you can
>dispute it?
>
>In the meantime, there is a little something in the Constitution that
>shows, once and for all, that the founders had the firm intent of
>keeping government and religion apart, forever:
>
>"...but no Religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to
>any Office or public Trust under the United States."
But, of course, if a voter wishes to apply a "religious test" to his
vote it's his right to do so....
I figure it's time to start considering legal action
against this little stalker.
Zepp Jamieson 2 Mar 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/b503459d6b2db5b2?hl=en&
Brian E. Clark
4ax.com>, Steve said...
> >"...but no Religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to
> >any Office or public Trust under the United States."
>
> But, of course, if a voter wishes to apply a "religious test" to his
> vote it's his right to do so....
It's also his right to base his vote on the color of
the candidate's belt buckle.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Peter Franks
> A CHALLENGE TO ANYONE
>
> I challenge you or anyone else to show, with valid primary souce historical
> documentation, valid secondary source documentation/commentary, cites etc
> by respected scholars that THIS COUNTRY was ever founded as a CHRISTIAN
> NATION. (That perhaps most of the citizens who were religious were
> Christian does not qualify)
>
> I doubt that you or anyone else would ever accept this challeged because it
> is a myth and therefore can''t be shown to be true.
Christian, no.
Deity, yes. Source: Declaration of Independence
P.S. Please limit cross-postings to 5 newsgroups or less, per standard
USENET netiquette.
LoneRiver
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:sOXHj.1763$3N1....@newsfe17.lga...
You could also more specific wording like:
America instead of THIS COUNTRY because this country to me refers to
Australia
The poster formerly known as Colleyville Alan
"LoneRiver" <lone...@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
news:fspif6$ffk$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...
From what I know, Australia was not founded as a Christian nation either.
But I never did finish The Fatal Shore, so I might be mistaken.
Peter Franks
Yes, the OP could have been more clear, as well as limited his postings
to /relevant/ newsgroups.
For the purposes of this thread, I inferred USA due to post to
alt.politics.usa.constitution.
4005 Dead
>On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:08:39 -0400, Steve
><steven...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>"...but no Religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to
>>>any Office or public Trust under the United States."
>>
>>But, of course, if a voter wishes to apply a "religious test" to his
>>vote it's his right to do so....
>
>You Worshipping at the sphincter of a rightwinger isn't
>a religion, Canyon.
A voter can use whatever criteria suits when casting a ballot. A
whole bunch of morons voted in 2000 not on whether the guy was the
right guy for the job, but whether he would be more fun to have a beer
with.
But no state can ban anyone from running for office based on their
religion or lack of same, can they?
Bob LeChevalier
>which other religions were relevant at the time?
Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, Puritan/Congregational, Presbyterian,
Quaker. Members of these sects generally considered other sects to be
different religions. Catholics especially were politically excluded
under British law.
>>For the sake of argument, if most people who founded the nation were
>>christian then it was, in fact, a self-evident christian nation.
>
>Nonsense. Simply because you claim christianity as a
>personal choice, has nothing to do with the formation
>of a nation.
>
>>Your position, which is seen in all your posts that I have read, also
>>starts with a false given. The same fallacy your opponents demand as a
>>given, interestingly enough. That is; a monolithic entity called
>>'Christianity'.
>
>Christianity has more than one god?
There is more than one Christianity, and Christians of some sects are
prone to rejecting members of other sects as being bona fide
Christians.
There ate also contradictory interpretations of what the word "God"
means in Christianity. Some use the word solely to refer to the
"Father" of the Trinity, whereas others consider Jesus Christ and the
Holy Spirit to be an inherent part of any reference to God. Some
would call trinitarianism "tritheism", but the trinitarian mystery is
to conflate all into one God so as to follow the commandment to "have
no other gods before me".
>Last I heard there was only one---making it a monotheistic religion
see above
>with one monolithic god.
certainly not monolithic. Trinitarian in most cases.
>There are denominations who make interpretation of that one god--however.
Islam considers that all of the people of the Book worship the same
God, Allah. Many Christians reject that the Moslems worship their
God. Jews reject any God that includes Jesus in the Godhead. Many
Christians reject that Mormons believe in the same God that they do,
even when the Mormons proclaim belief in Christ. Thomas Jefferson
wrote that Calvinists were demon-worshippers; the God they worshipped
was not the God that he believed in, but rather a perversion
introduced by St Paul and compounded by Calvin.
lojbab
buckeye
>:|buckeye wrote:
>:|> A CHALLENGE TO ANYONE
>:|>
>:|> I challenge you or anyone else to show, with valid primary souce historical
>:|> documentation, valid secondary source documentation/commentary, cites etc
>:|> by respected scholars that THIS COUNTRY was ever founded as a CHRISTIAN
>:|> NATION. (That perhaps most of the citizens who were religious were
>:|> Christian does not qualify)
>:|>
>:|> I doubt that you or anyone else would ever accept this challeged because it
>:|> is a myth and therefore can''t be shown to be true.
>:|
>:|Christian, no.
>:|
>:|Deity, yes. Source: Declaration of Independence
>:|
Diety nation? LOL
Oooohhhhhhhh boy. The DOI didn't found anything.
Your "source" is a non source.
Better luck next time
>:|P.S. Please limit cross-postings to 5 newsgroups or less, per standard
>:|USENET netiquette.
Google limits to five. I do not use Google. Comcast limits to 7.
I use comcast. Get over it or don't read/repky to any of my postings. I
personally don't care which you choose to do.
buckeye
>:|LoneRiver wrote:
>:|>
>:|> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>:|> news:sOXHj.1763$3N1....@newsfe17.lga...
>:|>> buckeye wrote:
>:|>>> A CHALLENGE TO ANYONE I challenge you or anyone else to show, with
>:|>>> valid primary souce historical
>:|>>> documentation, valid secondary source documentation/commentary,
>:|>>> cites etc
>:|>>> by respected scholars that THIS COUNTRY was ever founded as a CHRISTIAN
>:|>>> NATION. (That perhaps most of the citizens who were religious were
>:|>>> Christian does not qualify) I doubt that you or anyone else would
>:|>>> ever accept this challeged because it
>:|>>> is a myth and therefore can''t be shown to be true.
>:|>>
>:|>> Christian, no.
>:|>>
>:|>> Deity, yes. Source: Declaration of Independence
>:|>>
>:|>> P.S. Please limit cross-postings to 5 newsgroups or less, per standard
>:|>> USENET netiquette.
>:|>
>:|> You could also more specific wording like:
>:|>
>:|> America instead of THIS COUNTRY because this country to me refers to
>:|> Australia
>:|
>:|Yes, the OP could have been more clear,
Actually it was quite clear.
If a person lives in a country where "this is a Christian nation" is
seldom if ever heard it doesn't apply to them and there is no reason for
them to even reply to this thread.
"This is a Christian nation" is frequently stated by certain groups in THIS
COUNTRY. This country being the USA. A good number of people in THIS
COUNTRY who frequent the newsgroups I posted this to would recognize which
country THIS COUNTRY referred to.
>:|as well as limited his postings
>:|to /relevant/ newsgroups.
This was posted to the following newsgroups:
alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.education,alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.bush,alt.society.liberalism,misc.education
Which of those are not relevant?
Church state, church state separation especially in the past several
decades is very relevant in Con Law, education, politics, etc. It has
become a religious issue, a atheist issue, a conservative, moderate,
liberal issue. A republican, Independent Democrat issue.
It is an American issue.
Therefore, there isn't a single one of those groups that qualify as not
being relevant to the topic of the original post
I limit my posting to the limit that my ISP has set.
buckeye
>:|
>:|"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
He wasn't the one who originally posted this challenge. I was.
The wording was fine. If a person lives in a country where "this is a
Christian nation" is seldom if ever heard it doesn't apply to them and
there is no reason for them to even reply to this thread.
"This is a Christian nation" is frequently stated by certain groups in THIS
COUNTRY. This country being the USA. A good number of people in THIS
COUNTRY who frequent the newsgroups I posted this to would recognize which
country THIS COUNTRY referred to.
BTW, based on posts in my yahoo group
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
made by a person who has citizenship in the US and Australia but lives
primarily in Australia, you may begin to hear such comments as the one
above soon.
He has stated in several posts that American backed Radical Religious Right
influence is rapidly growing in Australia. So, in time you may have the
same problem there we have here.
bushlyed
> a self-evident christian nation.
A self-evident christian nation?
Give me a break
Steve
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:35:13 -0600, Nic...@Click.com wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:08:39 -0400, Steve
>><steven...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>"...but no Religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to
>>>>any Office or public Trust under the United States."
>>>
>>>But, of course, if a voter wishes to apply a "religious test" to his
>>>vote it's his right to do so....
>>
>>You Worshipping at the sphincter of a rightwinger isn't
>>a religion, Canyon.
>
>A voter can use whatever criteria suits when casting a ballot. A
>whole bunch of morons voted in 2000 not on whether the guy was the
>right guy for the job, but whether he would be more fun to have a beer
>with.
<LOL> Not even morons imagined that it would be fun to have a beer
with Algore...
>But no state can ban anyone from running for office based on their
>religion or lack of same, can they?
Nobody claimed otherwise..
ZerkonX
> True, but of those that founded the nation how many were Christian? How
> many pantheists or deists? Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan
> Allen, James Madison, James Monroe, etc... professed deism. Then there
> is John Adams and the Treaty of Tripoli that states verbatim that the US
> was not founded on Christianity. So perhaps for the sake of argument, it
> should be seen that the modern (and perhaps last century) Christian
> movement wishes and has in some part succeeded in inserting Christianity
> into the impetus of the founding of the nation, whether that be the case
> or not.
Agree.. you left out Paine, btw, who was hardly a fan of any church.
I believe this attempt at Christian insertion goes back much further. The
philosopher turned politician Jefferson had to politic the powerful
churches when he ran for president. However, what christian sits down and
literally cuts up the bible, right?
Anyway, my point was the way the argument is framed. If framed as such
the conclusion is self-evident. If the qualifications you speak of had
been a part of this argument.. there would be no argument at all. Again,
my point.
The absolute proof, to me anyway, that this whole "christian nation"
business is really a mute point out of the gate is that nothing was
specifically written into the Constitution.
On the other hand the fight to inject church into state made by some is
not grounds to attack the practice of religion.
IMO, the real issue or wisdom behind the establishment clause is not to
protect the state from church but to protect the churches from one
another. This is where the real myth comes in - the fallacy that there
is, ever was, or could such a thing as one 'church' or homogeneous belief
system inside ANY religion.
ZerkonX
> the evil the founders tried to avoid.
They were not avoiding 'evil'. This is nothing more than another
religious concept wrapped up differently to suit yet another dogma.
They were trying to avoid dis-union.
ZerkonX
>>For the sake of argument, if most people who founded the nation were
>>christian then it was, in fact, a self-evident christian nation. It does
>>not follow necessarily that it was founded on the principles of a
>>christian church, book or god.
>
> Except, of course, it wasn't. I defy you to point to anything in common
> law that is a) biblical in origin and b) unique to Christianity.
uhh ok you win.
ZerkonX
> Nope, the term is the one used by the RRR most often
>
> I point you to this comment
Read the court case yesterday.. bad reasoning, bad decision. I read your
challenge before this case.
Anyway, the term "christian nation" should be challenged by better legal
minds it seems, or arguments heard before a less biased court. That
lawyer should never had been able to get away with such a argument.
There are two issues that must be kept separate.
The historically documented religious beliefs of each founder as
individuals. This is an cold academic matter. From what I have gathered,
lumping them all under the label of 'christian' is pretty sloppy from a
religious standpoint. I would hope any historian would be more
sophisticated then to just fling this out without some major
qualifications, as El Guapo pointed out.
The other issue that effects us today of course is intent. "This country
was founded as a Christian nation" does imply religious intent but it
tries to use history to prove the intent by making the term seem self-
evident (i.e. founders were all christian) and therefore neutral.
This bait and switch proof is pretty tricky but should end in defeat.
I can make the argument that because they were 'christian' they did not
want religion inside the state. Again, because they were Christians.
Case being the religion of christianity had, up to that point, led to
intolerable and destructive divisions in the union, as it had in all of
European history, so the matter of religion had to become a non-matter to
the state. This also was pretty cohesive with the humanist philosophies
that influenced these 'Christians' at the time.
ZerkonX
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:53:51 +0000, ZerkonX <Z...@X.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 07:46:56 -0400, buckeye wrote:
>>
>>> I challenge you or anyone else to show, with valid primary souce
>>> historical documentation, valid secondary source
>>> documentation/commentary, cites etc by respected scholars that THIS
>>> COUNTRY was ever founded as a CHRISTIAN NATION. (That perhaps most of
>>> the citizens who were religious were Christian does not qualify)
>>
>>You can not dismiss the religion of the citizens nor the religion of the
>>founders. You may want to re-think the ambiguous "CHRISTIAN NATION".
>>Maybe use something more specific like founded as a christian theocracy.
>
> The religious reich claims that this IS a "christian nation"
>
> The religious reich is the main support of the Republican party
I think not but this is another matter.
>
> James Dobson commanded enough power to summon Neut Gingrich and the GOP
> leadership and demanded (and got) HIS agenda as part of the Budget bills
> (which clinton vetoed)
>
> So when a major political party's supporters, via massive media outlets,
> makes the claim "this IS a Christian nation"---then it's not ambiguous.
Only if you concede. It is rendered ambiguous inside any reasonable
discussion.
>>Also, making this christian specific dilutes what some, maybe most, of
>>us see as the original intent in that power of church, any church, was
>>to be kept out of the state.
>
> which other religions were relevant at the time?
Primarily Christianity, which is now and was then it's own 'other'
religion. However, at the time, deism had a significant presence, Paine
had by this time turned Deist, I believe. No small matter, He was the
major influence among most "Common Sense" people.
>
>>For the sake of argument, if most people who founded the nation were
>>christian then it was, in fact, a self-evident christian nation.
>
> Nonsense. Simply because you claim christianity as a personal choice,
> has nothing to do with the formation of a nation.
No, not non-sense. you are looking at it in terms of intent I, here, am
looking at it in terms of a gross historical definition. One does not
mean the other.
>>Your position, which is seen in all your posts that I have read, also
>>starts with a false given. The same fallacy your opponents demand as a
>>given, interestingly enough. That is; a monolithic entity called
>>'Christianity'.
>
> Christianity has more than one god? I didn't know that.
Live and learn.
> Last I heard there was only one---making it a monotheistic religion with
> one monolithic god.
A monotheistic god does not a mono-dogma make. Plus, to get religiously
realistic, the concept of trinity, possibly coming from the hindus, has
been an aspect of Christianity since the beginning. This aspect, as most
other aspects, has been yet another reason of disagreements and feuds.
The divine nature of Christ is another. the Jehovah's do not believe
christ was the son of god but, in fact, the angel michael and who did not
'rise from the dead' but they consider themselves christian none the
less.
The divisions and subdivisions are massive. Uniformity is an illusion
only afforded by being self-cast as a victim.
> There are denominations who make interpretation of that one
> god--however.
bingo.
Look all I am saying is that the argument "christian nation" can be
defeated in many ways. Even to the point of conceding that most founders
were christian. Because after all is said and done it is equally as self-
evident that the intent of making christian dogma into law, which is the
issue, was never done.
Baldin Lee Pramer
> Algore...
Hyuck! Mega dittos, Rush!! Hyuck!!
BLP
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:08:37 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>Nic...@Click.com wrote:
>>>which other religions were relevant at the time?
>>
>>Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, Puritan/Congregational, Presbyterian,
>>Quaker. Members of these sects generally considered other sects to be
>>different religions
>
>Those are denominations, Bob.
>
>They are not different Religions---just variations of
>one.
They ARE different religions. They were considered such at the time,
and many consider them such today.
If A considers B to be non-Christian because of some difference in
beliefs, then A and B are of different religions, not merely different
"variations".
>I suspect there were some Jewish in America--but
>probably not many in the mid 18th century. I also doubt
>that other religions (Islam, Asian, etc) were
>represented either.
On the other hand, there were a higher percentage of native Americans
than there are now. And then there were all those blacks, many of
whom being relatively new off the boat, and who thus probably still
retained their African religion.
The big rise of Christian evangelism came as a result of the Second
Great Awakening in the early to mid 1800s. A lot of people became
Christians as a result of revivals, and it should be obvious that they
couldn't "become" Christians, if they were already Christians. To the
extent that the heartland of this country is culturally a "Christian
nation=ethnos", it is from that Second Great Awakening.
lojbab
Steve
absolutely..... or even based on the things that a candidate's weird
anti-american spiritual advisor says.....
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> :|buckeye wrote:
>> :|> A CHALLENGE TO ANYONE
>> :|>
>> :|> I challenge you or anyone else to show, with valid primary souce historical
>> :|> documentation, valid secondary source documentation/commentary, cites etc
>> :|> by respected scholars that THIS COUNTRY was ever founded as a CHRISTIAN
>> :|> NATION. (That perhaps most of the citizens who were religious were
>> :|> Christian does not qualify)
>> :|>
>> :|> I doubt that you or anyone else would ever accept this challeged because it
>> :|> is a myth and therefore can''t be shown to be true.
>> :|
>> :|Christian, no.
>> :|
>> :|Deity, yes. Source: Declaration of Independence
>> :|
>
> Diety nation? LOL
>
> Oooohhhhhhhh boy. The DOI didn't found anything.
>
> Your "source" is a non source.
> Better luck next time
Sorry, you can't just discard what you don't agree with.
The Declaration of Independence is most definitely the founding document
for this country. All subsequent acts, including the Constitution, are
predicated on the principles espoused in the Declaration.
My point has been made and substantiated.
Have a nice day.
-pf
buckeye
>:|On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:34:46 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>:|<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>:|
>:|>>Those are denominations, Bob.
>:|>>
>:|>>They are not different Religions---just variations of
>:|>>one.
>:|>
>:|>They ARE different religions. They were considered such at the time,
>:|>and many consider them such today.
>:|
>:|Christsakes, Bob
>:|
>:|They are all Christian
>:|
Actually they are not the same.
However, what exactly does that have to do with the challanged no one has
accepted yet?
>:|The denominations are merely interpretation of the same
>:|scripture and veneration of the same God.
Ahem, there is nothing merely about it. It is a very big deal to each and
everyone of them.
Now back to the Challenge.
buckeye
>:|buckeye wrote:
>:|> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>:|>
>:|>> :|buckeye wrote:
>:|>> :|> A CHALLENGE TO ANYONE
>:|>> :|>
>:|>> :|> I challenge you or anyone else to show, with valid primary souce historical
>:|>> :|> documentation, valid secondary source documentation/commentary, cites etc
>:|>> :|> by respected scholars that THIS COUNTRY was ever founded as a CHRISTIAN
>:|>> :|> NATION. (That perhaps most of the citizens who were religious were
>:|>> :|> Christian does not qualify)
>:|>> :|>
>:|>> :|> I doubt that you or anyone else would ever accept this challeged because it
>:|>> :|> is a myth and therefore can''t be shown to be true.
>:|>> :|
>:|>> :|Christian, no.
>:|>> :|
>:|>> :|Deity, yes. Source: Declaration of Independence
>:|>> :|
>:|>
>:|> Diety nation? LOL
>:|>
>:|> Oooohhhhhhhh boy. The DOI didn't found anything.
>:|>
>:|> Your "source" is a non source.
>:|> Better luck next time
>:|
>:|Sorry, you can't just discard what you don't agree with.
>:|
Has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing with.
What I said was factual. like it or not.
>:|The Declaration of Independence is most definitely the founding document
>:|for this country.
(1) False
(2) Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
to clarify.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The late USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
>:|All subsequent acts, including the Constitution, are
>:|predicated on the principles espoused in the Declaration.
(1) False
(2) Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
to clarify.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The late USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
>:|My point has been made and substantiated.
LOL. False.
All I see is a "You say"
You say this you say that.
You saying something is not evidence, is not proof, is nothing but your
You say opinion.
I can provide a great deal of documentation substantiating exactly waht I
said. However, if I am not mistaken if have done that in the past with you
and you bitched and didn't bother to study any of it.
Bottom line is, by now you have been here long enough to know that I really
can back up those things that I claim.
Now run along. Go back to asking your lame never ending quiestions of Josh
who seems to be about the only person who is willing to play with you and
it appears routinely spanks you.
Bob LeChevalier
>The denominations are merely interpretation of the same
>scripture and veneration of the same God.
NOT the same God (is Jesus Christ God, son of God, great moral
teacher), and not necessarily the same scripture (for most of
Christian history, most Christians were illiterate and knew no
scripture, so the choice of scripture is inherently irrelevant). In
any event, Catholics reject the use of the Protestant bible and vice
versa.
Mormonism supposedly refers to the same God and has extra scripture,
but still considers itself "Christian". Islam supposedly refers to
the same God and has extra scripture, but no one considers it
"Christian". Judaism supposedly refers to the same God and uses a
subset of the same scripture, and no one considers it Christian.
"Christianity" refers to a family of historically related but multiple
religions. So does "Indo-European" with regard to languages.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:34:46 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>The big rise of Christian evangelism came as a result of the Second
>>Great Awakening in the early to mid 1800s.
>
>doctrine throught the centuries.
>
>The split of Luther and Rome produced variations on the
>theology of Christ---but the GOD remained the same
Is Christ God, part of God, son of God, tool of God? Different
answers yield a different God. Either that or Islam and Judaism are
also part of Christianity, since if you ignore the theology of Christ,
"the GOD remained the same".
>Earlier (without checking) I suspect the rise of a more
>stringent view of "dispensationalism" was done to
>consolidate power of the church when the HRE was
>running Europe. (I'm not sure, but I think probably in
>the 13-14th century)
There was no such concept in the middle ages. As the following article
shows, about the only feature of dispensationalism that existed before
1800 was the occasional division of history into a number (usually 7)
"ages", though I don't think a lot of significance was attached to the
division.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
<Dispensationalism is a Christian theological view of history and
< Biblical interpretation that became popular during the 1800s and
< early 1900s and is held today by many conservative Protestants.
But I have no idea what you think dispensationalism has to do with
anything we are talking about.
>The Pilgrims were a horrific band of ultra-conservative
>religous fundamentalist---didn't even celebrate
>Christmas as I understand it.
In those days, no one celebrated Christmas in the sense that we use
the word "celebrate". The pagan holidays of Yule and Oestre, where
those had been celebrated, had been made over into Christian holidays,
and the symbolism redefined to make it seem like they were Christian,
but the celebrations were still those of the pagan holidays. In areas
where those pagan holidays weren't celebrated, I don't think that
there was any special celebration of Christmas.
The politics and religion of the Puritans (of which the Pilgrims were
merely the first emigrants) is more complex than the label
"ultra-conservative religious fundamentalist" can convey. The purpose
of the colony was religious separatism, and later, religious
utopianism. But even the Mayflower contained some passengers who were
not of the sect.
>Most of the early settlements were religous in nature-
Not really. That can be said about Massachusetts Bay and the earliest
Quaker settlements (before Pennsylvania was founded)
>--and if you did not pay taxes to the church,
No one paid taxes to the church. They paid taxes to the state and
tithes to the church.
>or refused their doctrines----you were dealt with very
>harshly.
If you were a member of the sect.
>However, Christians have only one god.
Or two (dualistic Gnosticism) or three (Trinitarianism), depending on
how you count. Islam and Judaism and Zoroastrianism and arguable
Hinduism all have one God, as does pantheism and deism. But being
monotheistic doesn't necessarily mean that the God they worship is the
same. I believe that Bahai religion says that all concepts of one God
refer to the same God.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>for this country.
No.
> All subsequent acts, including the Constitution, are
>predicated on the principles espoused in the Declaration.
Absolutely not. The Constitution was in effect a bloodless
revolutionary coup against the government established to implement the
Declaration. But the Declaration itself had no legal significance.
The resolution of independence approved on 2 July 1776 made the
colonies separate states. The DofI was just the explanation for this
resolution. It was the Articles of Confederation that bound the
colonies together into a quasi-nation, more akin to the modern
European Union than to the United States after the Constitution. If
the colonies were bound together before the Articles, then arguably
they were bound together before the D of I, by the formation of the
FIRST Continental Congress.
lojbab
buckeye
>:|On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:34:46 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>:|<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>:|
>:|>>Those are denominations, Bob.
>:|>>
>:|>>They are not different Religions---just variations of
>:|>>one.
>:|>
>:|>They ARE different religions. They were considered such at the time,
>:|>and many consider them such today.
>:|
>:|Christsakes, Bob
>:|
>:|They are all Christian
>:|
>:|The denominations are merely interpretation of the same
>:|scripture and veneration of the same God.
You might find this of interest. Maybe not, but it is somewhat conneted to
your comments though not at all connected to the topic of this thread but
them 99.9% of the comments in this thread do not address the topic
This was posted in another forum by a guy who is 81 or 89. I forget which
he said when he first joined the group there.
He is Jewish and active in his Synagogue even though he is a atheist
He is well read, has dual citizenship oin both the US and Australia. He
lives in Australia, he has a son who taches at W&M U in Williamsburg Va
A couple points Message #12372 of 12376
Re: [HRSepCnS] A couple points
On 01/04/2008, at 10:54 AM, wyldmanndan@ wrote:
> A far better known story is when God asked Abraham to sacrifice his
> own son. This time, there were no questions- he was ready to do the
> deed until God said "psyche!" and spared Isaac. Abraham was
> REWARDED for his willingness to kill his own son! How twisted is
> Dan
Dear Dan,
That story about Abraham and Isaac is probably why I became an
atheist. I heard that story when I was a little boy and asked my
father what he would do if he heard a God telling him to sacrifice
me. He told me he would see a psychiatrist. I felt secure w the old
man and began to doubt the Big Daddy in the Sky.
Unfortunately the fundamentalists also don't consider the liberal
versions of Christianity as authentic. I am not in the business of
deciding what Christianity is more authentic and don't think there
are any good criteria for making such a judgement.
I think that both religious believers and non-religious believers can
justify what they do by their beliefs. I know of no evidence to show
one group behaves better or worse than the other.
I think religion is in some sense a matter of fashion. The pantheon
of Gods was the prevailing fashion in ancient Rome. Christianity is
the prevailing fashion in the current United States.
The evidence for either fashion is the same.
I disagree with your statement: "it was only when people, influenced
by the Enlightenment, began to rise above the primitive dogma of the
past that Democracy became possible."
In ancient Athens there was majority rule after discussion and
debate. There was also respect for dissent. It seems like democracy
to me. At the same time there was belief in the Greek gods. Humans
are capable of compartmenting their minds so that they can act in an
irrational manner in one area and in a rational manner in another.
David Fisher
wyldmanndan@ wrote:
> I did mention the possibility that religions can become
> liberalized, and such liberalization is necessary for Democracy to
> survive- and I also said that these liberal versions of
> Christianity are probably less authentically Christian as the
> earlier versions- and less authentic than the fundamentalists of
> today.
Dear Dan,
If we assume earlier versions of Christianity are more authentic than
more recent ones then we would have to regard the Christian
fundamentalists of today as not authentic. As I have previously
stated I am not in the business of deciding what Christianity is more
authentic and don't think there are any good criteria for making such
a judgement.
An important part of Christian fundamentalism is a belief that the
Bible (the King James Version - KJV) is literally true.
Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian Fundamentalism
or Fundamentalist Evangelicalism, is a movement that arose mainly
within British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early
20th centuries among conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a
reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a fundamental set of
Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the
virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement,
the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of
Jesus Christ.
The original formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be
traced to the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) and, in 1910, to
the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these
into what became known as the "five fundamentals":
Inerrancy of the Scriptures
The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14)
[The virgin birth is a mistranslation of the original Hebrew version
of Isaiah. The Hebrew alma (meaning young woman) was translated into
the Greek parthenos (meaning virgin). The KJV refers to a virgin even
though the KJV was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic text because
the tradition of Jesus being born from a virgin had been established.
The prediction that a young woman will become pregnant is reasonable.
Isaiah 7:14 translated from the Hebrew original by the Jewish
Publication Society is: "Therefore the L-rd Himself shall give you a
sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and
shall call his name Immanuel."]
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and
human faith (Hebrews 9)
The bodily resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28)
The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-
millennial second coming)
The "five fundamentals" are the basis of Christian Fundamentalism and
were not finalized until 1910.
The earliest Christians could not believe in the inerrancy of the
Scriptures since there were no Scriptures at all. The four Gospels
according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were written between 65
and 100 AD. There were many writings written later, but there were no
agreed upon scriptures.
There were no Scriptures which most Christians agreed upon until
after Christianity became tolerated by the Roman Empire under
Constantine (27 February ca. 272 – 22 May 337). (Theodosius (January
11, 347 – January 17, 395), was the Roman Emperor from 379 to 395 who
made Christianity the official state religion in 391.) Constantine
was not a theologian, but he took steps during his rule to try to
make Christianity less conflictual by calling the Council of Nicea to
settle the Arian controversy. One result of the the council was the
drafting of a version of what we now call the Nicene Creed.
The process of canonization continued during the era of the Christian
Empire. Those communities that became known as orthodox came close to
agreeing on an authoritative collection of scriptures. As far as we
know, Athanasius (c. 293-May 2, 373) was the first person to name in
367 the 27 books of the New Testament accepted by most Christian
groups today.
Constantine played a significant role in the canonization of the
Bible. His desire for and actions to create unity and uniformity
contributed to the process of deciding upon a fixed canon. In
addition, he financed fifty copies of the scriptures to be produced
for use in Constantinople. The production of these manuscripts were
supervised by Eusebius of Caesarea (c 263 – 339?) , who tells about
of the request in his book Life of Constantine. Presumedly, these
scriptures were the complete New Testament but some scholars think
they consisted only of the four gospels.
During most of the history of Catholic and Orthodox Christianity the
Christian Bible was not read by the laity. The laity was given
interpretations of scripture by the clergy. During the Middle Ages
translation, particularly of the Old Testament was discouraged. Pope
Innocent III in 1199 banned unauthorized versions of the Bible as a
reaction to the Cathar and Waldensian heresies. The synods of
Toulouse and Tarragona (1234) outlawed possession of such renderings.
There is evidence of some vernacular translations being permitted
while others were being scrutinized. The most notable Middle English
Bible translation, Wyclif's Bible (1383), based on the Vulgate, was
banned by the Oxford Synod in 1408. A Hungarian Hussite Bible
appeared in the mid 15th century, and in 1478, a Catalan translation
in the dialect of Valencia. In 1521, Martin Luther was placed under
the Ban of the Empire, and he retired to the Wartburg Castle. During
his time there, he translated the New Testament from Greek into
German. It was printed in September 1522.
Tyndale's Bible (1526) was met with heavy sanctions given the
widespread belief that Tyndale changed the Bible as he attempted to
translate it. William Tyndale was first jailed in 1535 for
translating the Old Testament without permission, and a year later
was strangled and burnt at the stake.
The German translation by Luther printed in 1522 and the King James
Version (also known as Authorized Version) in 1611 were the first
versions widely read in the English and German world. The development
of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg in 1440 made these
versions more available than the versions produced before printing.
Gutenberg was not the first to print using a press and movable type.
The Chinese had been doing it for several centuries before Gutenberg.
He either invented it or got the idea from elsewhere.
Anyhow the American fundamentalists decided in 1910 on the literal
reading of a Bible printed in 1611. This does not connect them with
the early Christian church.
Christians and Jews use the Bible in four main ways - literal,
homiletic (preaching), allegorical and esoteric (having hidden
meanings). Biblical literalism disregards three traditional ways of
looking at the Bible.
Christian fundamentalism is a modern development and a rejection of
past Christian tradition.
David Fisher
mizlee
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wrong again. The Declaration of Independence was an "internal memo"
to the king, essentially saying "we're sick and tired, and we're not
going to take it any more." It was NOT a document of law at all.
Peter Franks
What is the foundation of the law?
Bob LeChevalier
>On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 08:25:10 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>"Christianity" refers to a family of historically related but multiple
>>religions.
>
>teaching of Jesus Christ.
For some. For others it is a religion based primarily on the life and
teachings of St Paul, whose writings are much more verbosely recorded
than those of Jesus Christ, and to some people contradict the
teachings of his predecessor.
Still others base their religion on the teachings of St Augustine, or
Martin Luther, or John Calvin, while others reject those particular
writers.
The ambiguity is due to the loose phrase "based on".
>>3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
>
>How is it a "different religion"?
Different denominations have had different spiritual leaders, who have
taught different things. Christianity has had a variety of spiritual
leaders over the centuries, many of whom have condemned the teachings
of other spiritual leaders whose teachings still have followers. Of
course, the beliefs, values, and practices of each of these different
Christian religions are different from each other, often in drastic
ways.
Christian denominations generally have some commonality in reference
to the teachings of Jesus Christ, but then they share with Islam and
Judaism some commonality in reference to the teachings of Moses, and
we don't generally hear people insisting that those are the same
religion.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>It is "mere" when the central "god" is the same
>
>Are you suggesting the "god" is different?
>
>You'll have to explain that......
Thomas Jefferson said "I am a Christian". He also said that
Calvinists were "demon-worshippers". It sounds like HE thought that
they worshipped a different God than he did.
lojbab
Free Lunch
Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in
<ijh5v3paoes40e68l...@4ax.com>:
Could you point to a reference about Jefferson's Christianity? I was
under the impression that he was deist.
Bob LeChevalier
"Deist" is not a term that he used. It is a term that others might
use to describe his beliefs, and to distinguish them from "orthodox
Christianity" as a unitary religion. But of course that is what we
are arguing about: whether there is such a unitary concept as
"orthodox Christianity". Jefferson believed in a God, and he
considered that the God that he believed in was the same God described
in the Bible. He just didn't believe that the Bible was to be taken
literally when it asserted things like "God said ..." or "God did
..."; he was wise enough to distinguish human interpretation from
factual reporting.
Even though his interpretation of the nature of God is consistent with
the definition of "deism" by many who use that term, he states that he
is a student and follower of the life and teachings of Christ, which
was one of the definitions provided for "Christianity". Thus the
question becomes whether "deism" and "Christianity" are the same
religion %^)
Thomas Jefferson's beliefs evolved over time (as did his politics. He
made the claim "I am a Christian" in the following quote in 1803:
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html
>Letter To Dr. Benjamin Rush.
>Washington, April 21, 1803.
<...In some of the delightful conversations with you in the evenings of
< 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the
< crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian
< religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you that one
< day or other I would give you my views of it. They are the result of
< a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that
< anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my
< opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but
< not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in
< the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to
< his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every
< human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.
Here's one of his lambastings of St Paul (from the same web page).
Note that he no longer claims to follow all of the teachings of
Christ, but selects some as not really being his teachings, and
indicates his disagreements with some of those teachings, i.e. that of
the efficacy of repentance.
<Letter To William Short.
<Monticello, April 13, 1820.
<
<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 counterpoise of good works to redeem
< it, etc., etc.
<...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
< 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 falsifications 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...
lojbab
veritas
>
> - Show quoted text -
English law was the foundation of the laws of this land. Actually the
man is right, this Constitution in the bill of rights says, "freedom
OF religion". What the founders actually meant was "freedom FROM
religion". But, as that wording would not pass of course, the first
was used. But from George Washington to Jefferson, to all the writers
of the Federalist Papers in which ONE sentence is devoted to religion
and says, "No church shall have any say in the government". That is
the only sentence you will find. Most of the founders were not going
to have preachers or priests have any say in the government. Monroe
was a true believer, as was Adams, but both agreed with the others.
As Morris actually wrote the Constitution with the bill of rights
added, he wrote a letter to Jefferson saying that as he was close to
Washington, he knew he felt the same as they did. They would not
allow religion in the government except on a personal basis. Most of
the people who had anything to do with the Constitution, and the bill
of rights felt they were doing the people a favor by excluding
religion from the government. Turns out they were right. Just as a
side note, I always felt that Jefferson in his heart was a stone
agnostic, as if a clergyman was in the room, he would leave, as I do.
Just the facts.
--
Ken Hogan
"Truth does not give a damn what we conceive. We survive or perish
according to our ability to discern the truth correctly and act upon
it." - Ken Hogan www.veritasnovel.com
ZerkonX
> It sounds like HE thought that
> they worshipped a different God than he did.
Exactly. The blind men and the elephant comes to mind here.
buckeye
>:|mizlee wrote:
>:|> Wrong again. The Declaration of Independence was an "internal memo"
>:|> to the king, essentially saying "we're sick and tired, and we're not
>:|> going to take it any more." It was NOT a document of law at all.
>:|
>:|What is the foundation of the law?
LOL. Why doesn't the above surprise me.
The never ending questions
Foundation of what or which law?
I wonder if you realize that the Constitutiin was "illegal."
Here for your education:
The Declaration of Independence (1776)
* Introduction
* Declaration of Independence: Its Purpose
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doipurp.htm
* Jefferson's Declaration of Independence did not use the word
"Creator"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doitj.htm
* Lincoln's reinventing of the Declaration of Independence
* The United States Supreme Court and the Declaration of Independence
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doisussc.htm
* An analysis of the Declaration of Independence
o Declaration of Independence: Preamble
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doi-pream.htm
o Declaration of Independence is not law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doinotlaw.htm
o The Declaration of Independence Didn't Create Independence,
Didn't "Found" Anything, Didn't Separate Anything: It Was an Explanation
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doiexplain.htm
"Founding" Documents and Religion (1776-1791)
* Founding Documents and Religion, DOI, AOC, Constitution, BORs
o A Big Fuss Over Nothing: An analysis of real and imagined
references to God, Christianity and Religion and lack thereof in obvious
places in five documents from the founding period of our history: the
Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Northwest
Ordinance, Federalist Papers, Constitution of the United States
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bigfuss.htm
buckeye
>:|Could you point to a reference about Jefferson's Christianity? I was
>:|under the impression that he was deist.
" You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as
far as I know. "
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819
Barclay, left the building again
Jul 27 2004, 8:23 pm
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.parenting.solutions, misc.kids,
alt.activism.children, alt.education, misc.education,
alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: "R. Steve Walz" <rste...@armory.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:23:56 GMT
from another post of mine
>buckeye-...@nospam.net wrote:
Some people like to toss labels around. For instance you hear people say
the founders were Christian. Some where, some were not, however, those
people fail to understand the differences that existed between the various
Christian denominations or sects and they fail to grasp the mistrust,
dislike and even fear that existed between the various Christian
denominations and sects.
Jefferson was raised within the framework of the Church of England, the
Anglican Church, which was the legally established church in Virginia.
At some point in his teen years or early adulthood he basically walked
away from that and it was at this time on his life that he probably could
be considered a deist.
However, th treatment Jefferson received by the New England Clergy in the
elections of 1800, Joseph Priestley and Benjamin Rush were all factors
that led Jefferson to re examine Christianity in the early 1800s.
This led to a changing in his thinking regarding Christianity. and led to
his writing one item and creating two others:
SYLLABUS:
In a letter to Dr. Rush, April 23, 1803, Jefferson outlines his views
on the comparative merits of Christianity in syllabus form, stimulated
by Dr. Priestley’s treatise of “Socrates and Jesus Compared.”:
[This was published in Europe in 1816 by Van der Kemp, with
Jefferson's permission.]
“. . . To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed opposed; but
not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the
only sense in which he wished any one to be, sincerely attached to his
doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every
«human» excellence; and believing he claimed no other. . .”
The PHILOSOPHY, which Jefferson compiled in 1804 is not something
Jefferson actually wrote, but is 46 pages of sections that he cut out of
two Bibles and glued on blank pieces of paper.
This was in two columns per page and was not done in four languages.
Which Jefferson did give permission to van der Kemp to publish this as
well, neither van der Kemp, nor anyone else ever published it.
It still existed in 1826 but sometime between then and the 1850s the
original disappeared.
In 1983 Dickson W. Adams published a reconstructed version in his book
Jefferson's Extracts from the Gospels [based on the historical data that
is available, most feel that the reconstruction, while not perfect,
perhaps, is probably pretty accurate.]
Sometime between 1816 and 1820, with the weight of evidence now pointing
to around the 1820 time period Jefferson compiled the MORALS. It was this
particular item that is known as the Jefferson Bible, and it was this that
was done in four languages, not the PHILOSOPHY.
Again, it was not omething Jefferson actually wrote, but instead was
clippings of passages from> Bibles, in English, Latin, Greek, and French.
But the above reflects a movement in his thinking in the direction of a
personal form of "Christianity" that he considered his own personal sect
or religion.
It might well of contained deistic thouight and Unitarian thought along
with primitive Christian thought. However, it was not deistic or
Unitarian, per se, and it sure wasn't orthodox Christian.
buckeye
>:|
>:|English law was the foundation of the laws of this land. Actually the
>:|man is right, this Constitution in the bill of rights says, "freedom
>:|OF religion". What the founders actually meant was "freedom FROM
>:|religion". But, as that wording would not pass of course, the first
>:|was used. But from George Washington to Jefferson, to all the writers
>:|of the Federalist Papers in which ONE sentence is devoted to religion
>:|and says, "No church shall have any say in the government". That is
>:|the only sentence you will find. Most of the founders were not going
>:|to have preachers or priests have any say in the government. Monroe
>:|was a true believer, as was Adams, but both agreed with the others.
>:|As Morris actually wrote the Constitution with the bill of rights
>:|added, he wrote a letter to Jefferson saying that as he was close to
>:|Washington, he knew he felt the same as they did. They would not
>:|allow religion in the government except on a personal basis. Most of
>:|the people who had anything to do with the Constitution, and the bill
>:|of rights felt they were doing the people a favor by excluding
>:|religion from the government. Turns out they were right. Just as a
>:|side note, I always felt that Jefferson in his heart was a stone
>:|agnostic, as if a clergyman was in the room, he would leave, as I do.
>:|Just the facts.
At least one of your "facts" is incorrect
Bob LeChevalier
I disagree
If that is nothing more than rhetoric, then nothing written or spoken
by any other Founder is necessarily anything more than rhetoric, and
we cannot say that any of them were of any particular belief system.
lojbab
Peter Franks
The law is the foundation of the law? Try again.
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> :|mizlee wrote:
>> :|> Wrong again. The Declaration of Independence was an "internal memo"
>> :|> to the king, essentially saying "we're sick and tired, and we're not
>> :|> going to take it any more." It was NOT a document of law at all.
>> :|
>> :|What is the foundation of the law?
>
>
> LOL. Why doesn't the above surprise me.
> The never ending questions
>
> Foundation of what or which law?
You discard the Declaration of Independence as a source because in your
opinion, it is not a document of law.
What relevance is it that it is or isn't law? We are discussing the
foundation of the country. The Declaration of Independence was one of
the founding documents, and as I pointed out, makes mention of deity.
My original response stands, still unchallenged.
bushhelpscorporationsdestroyamerica
america is a jesus fucking nation, I dare you to prove different
veritas
> Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >:|mizlee wrote:
> >:|> Wrong again. The Declaration of Independence was an "internal memo"
> >:|> to the king, essentially saying "we're sick and tired, and we're not
> >:|> going to take it any more." It was NOT a document of law at all.
> >:|
> >:|What is the foundation of the law?
>
> LOL. Why doesn't the above surprise me.
> The never ending questions
>
> Foundation of what or which law?
>
> I wonder if you realize that the Constitutiin was "illegal."
>
> Here for your education:
>
> The Declaration of Independence (1776)
> * Introduction
>
>
> * Jefferson's Declaration of Independence did not use the word
> "Creator"http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doitj.htm
>
> * Lincoln's reinventing of the Declaration of Independence
>
>
> * An analysis of the Declaration of Independence
>
> o Declaration of Independence is not lawhttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/doinotlaw.htm
>
> o The Declaration of Independence Didn't Create Independence,
>
> "Founding" Documents and Religion (1776-1791)
>
> * Founding Documents and Religion, DOI, AOC, Constitution, BORs
> o A Big Fuss Over Nothing: An analysis of real and imagined
> references to God, Christianity and Religion and lack thereof in obvious
> places in five documents from the founding period of our history: the
> Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Northwest
>
> ***************************************************************
> You are invited to check out the following:
>
>
> American Theocrats - Past and Presenthttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
>
> The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and Statehttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>
> [and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
> Church and State in general, listed below]
>
>
> ***************************************************************
> . . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
> respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
> take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
> page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
> 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
> Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
> . . .
> ****************************************************************
> USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
>
> "You pilot always into an unknown future;
> facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
>
> That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
> many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
>
> It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
> plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
> almost every media turn.
>
> *****************************************************************
> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
> ****************************************************************
As I said, our laws go back to English law, and that is what
established the laws.
The Declaration of Independence simply stated that we no longer
considered England to operate our government anymore, and that we had
good cause. It made no law, and was not intended for that purpose.
They changed the wording of it so much, as the mention of slavery
taken out, and so forth that Jefferson was heart broken. Franklin had
to have a talk with him and remind him that politics consisted of
compromise and that it was still a landmark statement. But, as you
say above, none of them had any intention of any church having a say
in the government. All they had to do was look back in history to see
the reasoning behind it. Not to mention the fact, that though some
were religious men, most looked at churches with a suspusious
attitude. Some people back then could have regarded the "Constitution"
as treason. That was not their task, it was to reword the old
Articles of Confederation. But, the Constitution won out, and seems
to have worked well for us. Regards, Ken Hogan
veritas
>
> American Theocrats - Past and Presenthttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
>
> The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and Statehttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>
> [and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
> Church and State in general, listed below]
>
>
> ***************************************************************
> . . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
> respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
> take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
> page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
> 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
> Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
> . . .
> ****************************************************************
> USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
>
> "You pilot always into an unknown future;
> facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
>
> That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
> many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
>
> It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
> plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
> almost every media turn.
>
> *****************************************************************
> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
> ****************************************************************
A simpler way of putting it was that Jefferson was probably a stone
agnostic, disliked the clergy so much that if a clergyman showed up in
a room with Jefferson, he would leave the room. If you read the law
on freedom of religion written by Jefferson as a law in Virginia, you
will see the real bitterness he held toward churches and the clergy.
I have read a few of his letters to his friends, and one to his son-in-
law blasting him for leaving the Virginia law in committee to long.
He was so proud of that law, it is included on his gravestone, along
with the Declaration and the founding of the University of Virginia.
At the least, he was a deist, as were most of the founders. They
would not share power with churches.
Regards, Ken Hogan
veritas
> Nick...@Click.com wrote:
> >On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:34:24 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
> ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> >>>It is "mere" when the central "god" is the same
>
> >>>Are you suggesting the "god" is different?
>
> >>>You'll have to explain that......
>
> >>Thomas Jefferson said "I am a Christian". He also said that
> >>Calvinists were "demon-worshippers". It sounds like HE thought that
> >>they worshipped a different God than he did.
>
> >That's nothing more than rhetoric
>
> I disagree
>
> If that is nothing more than rhetoric, then nothing written or spoken
> by any other Founder is necessarily anything more than rhetoric, and
> we cannot say that any of them were of any particular belief system.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Their private letters tell more than any document, or speech any of
them made. You have to remember they were for the most part upper
class, and did not want that overturned. They wanted the status quo
to remain, but you see clearly by their letters, and their actions,
not what they said out loud, that they wanted the churches to have
absolutely no say in the government at all. They made sure they did
not, and Jefferson in his 1802 letter to one of the denomanations that
had written him a letter, responded with the words, "wall of
seperation between church and state." That was the solid stance that
has been used since, and for good reason.
Regards, Ken Hogan
veritas
The foundation of laws in the beginning were to form societies that
worked. That is the foundation. It began thousands of years ago, but
we used common law from England as a base to begin our structure of
laws, as most were already in place.
A good example is the Supreme Court now arguing the repeal of banning
handguns in the District of Columbia. I listened as they went all the
way back to 1765, when it was against the law to have a loaded musket
downstairs, and the gunpowder was to be stored upstairs. But there
was no law against having a loaded pistol downstairs. So, even the
Supreme Court uses old English law to argue cases. Also, in open
markets muskets were prohibited, and in the militia, only officers
carried pistols. Soldiers could only have muskets. Again, English
law is were most of our common law comes from. Regards, Ken Hogan
veritas
That is what we are telling you, don't look at the speeches, the
writings for public viewing, watch their actions. Jefferson may have
very well have believed in a deity, but be assured he did not believe
in churches, or the men who ran them, as none of the founders did, and
they made sure the churches had no say in the government. For very
good reasons. Religion and government are like oil and water, they
just don't mix, then or now. Regards, Ken Hogan
veritas
>
> - Show quoted text -
No one is saying that the majority of people in this country are'nt
good christians and believe in their religion. What we are saying is
that the founders of this country made sure that the churches had no
say in the government and for good reason. Religions and governments
mix like oil and water, not good. They had seen from history that was
so, and there were already so many religions here, it would have been
a mess to not have freedom of religion. But, as the private letters
have been studied, the founding men of the country never had any
intention of letting any church have any say in the government.
Jefferson made that quite clear in 1802, and it is true today no
matter what the religious right says. Our government was created for
"Freedom FROM religion", not "Freedom FOR religion". Most of the
founders were deistists, although some such as Adams, Monroe, and
others were truely religious (Adams was sure that Franklin was going
straight to hell, the second he took his last breath.) they also
realized that it simply doesn't mix. So we can't make any laws about
religion. Good for us. Regards, Ken Hogan
Docky Wocky
"That is what we are telling you, don't look at the speeches, the
writings for public viewing, watch their actions. Jefferson may have
very well have believed in a deity, but be assured he did not believe
in churches, or the men who ran them, as none of the founders did, and
they made sure the churches had no say in the government. For very
good reasons. Religion and government are like oil and water, they
just don't mix, then or now. Regards, Ken Hogan..."
_________________________
"...none of the founders did...?
As usual, a bit of liberal bull shit would become "truth" if not challenged.
It would appear that most of the so-called Founding Fathers had much more
religious affiliation than the liberal mind is prepared to accept.
Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation
Charles Carroll Maryland Catholic
Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
William Williams Connecticut Congregationalist
Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist
Lyman Hall Georgia Congregationalist
Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist
Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Whipple New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist
John Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
George Walton Georgia Episcopalian
John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian
George Ross Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Thomas Lynch Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Arthur Middleton South Carolina Episcopalian
Edward Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian
Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian
George Read Delaware Episcopalian
Caesar Rodney Delaware Episcopalian
Samuel Chase Maryland Episcopalian
William Paca Maryland Episcopalian
Thomas Stone Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
Francis Hopkinson New Jersey Episcopalian
Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian
Lewis Morris New York Episcopalian
William Hooper North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Morton Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Stephen Hopkins Rhode Island Episcopalian
Carter Braxton Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Harrison Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Nelson Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian (Deist)
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
Button Gwinnett Georgia Episcopalian; Congregationalist
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian
Joseph Hewes North Carolina Quaker, Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker, Episcopalian
Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian
Matthew Thornton New Hampshire Presbyterian
Abraham Clark New Jersey Presbyterian
John Hart New Jersey Presbyterian
Richard Stockton New Jersey Presbyterian
John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian
William Floyd New York Presbyterian
Philip Livingston New York Presbyterian
James Smith Pennsylvania Presbyterian
George Taylor Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Peter Franks
You are just repeating that the law is the foundation of the law.
What is the foundation of the English law? If it is some other (prior)
law, what is the foundation for that prior law, etc.
Peter Franks
At any given time, there is either zero or one correct religions on this
planet.
So, in order to prove your statement that "they don't mix", you have to
show that it applies to both false religions and the true religion (if
it exists then/now).
Bob LeChevalier
>It would appear that most of the so-called Founding Fathers had much more
>religious affiliation than the liberal mind is prepared to accept.
Since in most colonies they were required by law to hold a religious
affiliation, the fact that they did so says nothing about their actual
beliefs.
lojbab
veritas
Actually, I am a conservative Republican and a district chairman to
boot. It is just in the study of history, the main characters I
named were mostly deiests, I excepted Monroe, and Adams. As all
politicans must do now, they did back then, they attented church as
was expected of them. Even Washington, made church on a regular
basis, though would not take communion, which caused a stir. And,
some of these people after the country was set up went back to their
daily business, and did not engage in the larger political play after
the war, though they may have done so on a local basis. But, as we
all know, you can go to church every single day it is open, and still
have different beliefs. What I am saying is that they were most all
one mind when it came to any church having any say in the government,
and made sure they did not. I do believe that most were true
believers, but they still did not want preachers and priests to have
any say in the running of the government save what an elected or
appointed official had in his heart, as long as it didn't cross the
"wall". That is why it was made. Also, I would recheck S. Adams,
both Lees, and Rush. I believe you will find they had more on their
minds than religion, though they may have been church goers. Actions
speak louder than words. My main thought that runs through all this
is, as in 1803, Jefferson put to words in his letter, "the wall of
seperation between church and state." Most all of them did believe
that for various reasons I have already discussed. Some more than
others. As Adams said, "When Franklin takes his last breath he is
without a doubt going straight to hell." They did have their
differences of opinion on religion, but none of them wanted any
religion directly interfering with government policy, or control.
Regards, Ken Hogan
veritas
>
> - Show quoted text -
59,000 years ago as the first modern humans came out of Africa, the
leader of the group brought everyone together and said, "You do what I
tell you, when I tell you, or I will beat the hell out of you. Now,
everyone keep together and look carefully over ridges for easy kills,
the women, look for edible plants." So, it went from there, one law
to today, where in the U.S. you probably break 10 laws a day and never
know it, because they won't stop passing the damn things, or changing
them and never tell anyone. Now, does that satisfy you? If you want
more especially on old English law, some were brought by the Romans,
some were local laws, and slowly blended together. The earlies cities
in Mesopotamia, in 5,000 B.C.E. certainly had laws, and they were
driven out of the north by the melting ice from cities, so they
probably had laws there. In 1066, when the damn Normans invaded
England, I'm sure they brought some as well. The Egyptians had to
have some, so I imagine that most were slowly brought along as
civilizations went up or down. But as the English slowly set up the
colonies in North America, it was mostly English law that was put into
place. The laws evolved, as they have here over the centuries. I'm
not a book, so if you really want to know EVERYTHING, then study law
courses, and the exact details will be explained. But English laws
are were our laws came from. You can go from there, as I said, I'm
not a book, and you seemto want exact details. You will have to do
your own homework. I'm not repeating, you are, do your own work.
Regards, Ken Hogan
veritas
>
> - Show quoted text -
First of all, if I have to go back over the abuses of religions that
Europe suffered at the hands of both Christain religions, it would
take a book. Our government and country are both a government and
country made up of laws, not men. The laws are more important than
the men. As I can prove that govenment in this country exists, but
both false religions and the true religion cannot prove their
existence, but that's the way it was meant to be. They have to make a
living. I can give you an example of the true religion. It wants
nothing from you, no money, no donations, and gives you no "sins" that
you have committed that will consign you to a burning hell forever,
but the God loves you unconditionally anyway. Seen any around? No,
you don't. They all want something, usually control, not to mention
the suction of as much money as possible from you. Government wants
control, and therefore does not want any competition, and excluded it
in the Constitution, bless Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Morris,
Monroe, Jay, and Hamilton's hearts. I love to read the "Federalist
Papers" as there is ONE sentence about religion in the whole number of
essays. "No church shall have any say in the government." That is the
extent of religious thought in it. One of my favorites. So, true
religion, haven't seen one yet. Just my experience. Regards, Ken
Hogan
veritas
You appear to be contradicting yourself with the two statements, but
at the same time, you really aren't. There probably were more
believers than the liberals like to admit, and who is to say that a
deist isn't a correct belief in religion? But, if you wanted to be in
big time politics as today, you have to have a religious affiliation.
Hillary must have one, I don't know what it is. I'm sure it isn't a
church who believes that AIDS was made by white people to kill all the
blacks, and white people didn't bring in drugs to make the blacks buy
drugs and get sent to jail or hooked.. (How do you make someone buy
illegal drugs if they don't want to?) Or I sure the pastor doesn't
say goddamn America. But, she has to belong somewhere.
--
Ken Hogan
Bob LeChevalier
>> You are just repeating that the law is the foundation of the law.
>>
>> What is the foundation of the English law? If it is some other (prior)
>> law, what is the foundation for that prior law, etc.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>59,000 years ago as the first modern humans came out of Africa, the
>leader of the group brought everyone together and said, "You do what I
>tell you, when I tell you, or I will beat the hell out of you. Now,
>everyone keep together and look carefully over ridges for easy kills,
>the women, look for edible plants."
Actually, that could have been said by a non-modern human, since
alpha-apes effectively communicate exactly those sentiments to the
rest of the troupe.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>On Apr 3, 3:44 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> "Docky Wocky" <mrch...@lst.net> wrote:
>> >It would appear that most of the so-called Founding Fathers had much more
>> >religious affiliation than the liberal mind is prepared to accept.
>>
>> Since in most colonies they were required by law to hold a religious
>> affiliation, the fact that they did so says nothing about their actual
>> beliefs.
>
>at the same time, you really aren't. There probably were more
>believers than the liberals like to admit,
Believers in what?
>But, if you wanted to be in
>big time politics as today, you have to have a religious affiliation.
>Hillary must have one, I don't know what it is.
She has been reported several times to be a devout Methodist, who
participated in prayer meetings regularly long before she started
seeking public office. Of the three major candidates, she may be the
most religious.
>and white people didn't bring in drugs to make the blacks buy
>drugs and get sent to jail or hooked.. (How do you make someone buy
>illegal drugs if they don't want to?)
Find a salesman who can sell refrigerators to Eskimos.
lojbab
buckeye
>:|
>:|A simpler way of putting it was that Jefferson was probably a stone
>:|agnostic, disliked the clergy so much that if a clergyman showed up in
>:|a room with Jefferson, he would leave the room. If you read the law
>:|on freedom of religion written by Jefferson as a law in Virginia, you
>:|will see the real bitterness he held toward churches and the clergy.
>:|I have read a few of his letters to his friends, and one to his son-in-
>:|law blasting him for leaving the Virginia law in committee to long.
>:|He was so proud of that law, it is included on his gravestone, along
>:|with the Declaration and the founding of the University of Virginia.
>:|At the least, he was a deist, as were most of the founders. They
>:|would not share power with churches.
>:|Regards, Ken Hogan
Much of the above is incorrect
veritas
Hey, I can sell coal in Newcastle. Does that count? Also, I meant
believe in a deity, and attented chruch regularly. Although I my
personal opinion is that chruches and God go hand in hand. Probably
the last place I would for him would be in a chruch. Just an
opinion. Regards, Ken Hogan
veritas
> veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >:|
> >:|A simpler way of putting it was that Jefferson was probably a stone
> >:|agnostic, disliked the clergy so much that if a clergyman showed up in
> >:|a room with Jefferson, he would leave the room. If you read the law
> >:|on freedom of religion written by Jefferson as a law in Virginia, you
> >:|will see the real bitterness he held toward churches and the clergy.
> >:|I have read a few of his letters to his friends, and one to his son-in-
> >:|law blasting him for leaving the Virginia law in committee to long.
> >:|He was so proud of that law, it is included on his gravestone, along
> >:|with the Declaration and the founding of the University of Virginia.
> >:|At the least, he was a deist, as were most of the founders. They
> >:|would not share power with churches.
> >:|Regards, Ken Hogan
>
> Much of the above is incorrect
>
> ***************************************************************
> You are invited to check out the following:
>
>
> American Theocrats - Past and Presenthttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
>
> The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and Statehttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>
> [and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
> Church and State in general, listed below]
>
>
> ***************************************************************
> . . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
> respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
> take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
> page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
> 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
> Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
> . . .
> ****************************************************************
> USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
>
> "You pilot always into an unknown future;
> facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
>
> That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
> many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
>
> It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
> plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
> almost every media turn.
>
> *****************************************************************
> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
> ****************************************************************
Everything I said above is correct, I've read the letters, I studied
Jeffereson for many years, and his correspondence, and I am correct in
everything I said. All you have to do is look up the letters, read
the Virginia law, and see for yourself. None of them had any
intention of any church have any say in the government. Jefferson in
his private letters says it plainly, and Morris wrote him a letter
telling him that as a close friend of Washington, he knwe that
Washington felt the exact same way. It's all there for you to read.
Regards, Ken Hogan
buckeye
>:|Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>:|> What is the foundation of the law?
>:|>
>:|
>:|The foundation of laws in the beginning were to form societies that
>:|worked. That is the foundation. It began thousands of years ago, but
>:|we used common law from England as a base to begin our structure of
>:|laws, as most were already in place.
He is playing games.
What he wants someone to say is that ultimately God is the source of laws.
buckeye
>:|On Apr 4, 11:52 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
>:|> veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|A simpler way of putting it was that Jefferson was probably a stone
>:|> >:|agnostic, disliked the clergy so much that if a clergyman showed up in
>:|> >:|a room with Jefferson, he would leave the room. If you read the law
>:|> >:|on freedom of religion written by Jefferson as a law in Virginia, you
>:|> >:|will see the real bitterness he held toward churches and the clergy.
>:|> >:|I have read a few of his letters to his friends, and one to his son-in-
>:|> >:|law blasting him for leaving the Virginia law in committee to long.
>:|> >:|He was so proud of that law, it is included on his gravestone, along
>:|> >:|with the Declaration and the founding of the University of Virginia.
>:|> >:|At the least, he was a deist, as were most of the founders. They
>:|> >:|would not share power with churches.
>:|> >:|Regards, Ken Hogan
>:|>
>:|> Much of the above is incorrect
>:|Everything I said above is correct, I've read the letters, I studied
>:|Jeffereson for many years, and his correspondence, and I am correct in
>:|everything I said. All you have to do is look up the letters, read
>:|the Virginia law, and see for yourself. None of them had any
>:|intention of any church have any say in the government. Jefferson in
>:|his private letters says it plainly, and Morris wrote him a letter
>:|telling him that as a close friend of Washington, he knwe that
>:|Washington felt the exact same way. It's all there for you to read.
>:|Regards, Ken Hogan
Sorry, your comments are full or errors
Jefferson was not agnostic. he was quite religious in his own personal way.
He frequently gave money to churches and had a number of personal friends
who were clergy. They visited him at his residence and dined with him there
buckeye
>:|buckeye wrote:
>:|> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>:|>
>:|>> :|mizlee wrote:
>:|>> :|> Wrong again. The Declaration of Independence was an "internal memo"
>:|>> :|> to the king, essentially saying "we're sick and tired, and we're not
>:|>> :|> going to take it any more." It was NOT a document of law at all.
>:|>> :|
>:|>> :|What is the foundation of the law?
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> LOL. Why doesn't the above surprise me.
>:|> The never ending questions
>:|>
>:|> Foundation of what or which law?
>:|
>:|You discard the Declaration of Independence as a source because in your
>:|opinion, it is not a document of law.
Ahem, I asked you foundation of which law. which you didn't bother to
answer. No suprise there
BZZZZZZZ!!!!! My opinion. Not even close. I provided primary source
documentation of exactly what it was, it's function, it's purpose and IIRC
secondary source information that backed that up by respected scholars.
It is not law, it never was law. It was propaganda designed to elict
foreign aid
>:|
>:|What relevance is it that it is or isn't law? We are discussing the
>:|foundation of the country. The Declaration of Independence was one of
>:|the founding documents, and as I pointed out, makes mention of deity.
>:|
What YOU SAY (pointed out) is totally and completely irrelevant
Here is my comment to that
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
to clarify.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The late USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
>:|My original response stands, still unchallenged.
Only in your dreams
You passed on my comments that the Constitution was illegal. what a pity
You want a foundation of law:
Roots of American Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/histlaw.htm
and again
***************************************************************
buckeye
>:|On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:34:24 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>:|<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>:|
>:|>Nic...@Click.com wrote:
>:|>>It is "mere" when the central "god" is the same
>:|>>
>:|>>Are you suggesting the "god" is different?
>:|>>
>:|>>You'll have to explain that......
>:|>
>:|>Thomas Jefferson said "I am a Christian". He also said that
>:|>Calvinists were "demon-worshippers". It sounds like HE thought that
>:|>they worshipped a different God than he did.
>:|
>:|That's nothing more than rhetoric
False
"In am a Christan" is shown in the Jefferson Bible, i.e. shown in what he
seelcted to include in it, read and study the rest of his life. It was a
form of "primitive" Christianity See below:
“. . . To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed opposed; but
not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the
only sense in which he wished any one to be, sincerely attached to his
doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every
«human» excellence; and believing he claimed no other. . .”
He also once said
" You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as
far as I know. "
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819
What that meant was that while he leaned heavily towards Dr. Joseph
Priestley's brand of Unitartism, he didn't fully embrace all of that
either. He had his own unique religion hence his comment, ". . . I am of
a sect by myself, as far as I know. "
As far as he was concerned Paul, the early church fathers, Greeks, Calvin
etc bastardized/corrupted the teachings of the man Jesus.
buckeye
>:|On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:30:57 -0400, buckeye
>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|>>:|The denominations are merely interpretation of the same
>:|>>:|scripture and veneration of the same God.
>:|>
>:|>Ahem, there is nothing merely about it. It is a very big deal to each and
>:|>everyone of them.
>:|
>:|It is "mere" when the central "god" is the same
>:|
>:|Are you suggesting the "god" is different?
>:|
>:|You'll have to explain that......
The only thing I need to explain is the fact that the various denominations
of Christianity has been at "war" for hunderds upon hundreds of years.
That fact doesn't require much beyond a surface study of history that
covers such to see that.
Those people took their particular beliefs, understandings etc of their
own religion very serioulsy and took just as serious their rejection and
fear/hatred of other denominations, sects, etc.
Your lack of knowledge/understanding of this and/or your attempts to
minimize, downplay or outright deny this doesn't alter history in the
least.
What matter here are the actual facts, not your opinions, what might seem
reasonable to you or what you want to believe
veritas
>
> American Theocrats - Past and Presenthttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
>
> The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and Statehttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>
> [and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
> Church and State in general, listed below]
>
>
> ***************************************************************
> . . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
> respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
> take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
> page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
> 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
> Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
> . . .
> ****************************************************************
> USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
>
> "You pilot always into an unknown future;
> facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
>
> That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
> many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
>
> It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
> plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
> almost every media turn.
>
> *****************************************************************
> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>
> - Show quoted text -
He was also a political animal, and as so, would play a role. If you
read his correspondence yourself, you will see he may have believed in
a deity, perhaps, but he did not believe in churches, and especially
ones who wanted a say in the government. The one letter, to Madison
telling him about his answer to one of the churches hinting they would
like to be the "national" church is a clincher. Almost everything I
have ever read has stated that he could not abide clerymen, now if
there was an exceptions, I am not aware of it, nor their names. My
personal opinion is that he did not, as many of them did not, like
other people standing before them giving them orders. The last
sentence is just an opionion on my part.
--
Ken Hogan
--
Ken Hogan
veritas
> >:|Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >:|> What is the foundation of the law?
> >:|>
> >:|
> >:|The foundation of laws in the beginning were to form societies that
> >:|worked. That is the foundation. It began thousands of years ago, but
> >:|we used common law from England as a base to begin our structure of
> >:|laws, as most were already in place.
>
> He is playing games.
>
> What he wants someone to say is that ultimately God is the source of laws.
>
> ***************************************************************
> You are invited to check out the following:
>
>
> American Theocrats - Past and Presenthttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
>
> The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and Statehttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>
> [and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
> Church and State in general, listed below]
>
>
> ***************************************************************
> . . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
> respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
> take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
> page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
> 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
> Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
> . . .
> ****************************************************************
> USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
>
> "You pilot always into an unknown future;
> facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
>
> That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
> many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
>
> It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
> plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
> almost every media turn.
>
> *****************************************************************
> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
> ****************************************************************
That is the last damn thing I am saying. God or Gods have nothing to
do with this, other than perhaps to fool people into thinking a law
was given by a god or gods. But, I don't want anyone to say that, and
I'm damn sure not saying it. I'm not writing this as emotional, just
surprised that you would think that. I'm agnostic. Regards, Ken Hogan
veritas
> >:|On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:34:24 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
> >:|<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >:|
>
> - Show quoted text -
He was also against slavery and refused to release any of his slaves.
He kept a mulatto slave who was his wife's half-sister as his mistress
during all his remaining years after his wife's death. He did and
said a lot of things that were contradictions to his professed
beliefs, so we will never know the "truth" unless we take his
correspondence at it's word. Which in my opinion is agnostic. Other
than that, nobody will really know what he thought, we can only see
what he accomplished, which was astounding. Regards, Ken Hogan
veritas
> >:|>
> >:|>> :|mizlee wrote:
> >:|>> :|> Wrong again. The Declaration of Independence was an "internal memo"
> >:|>> :|> to the king, essentially saying "we're sick and tired, and we're not
> >:|>> :|> going to take it any more." It was NOT a document of law at all.
> >:|>> :|
> >:|>> :|What is the foundation of the law?
> >:|>
> >:|>
> >:|> LOL. Why doesn't the above surprise me.
> >:|> The never ending questions
> >:|>
> >:|> Foundation of what or which law?
> >:|
> >:|You discard the Declaration of Independence as a source because in your
> >:|opinion, it is not a document of law.
>
> Ahem, I asked you foundation of which law. which you didn't bother to
> answer. No suprise there
>
> BZZZZZZZ!!!!! My opinion. Not even close. I provided primary source
> documentation of exactly what it was, it's function, it's purpose and IIRC
> secondary source information that backed that up by respected scholars.
>
> It is not law, it never was law. It was propaganda designed to elict
> foreign aid
>
> >:|
> >:|What relevance is it that it is or isn't law? We are discussing the
> >:|foundation of the country. The Declaration of Independence was one of
> >:|the founding documents, and as I pointed out, makes mention of deity.
> >:|
>
> What YOU SAY (pointed out) is totally and completely irrelevant
>
> Here is my comment to that
>
> Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
> Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
> If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
> you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
> back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
> extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
> not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
> claim is not worth considering
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> [ as Homer@nospam said]
> Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
> truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
> that
> people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
> [as Gray Shockley said:]
> Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
> You forgot your citations.
> Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
> You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
> propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate with
> those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
> to clarify.
> The late USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
>
> "You pilot always into an unknown future;
> facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
>
> That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
> many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
>
> It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
> plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
> almost every media turn.
>
> >:|My original response stands, still unchallenged.
>
> Only in your dreams
>
> You passed on my comments that the Constitution was illegal. what a pity
>
> You want a foundation of law:
>
>
> and again
>
> The Declaration of Independence (1776)
> * Introduction
>
>
> * Jefferson's Declaration of Independence did not use the word
> "Creator"http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doitj.htm
>
> * Lincoln's reinventing of the Declaration of Independence
>
>
> * An analysis of the Declaration of Independence
>
> o Declaration of Independence is not lawhttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/doinotlaw.htm
>
> o The Declaration of Independence Didn't Create Independence,
>
> "Founding" Documents and Religion (1776-1791)
>
> * Founding Documents and Religion, DOI, AOC, Constitution, BORs
> o A Big Fuss Over Nothing: An analysis of real and imagined
> references to God, Christianity and Religion and lack thereof in obvious
> places in five documents from the founding period of our history: the
> Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Northwest
>
> ***************************************************************
> You are invited to check out the following:
>
>
> American Theocrats - Past and Presenthttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
>
> The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and Statehttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>
> [and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
> Church and State in general, listed below]
>
>
> ***************************************************************
> . . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
> respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
> take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
> page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
> 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
> Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
> . . .
> ****************************************************************
> USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
>
> "You pilot always into an unknown future;
> facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
>
> That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
> many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
>
> It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
> plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
> almost every media turn.
>
> *****************************************************************
> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>
> - Show quoted text -
I believe it makes no difference if the Declaration was law or not.
What it says in a formal way is:
" We the people are making a claim, and if you don't agree with it, we
will kill you all until you leave. You are no longer our judge, jury,
nor law maker for any of us, get out or we will force you out." I
just made it shorter and less eloquent. But, that is what Jefferson
was saying. Ken Hogan
veritas
So, you speak alpha- ape now, how interesting. Just because a alpha-
ape MIGHT be able to communicate that, that doesn't put them in our
class. Let's see one give one of the group a directional finder and
tell them to find out where they are and were that damn river is, then
I will be impressed. They are just animals, we are sentient beings,
that makes us a different species from them, and capable of making
laws that everyone understands. Oh wait, I forgot about the U.S. laws,
we all break 10 a day and don't even know we broke one.
--
Ken Hogan
Bob LeChevalier
>So, you speak alpha- ape now, how interesting. Just because a alpha-
>ape MIGHT be able to communicate that, that doesn't put them in our
>class. Let's see one give one of the group a directional finder and
>tell them to find out where they are and were that damn river is, then
>I will be impressed.
I suspect that you could give 90% of the world's population a
direction finder and they wouldn't have a clue what to do with it.
>They are just animals,
So are we.
>we are sentient beings,
Actually, we don't know if they are sentient. They just haven't told
us. Recent experiments have shown that a lot of traits that we think
of as exclusively human are present in animals as well. The line
between us and other animals is a lot less certain than you seem to
think.
>that makes us a different species from them, and capable of making
>laws that everyone understands.
Then why do we need so many lawyers? Why is the USSC considering a
case based on the 2nd amendment which everybody understands ...
differently.
>Oh wait, I forgot about the U.S. laws,
>we all break 10 a day and don't even know we broke one.
Yep. Actually, we may break 100 a day, but we only know that we broke
10.
lojbab
veritas
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:31:09 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>
> <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >why do we need so many lawyers? Why is the USSC considering a
> >case based on the 2nd amendment which everybody understands ...
> >differently.
>
> different to various people and courts help sort that
> out.
>
> It took years to refine the meaning of "shall",
> "should", "will" "may" "must" etc in legal terms.
>
> Law has never defined the meaning of the part about
> "militias" and whether or not it applies to "rights"
> connected a "collective" associated with a state, or an
> individual "right" independent of state authority.
>
> We know that laws CAN regulate ownership and use of
> weapons---making it hard to argue that the term "no
> law" can be passed---such as the case of limited
> Speech.
>
> That's why we need lawyers and advocates and courts.
Always remember about free speech, never, ever, yell "Theatre" in a
crowded fire station. There are some limits to almost everything in
the Constitution. Regards, Ken Hogan
Peter Franks
That is damnation.
There is no growth without sacrifice.
There is no growth without choice and consequence.
Peter Franks
> * Jefferson's Declaration of Independence did not use the word
> "Creator"
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doitj.htm
... but it did refer to "nature's god".
Have a nice day.
buckeye
>:|
Did you read the article or just looked at the title?
Do you have any clue at all what his meaning of "nature's god" might be?
It sure as hell wasn't the God of the Old and New Testament.
The DOI isn't the foundation of American Law, nor is the Old Testament ,
New Testament, Ten sound bites (Commandments)
>:|Have a nice day.
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> :|buckeye wrote:
>> :|> * Jefferson's Declaration of Independence did not use the word
>> :|> "Creator"
>> :|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doitj.htm
>> :|
>> :|... but it did refer to "nature's god".
>> :|
>
> Did you read the article or just looked at the title?
>
> Do you have any clue at all what his meaning of "nature's god" might be?
>
> It sure as hell wasn't the God of the Old and New Testament.
>
> The DOI isn't the foundation of American Law, nor is the Old Testament ,
> New Testament, Ten sound bites (Commandments)
Do you recall your original posting?
We aren't talking about the foundation of "American Law", we are talking
about the foundation of the country.
The Declaration of Independence is one of the founding documents for
this country.
It mentions "nature's god".
All of this substantiates my original response to your post.
Have a nice day!
buckeye
>:|buckeye wrote:
>:|> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>:|>
>:|>> :|buckeye wrote:
>:|>> :|> * Jefferson's Declaration of Independence did not use the word
>:|>> :|> "Creator"
>:|>> :|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doitj.htm
>:|>> :|
>:|>> :|... but it did refer to "nature's god".
>:|>> :|
>:|>
>:|> Did you read the article or just looked at the title?
>:|>
>:|> Do you have any clue at all what his meaning of "nature's god" might be?
>:|>
>:|> It sure as hell wasn't the God of the Old and New Testament.
>:|>
>:|> The DOI isn't the foundation of American Law, nor is the Old Testament ,
>:|> New Testament, Ten sound bites (Commandments)
>:|
>:|Do you recall your original posting?
>:|
>:|We aren't talking about the foundation of "American Law", we are talking
>:|about the foundation of the country.
Game playing on your part, i.e. you have also asked about foundation of
law. I have replied to both, sometimes in the same reply.
guess you forgot that, huh?I
>:|
>:|The Declaration of Independence is one of the founding documents for
>:|this country.
False and you can say it is till the cows come home. Doing so will not make
it so.
I notice that you offer nothing other than "You say".
I offer again,
>:|
>:|It mentions "nature's god".
So what?
>:|All of this substantiates my original response to your post.
Really? BZZZZTTTTTTTTTTT! Nice try but no cigar.
REMEMBER THIS:
A CHALLENGE TO ANYONE
I challenge you or anyone else to show, with valid primary souce historical
documentation, valid secondary source documentation/commentary, cites etc
by respected scholars that THIS COUNTRY was ever founded as a CHRISTIAN
NATION. (That perhaps most of the citizens who were religious were
Christian does not qualify)
I doubt that you or anyone else would ever accept this challeged because it
is a myth and therefore can''t be shown to be true.
To the above you offered the following:
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>> :|
>> :|Christian, no.
>> :|
>> :|Deity, yes. Source: Declaration of Independence
>> :|
To which I replied
> Diety nation? LOL
>
> Oooohhhhhhhh boy. The DOI didn't found anything.
>
> Your "source" is a non source.
> Better luck next time
############################################
Your flaws
(1) The challenge was to to show this country was founded as a CHRISTIAN
NATION.
You said it wasn't
Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote
>> :|Christian, no.
End of discussion.
However, you then make a complete fool of yourself again by further saying
saying
>> :|Deity, yes.
In the 13 and half years I have been involved in researching, studying,
gathering documents, posting online on the historical and legal topic of
Church & state in America from the 1750s to present I have never, ever
heard of anyone claim this was a Deity nation.
The phrase doesn't make sense.
Your answer doesn't meet the challenge, even more so since you stated this
was not a Christian Nation.
Your senseless attempt to inject yourself into a discussion you aren't
qualifed to be in only made you look silly.
More evidence this is not and never was a Christian Nation.
* Madison's Arguments Against Special Religious Sanction of American
Government
http://candst.tripod.com/madlib.htm
* Treaty of Tripoli, 1796: Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by
President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tripoli1.htm
Testimonies to the religious defect of the Constitution of the United
States By the Rev. D. M'Allister:
* Part I
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/455aa7a64df87545?dmode=source
An excerpt that trashes your theory from ther above
[excerpt]
PRESIDENT TIMOTHY DWIGHT, 1812, 1813.
The next witness whom we cite is Dr. Dwight, the well-known
President, in former years, of Yale College. On July 23d, 1812, the public
fast-day in Connecticut, in view of the calamities of war, President
Dwight, of Yale College, preached a discourse, in two parts, in the college
chapel, In the second part, among reasons for grave apprehension, is the
following
"The second of these reasons is, the sinful character of our
nation. Notwithstanding the prevalence of religion which I have described,
the irreligion and the wickedness of our land are such as to furnish a most
painful and melancholy prospect to a serious mind. We formed our
Constitution without any acknowledgment of God, without any recognition of
his mercies to us as a people, of his government, or even of his existence.
The convention by which it was formed, never asked, even once, his
direction or his blessing upon their labors. Thus we commenced our national
existence, under the present system, without God. I wish I could say
that a disposition to render him the reverence due to his great name, and
the, gratitude demanded by his innumerable mercies, had been more public,
visible, uniform, and fervent." (Page 46.)
In a volume entitled, 11 President Dwight's Decisions of Questions
discussed by the Senior Class in Yale College, in 1813 and 1814," are, many
weighty remarks on the question, " Ought religious tests to be required of
civil officers?" This question was discussed December 22d, 1813. The
language of this testimony is as follows:
6
"It is highly discreditable to us that we do not acknowledge God in
our Constitution. Now, it is remarkable that the grossest nations and
individuals, in their public acts and in their declarations, manifestoes,
proclamations, etc., always recognize the superintendency of a Supreme
Being. Even Napoleon does it. We, however, have neglected to do it. God
says, ' They who despise me shall be lightly esteemed and we have rendered
ourselves liable, as a nation, to his displeasure. The corruption which is
now rapidly extending in this country gives reason for apprehension that we
are soon to suffer the punishment to which we have exposed
ourselves.-Dwight's Decisions, pp. 111, 112.
[end excerpt]
* Part II
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/751699b8c4bf88e4?dmode=source
* Part III
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/3ad78ebcc4d79ff6?dmode=source
* Part IV
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/42a28b0b5bc87895?dmode=source
* Part V
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/9259cac2793f0f41?dmode=source
Christian Statesman Tracts No. 6, Answers to Objections to the Religious
Amendment of the United States Constitution. By the Rev. D. M'Allister.
* Section II, Part I
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/2ed67ba52c3d89f7
* Section II, Part II
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/673328f3e98a3c08
* Section II, Part III
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/420fc4f3a8821774
* Section II, Part IV
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/b508d61a89973b85
The following excerpt from Section II, Part IV totally shoots down youe
silly "Diety Nation" invention:
[excerpt]
Since the foregoing pages were stereotyped the First Objection has
been brought
to our notice in another form by an eminent citizen of New England. He says
"The Declaration of Independence is really the full Preamble of the
Constitution. It sets forth sentiments and principles ; the Constitution
follows it with rules and regulations.That document, at the outset,
declares it to be a self-evident truth that all men are created equal and
endowed by their Creator with all their rights; and closes with an appeal °
to the Supreme Judge of the World.'"
We are fully sensible of the value of these expressions in the
Declaration. They prove that the nation then owned her allegiance to God.
They vindicate her right, now strenuously denied, to acknowledge God in
public documents. They show that what we propose is consistent with the
spirit and example of our fathers, in the noblest passages of our history.
But we must clearly distinguish between these two documents. The
Declaration is not part of the written Constitution. Its value is
historical rather than legal. It is a deed of the nation which has passed
into history ; the Constitution, as. a law, is an ever-present act of the
nation's will. The argument which is drawn from the silence of the
Constitution concerning God and Religious against all Christian features of
our government as contrary to °` our political covenant," not covered by
the bond, cannot be adequately met by an appeal to the Declaration of 1776.
[end excerpt]
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
along with the following sub articles found in the above article:
Post-Civil War attempts to incorporate religious language into the
Constitution
* First major attempts to amend the Constitution 1863 - 1880
* The NRA (National Reform Association) and the Christian
Amendment
o The Proposed Christian Amendment
* In God We Trust
* The Dangers of Combining Politics And Religion
* Sunday (Sabbath) arguments and Clashes (1810-1835)
o Genealogy of Sunday Laws
o The Sunday Mail argument (1810-1830)
o Sundays Excepted
o "Sunday Excepted" & "Year of Our lord" (1830-1833)
* Joseph Story: A look at the writings of the man whom some
have styled the "father of religious accommodationism."
o Introduction
o Is Christianity part of English Common Law
o Is this a Christian nation?
o Joseph Story's ongoing war with Thomas Jefferson
o Joseph Story's Commentaries of the Constitution
o Two Views: James Madison's and Joseph Story's
* The Jasper Adams Saga
o Jasper Adams Sermon: Relation of Christianity to Civil
Government, First Edition
o Rebuttal to Jasper Adams Sermon
o Jasper Adams Sermon: Second Edition
o Letters to the Reverend Jasper Adams
* Chronology of Religious Measures Introduced in Congress
between 1888 - 1910
* Religious Measures in Congress 1888 - 1949
* Church of the Holy Trinity v U.S
o Church of the Holy Trinity v U.S., 143 U.S. 266.
o The "Christian Nation" Decision and Rebuttal.
o The Supreme Court has Declared that the United States
is a Christian Nation.
o Holy Trinity and the Christian Nation Dicta.
o Getting to Know Supreme Court Justice David J. Brewer.
The Constitution of the USA
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Now run along. Go back to playing with the only person who seems at all
willing to indulige you, that being Josh.
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> :|buckeye wrote:
>> :|> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>> :|>
>> :|>> :|buckeye wrote:
>> :|>> :|> * Jefferson's Declaration of Independence did not use the word
>> :|>> :|> "Creator"
>> :|>> :|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doitj.htm
>> :|>> :|
>> :|>> :|... but it did refer to "nature's god".
>> :|>> :|
>> :|>
>> :|> Did you read the article or just looked at the title?
>> :|>
>> :|> Do you have any clue at all what his meaning of "nature's god" might be?
>> :|>
>> :|> It sure as hell wasn't the God of the Old and New Testament.
>> :|>
>> :|> The DOI isn't the foundation of American Law, nor is the Old Testament ,
>> :|> New Testament, Ten sound bites (Commandments)
>> :|
>> :|Do you recall your original posting?
>> :|
>> :|We aren't talking about the foundation of "American Law", we are talking
>> :|about the foundation of the country.
>
> Game playing on your part, i.e. you have also asked about foundation of
> law. I have replied to both, sometimes in the same reply.
>
> guess you forgot that, huh?I
>
>> :|
>> :|The Declaration of Independence is one of the founding documents for
>> :|this country.
>
>
> False and you can say it is till the cows come home. Doing so will not make
> it so.
What day is considered the nations birthday? What is the significant
document that established that day?
Not good enough for you.
How about Lincoln:
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal."
The Declaration of Independence IS the founding document for this country.
Have a nice /enlightened/ day.
buckeye
>:|What day is considered the nations birthday? What is the significant
>:|document that established that day?
>:|
>:|Not good enough for you.
>:|
>:|How about Lincoln:
>:|
>:|"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
>:|continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the
>:|proposition that all men are created equal."
>:|
>:|The Declaration of Independence IS the founding document for this country.
>:|
>:|Have a nice /enlightened/ day.
Ahhhh, now you are showing your real colors.
I figured sooner or later you would. I can keep this up forever, if you
like, no skin off my nose.
This discussion is over. You have been trumped. However, if you want to
keep posting I can keep posting this same post in reply since it keeps
trumping you. Only a total dunce, or hard core RRR would pick your so
called evidence over the reams of documentaiton provided in the following,
especially the last two. There is documentation found in those last two you
didn't even know existed. LOL.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/b30d563fb04d8768
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/68a360cce117008a
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/6b795c2e608045a8
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/e38f1176591ebc0c