Holy Trinity v U S
buc...@exis.net
PART 1 OF 9
THE "CHRISTIAN NATION" DECISION.(1)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[What follows is a reproduction of the actual Holy Trinity decision along
with a rebuttal that was written against it in 1911.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ACTUAL DECISION]
(1) The Church of the Holy Trinity v. U. S. , 143 U. S. , 457 (1892)
THE RECTOR, CHURCH
WARDENS, AND VESTRY- In error to the Cir-
MEN OF THE CHURCH cult Court of the
OF THE HOLY TRINITY, United States for
Plaintiffs in Error, the Southern
Dis-
v. trict
of New York.
THE UNITED STATES.
[DECIDED FEBRUARY 29, 1892.](1)
Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court.
Plaintiff in error is a corporation, duly organized and
incorporated as a religious society under the laws of the State of New
York. E. Walpole Warren was, prior to September, 1887, an alien residing in
England. In that month the plaintiff in error made a contract with him, by
which he was to remove to the city of New York and enter into its service
as rector
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[REBUTTAL FOOTNOTE]
(2). The year 1892 was a remarkable one in the history of the United
States, for in that year the national government, in all three of its
branches,--judicial, legislative, and executive,--departed from the
fundamental principle laid down in the Constitution of separation of
religion and the state, and gave sanction to religious legislation and to
the union of religion and the state; the Judicial, February 29, in the
decision of the Supreme Court declaring this a "Christian nation;" the
legislative, July 14 (the Senate) and July 9 (the House), in the
legislation conditioning the five-million-dollar appropriation to the
Chicago (1893) World's Columbian Exposition upon Sunday closing; and the
executive, August 5, in the President of the United States, President
Harrison, approving this legislation by attaching his signature to it.
While the real decision in this case, from a legal standpoint, was
not that the United States is a " Christian nation." but rather that; the
alien labor law passed by Congress in 1887 referred only to manual labor,
and not to professional, skilled, or "brain" labor, and hence could not
apply to the case in question, the conclusion drawn from the arguments
adduced in the obiter dictum portion of the opinion to prove that this is
a " religious people " and " a Christian nation," has been seized upon by
the advocates of religious legislation and of a union of religion and the
state in this country, as support of the highest order, and as though this
was the real question at issue in the case, and the decision of the court.
Viewed from the standpoint of the obiter dictum alone, which, it may be
observed, constitutes over one half of the entire decision, and from the
use that is made of it, this is true. This portion of the opinion does
declare that "this is a Christian nation;" and wherever the question of
Sunday legislation, religious instruction in the public schools, or a
religious amendment to the Constitution has come up since this decision was
rendered, this obiter dictum. or so called "decision," of the Supreme Count
of the United States, has been cited and appealed to. In effect, therefore,
this was the decision of the Court.
And this view of the matter is confirmed by a statement from the
justice himself who delivered the opinion. In 1905 Justice Brewer
delivered three lectures on " The United States a Christian Nation,"
before the Haverford College, of Haverford. Pennsylvania. The second
paragraph of the first lecture reads:
" This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the
world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United
States. In the case of Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 United
States, 471, that court, after mentioning various circumstances,
added,'These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of
unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a
Christian nation.' " " The United States a Christian Nation," the John C.
Winston Company, Philadelphia, 1905, page 11.
This is evidence that Justice Brewer himself regarded this
declaration in this decision as at least a very conspicuous, if not the
leading, feature of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
buc...@exis.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[BACK TO THE ACTUAL DECISION]
and pastor; and, in pursuance of such contract, Warren did so remove and
enter upon such service. It is claimed by the United States that this
contract on the part of the plaintiff in error was forbidden by chapter
164, 23 Stat., 332, and an action was commenced to recover the penalty
prescribed by that act. The Circuit Court held that the contract was within
the prohibition of the statute, and rendered judgment accordingly (36 Fed.
Rep., 303);a"d the single question presented for our determination is
whether it erred in that conclusion.
The first section describes the act forbidden, and is
in these words:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the
passage of this act it shall be unlawful for any person, company,
partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever to repay the
transportation, or in any way assist or encourage the importation or
migration of any alien or aliens, any foreigner or foreigners, into the
United States, its Territories, or the District of Columbia, under contract
or agreement, parol or special, express or implied, made previous to the
importation or migration of such alien or aliens, foreigner or foreigners,
to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States, its
Territories, or the District of Columbia."
It must be conceded that the act of the corporation is within the
letter of this section, for the relation of rector to his church is one of
service, and implies labor on the one side with compensation on the other.
Not only are the general words labor and service both used, but also, as it
were, to guard against any narrow interpretation and emphasize a breadth of
meaning, to them is added "of any kind;" and, further, as noticed by the
Circuit Judge in his opinion, the fifth section, which makes specific
exceptions, among them professional actors, artists, lecturers, singers,
and domestic servants, strengthens the idea that every kind of labor and
service was intended to be reached by the first section. While there is
great force to this reasoning, we cannot think Congress intended to
denounce with penalties a transaction like that in the present case. It is
a familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and
?let not within the statute, because not within the spirit, nor within the
intention of its makers. This has been often asserted, and the reports are
full of cases illustrating its application. 'this is not the substitution
of the will of the judge for that of the legislator, for frequently words
of general meaning are used in a statute, words broad enough to include an
act in question, and yet a consideration of the whole legislation, or of
the circumstances surrounding its enactment, or of the absurd results which
follow from giving such broad meaning to the words, makes it unreasonable
to believe that the legislator intended to include the particular act. As
said in Plowden, 205: " From such cases, it appears that the sages of the
law heretofore have construed statutes quite contrary to the letter in some
appearance, and those statutes which comprehend all things in the letter
they have expounded to extend to but some things, and those which generally
prohibit all people from doing such an act, they have interpreted to permit
some people to do it, and those which include every person in the letter,
they have adjudged to reach to some persons only, which expositions have
always been founded upon the intent of the Legislature, which they have
collected sometimes by considering the cause and necessity of making the
act, sometimes by comparing one part of the act with another, and sometimes
by foreign circumstances."
In Pier Co, v. Hannan (3 B. & Ald., 266), C. J. Abbott quotes from
Lord Coke as follows: "Acts of Parliament are to be so construed as no man
that is innocent or free from injury or wrong be, by a literal
construction, punished or endangered." In the case of the State v. Clark (5
Dutcher, 96, 99), it appeared that an act had been passed making it a
misdemeanor to willfully break down a fence in the possession of another
person. Clark was indicted under that statute. The defense was that the act
of breaking down the fence, though willful, was in the exercise of a legal
right to go upon his own lands. The trial court rejected the testimony
offered to sustain the defense, and the Supreme Court held that this ruling
was error. In its opinion the court used this language: "The act of 1855,
in terms, makes the willful opening, breaking down, or injuring of any
fences belonging to or in possession of any other person a misdemeanor. In
what sense is the term willful used? In common parlance, willful is used in
the sense of intentional, as distinguished from accidental or involuntary.
Whatever one does intentionally he does willfully. Is it used in that sense
in this act? Did the Legislature intend to make the intentional opening of
a fence for the purpose of going upon the land of another, indictable if
done by permission or for a lawful purpose? . We cannot suppose such to
have been the actual intent. To adopt such a construction would put a stop
to the ordinary business of life. The language of the act, if construed
literally, evidently leads to an absurd result. If a literal construction
of the words of a statute be absurd, the act must be so construed as to
avoid the absurdity. The court must restrain the words. The object designed
to be reached by the act must limit and control the literal import of the
terms and phrases employed."In United States v. Kirby (7 Wall., 482, 486),
the defendants were indicted for the violation of an act of Congress,
providing " that if any person shall knowingly and willfully obstruct or
retard the passage of the mail, or of any driver or carrier, or of any
horse or carriage carrying the same, he shall, upon conviction, for every
such offense Day a fine not exceeding $100." The specific charge was that
the defendants knowingly and willfully retarded the passage of one Farris,
a carrier of the mail, while engaged in the performance of his duty, and
also in like manner retarded the steamboat General Buell, at that time
engaged in carrying the mail. To this indictment the defendants pleaded
specially that Farris had been indicted for murder by a court of competent
authority in Kentucky; that a bench warrant had been issued and placed in
the hands of the defendant Kirby, the sheriff of the county, commanding
him to arrest Farris and bring him before the court to answer to the
indictment; and that in obedience to this warrant, he and the other
defendants, as his posse, entered upon the steamboat General Buell and
arrested Farris, and used only such force as was necessary to accomplish
that arrest. The question as to the sufficiency of this plea was certified
to this court, and it was held that the arrest of Farris upon the warrant
from the State Court was not an obstruction of the mail, or the retarding
of the passage of a carrier of the mail, within the meaning of the act. In
its opinion the court says: "All laws should receive a sensible
construction. General terms should be so limited in their application as
not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence. It will
always, therefore, be presumed that the Legislature intended exceptions to
its language which would avoid results of this character. The reason of the
law in such cases should prevail over its letter. The common sense of man
approves the judgment mentioned by Puffendorf, that the Bolognian law which
enacted that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the
utmost severity, did not extend to the surgeon who opened the vein of a
person that fell down in the street in a fit. The same common sense accepts
the ruling, cited by Plowden, that the statute of 1st Edward II, which
enacts that a prisoner who breaks prison shall be guilty of felony, does
not extend to a prisoner who breaks out when the prison is on fire,'for he
is not to be hanged because he would not stay to be burnt." And we think a
like common sense will sanction the ruling we make, that the act of
Congress which punishes the obstruction or retarding of the passage of the
mail, or of its carrier, does not apply to a case of temporary detention of
the mail caused by the arrest of the carrier upon an indictment for
murder." The following cases may also be cited: Henry v. Tilson (17Vermont,
479); Ryegate v. Wardsboro (30 Vermont, 746); Ex parte Ellis (11
California, 220); Ingraham v. Speed (30 Mississippi, 410); Jackson v.
Collins (3 Cowen, 89); People v. Insurance Company (15 Johns, 358); Burch
v. Newbury (10 New York, 374); People ex rel. v. Comrs., etc. (95 New York,
554, 558);people ex rel. v. Lacombe (99 New York, 43, 49); Canal Co. v.
Railroad Co. (4 Gill & Johnson, 152); Osgood v.Breed (12 Massachusetts,
5251 530); Wilbur v. Crane (13 Pick., 284); Gates v. National Bank (100
United States, 239).
buc...@exis.net
Among other things which may be considered in determining the
intent of the Legislature is the title of the act. We do not mean that it
may be used to add or to take from the body of the statute (Hadden v. The
Collector, 5 Wall., 107); but it may help to interpret its meaning. In the
case of United States v. Fisher (2 Cranch, 358, 386), Chief Justice
Marshall said: " On the influence which the title ought to have in
construing the enactment clauses much has been said; and yet it is not easy
to discern the point of difference between the opposing counsel in this
respect. Neither party contends that the title of an act can control plain
words in the body of the statute; and neither denies that, taken with other
parts, it may assist in removing ambiguities. Where the intent is plain,
nothing is left to construction. Where the mind labors to discover the
design of the Legislature, it seizes everything from which aid can be
derived; and in such case the title claims a degree of notice, and will
have its due share of consideration;" and in the case of the United States
v. Palmer (3 Wheaten, 610, 631)1 the same judge applied the doctrine in
this way: '' The words of the section are in terms of unlimited extent.
The words 'any person or persons' are broad enough to comprehend every
human being. But general words must not only be limited to cases within
the jurisdiction of the state, but also to those objects to which the
Legislature intended to apply them. Did the Legislature intend to apply
these words to the subjects of a foreign power, who in a foreign ship may
commit murder or robbery on the high seas? The title of an act cannot
control its words, but may furnish some aid in showing what was in the mind
of the Legislature. The title of this act is,'An Act for the punishment of
certain crimes against the United States.' It would seem that offenses
against the United States, not offenses against the human race, were the
crimes which the Legislature intended by this law to punish."
It will be seen that words as general as those used in the first
section of this act were by that decision limited, and the intent of
Congress with respect to the act was gathered partially, at least, from its
title. Now, the title of this act is, " An act to prohibit the importation
and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to
perform labor in the United States, its Territories, and the District of
Columbia." Obviously the thought expressed in this reaches only to the work
of the manual laborer, as distinguished from that of the professional man.
No one reading such a title would suppose that Congress had in its mind
any purpose of staying the coming into this country of ministers of the
gospel, or, indeed, of any class whose toil is that of the brain. The
common understanding of the terms labor and laborers does not include
preaching and preachers; and it is to be assumed that words and phrases
are used in their ordinary meaning. So whatever of light is thrown upon the
statute by the language of the title, indicates an exclusion from its Penal
provisions of all contracts for the employment of ministers, rectors, and
pastors.
Again, another guide to the meaning of a statute is found in the
evil which it is designed to remedy; and for this the court properly looks
at contemporaneous events, the situation as it existed, and as it was
pressed upon the attention of the Legislative body. (United States v.
Railroad Company, 91 U. S., 72, 79·) The situation which called for this
statute was briefly but fully stated by Mr. Justice Brown, when, as
district judge, he decided the case of United States v. Craig (28 Fed.
Rep., 795, 798): " The motives and history of the act are matters of common
knowledge. It has become the practice for large capitalists in this country
to contract with their agents abroad for the shipment of great numbers of
an ignorant and servile class of foreign laborers, under contracts, by
which the employer agreed, upon the one hand, to prepay their passage,
while, upon the other hand, the laborers agreed to work after their arrival
for a certain time at a low rate of wages. The effect of this was to break
down the labor market, and to reduce other laborers engaged in like
occupations to the level of the assisted immigrant. The evil finally became
so flagrant that an appeal was made to Congress for relief by the passage
of the act in question, the design of which was to raise the standard of
foreign immigrants, and to discountenance the migration of those who had
not sufficient means in their own hands, or those of their friends, to pay
their passage."
It appears, also, from the petitions, and in the testimony
presented before the committees of Congress, that it was this cheap,
unskilled labor which was making the trouble, and the influx of which
Congress sought to prevent. It was never suggested that we had in this
country a surplus of brain toilers, and, least of all, that the market for
the services of Christian ministers was depressed by foreign competition.
Those were matters to which the attention of Congress, or of the people,
was not directed. So far, then, as the evil which was sought to be remedied
interprets the statute, it also guides to an exclusion of this contract
from the penalties of the act.
A singular circumstance, throwing light upon the intent of
Congress, is found in this extract from the report of the Senate Committee
on Education and Labor, recommending; the passage of the bill: "The general
facts and considerations which induce the committee to recommend the
passage of this bill are set forth in the report of the Committee of the
House. The committee report the bill back without amendment, although there
are certain features thereof which might well be changed or modified, in
the hope that the bill may not fail of passage during the present session.
Especially would the committee have otherwise recommended amendments,
substituting for the expression 'labor and service,' whenever it occurs in
the body of the bill, the words 'manual labor' or 'manual service,' as
sufficiently broad to accomplish the purposes of the bill, and that such
amendments would remove objections which a sharp and perhaps unfriendly
criticism may urge to the proposed legislation. The committee, however,
believing that the bill in its present form will be construed as including
only those whose labor or service is manual in character, and being very
desirous that the bill become a law before the adjournment, have reported
the bill without change." (6059 Congressional Record, 48th Congress.) And
referring back to the report of the Committee of the House, there appears
this language: " It seeks to restrain and prohibit the immigration or
importation of laborers who would have never seen our shores but for the
inducements and allurements of men whose only object is to obtain labor at
the lowest possible rate, regardless of the social and material well-being
of our own citizens, and regardless of the evil consequences which result
to American laborers from such immigration. This class of immigrants care
nothing about our institutions, and in many instances never even heard of
them. They are men whose passage is paid by the importers; they come here
under contract to labor for a certain number of years. They are ignorant:
of our social condition, and, that they may remain so, they are isolated
and prevented from coming in contact with Americans. They are generally
from the lowest social stratum, and live upon the coarsest food and in
hovels of a character before unknown to American workmen. They, as a rule,
do not become citizens, and are certainly not a desirable acquisition to
the body politic. The inevitable tendency of their presence among us is to
degrade American labor, and to reduce it to the level of the imported
pauper labor." (Page 5359 Congressional Record, 48th Congress.)
We find, therefore, that the title of the act, the evil which was
intended to be remedied, the circumstances surrounding the appeal to
Congress, the reports of the committee of each house, all concur in
affirming that the intent of Congress was simply to stay the influx of this
cheap, unskilled labor.(3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[REBUTTAL FOOTNOTE]
(3). Having shown that the law in question, as indicated by the intent
of the lawmakers and all the circumstances attending the legislation,
applied only to manual labor, and not to professional or brain labor, the
court might well have closed the argument here and rendered the decision.
There was really no need for all the lengthy argument which follows,
concerning this being a "religious people" and a " Christian nation," in
order to reach the conclusion finally arrived at. The case was proved, and
the argument was complete, without this. This, therefore, was extra
judicial; and. considering its character, coming from a coordinate branch
of a government in which church and state are separate, it is not a little
remarkable. To cite an array of documents and laws gathered almost wholly
from times when, and from nations, colonies, and states in which, church
and state were united, to prove that a law passed now by a government in
which church and state are separate, could not apply to a certain case,
would appear illogical at least.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
buc...@exis.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[BACK TO THE ACTUAL DECISION]
can be imputed to any legislation, State or national, because this is a
religious people.(4)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[REBUTTAL FOOTNOTE]
(4). Because a people are religious is no reason why they may not make laws
against religion. The most intolerant and persecuting laws the world has
ever seen have been made by religious people. Nor because a nation is
professedly "Christian " is such legislation impossible. All the leading
European nations, save Turkey, are " Christian nations" so called; but
which one has not made restrictive religious laws, or laws against
religion? And even in a government like the United States, where church and
stare are separate, laws may be made, and properly so, restricting certain
practices or customs carried on in the name of religion, when those
practices or customs are criminal or uncivil in character, as, for
instance, laws against polygamy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
buc...@exis.net
PART 5 OF 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[BACK TO THE ACTUAL DECISION]
This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the
present hour there is a single voice making this affirmation. The
commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from "
Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, King and Queen of Castile,"
etc., and recites that "it is hoped that by God's assistance some of the
continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered," etc. The first
colonial grant, that made to Sir \\'alter Raleigh, in 1584, was from ''
Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, Fraunce, and Ireland, queene,
defender of the faith," etc., and the grant authorizing him to enact
statutes for the government of the proposed colony provided that " they be
not against the true Christian faith nowe professed in the Church of
England." The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I, in 1606,
after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced
the grant in these words: "We, greatly commending and graciously accepting
of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the
Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine
Majesty, in propagating of Christian religion to such People, as yet live
in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of
God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts,
to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government; DO, by these our
Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and
well-intended Desires."
Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters
of that colony, from the same king, in 1609 and 1611; and the same is true
of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or
less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be
one of the purposes of the grant.(5)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[REBUTTAL FOTNOTE]
(5) The character of the evidence cited in this decision to prove that
this is a " Christian nation " and a " religious people " is worthy of
note.. The first citation --the commission from Ferdinand and Isabella to
Columbus -- is significant. The religion of these rulers was the Catholic
religion; and not only so, but the Catholic religion with the Inquisition
in full operation, for it was Ferdinand and Isabella who, under the
generalship of Torquemada, established the Inquisition in Spain, and who,
because Spain was a "Christian nation, "sentenced to banishment, and
decreed the confiscation of all goods of, every Jew in the nation who would
not turn Catholic. This is ·the first historical evidence cited by the
court to prove that this is a " Christian nation."
It is true that "the establishment of the Christian religion" was
declared to be one of the "purposes" of the grants from Elizabeth and
succeeding rulers of England to Sir Waiter Raleigh and others. But are the
American people still bound by the purposes and intentions of those British
rulers? Does Great Britain still rule America? After all these historical
documents were issued, was there not the Declaration of Independence and
the American Revolution? And after these was there not a new nation
established, inaugurating "a new order of things:" and a national
Constitution framed, declaring for religious freedom, and expressly
repudiating religious legislation and religious establishments under the
national government? What then could these ancient English grants of right
have to do with the testing of the constitutionality of a law enacted by
the Congress of the United States?
Coming to our own country, it will be noticed that constitutional
declarations guaranteeing religious freedom are cited along with provisions
and laws defining religious duties, making religious tests, providing for
the support of religious teachers, and requiring religious observances, as
equally proving this a "Christian nation." Then, referring to all the
evidence thus cited, the court says: '' There is no dissonance in these
declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one
meaning. " For the purpose of this decision, State Constitutions requiring
religious tests mean the same as the United States Constitution when it
says, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office," etc. Even an English grant, one of whose purposes was " the
establishment of the Christian religion." and the constitutional
prohibition, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion," have "one meaning," says this decision. Between such
declarations it says there is no " dissonance." Nor does it fail to mention
the laws " respecting the observance of the Sabbath,"-- the very laws which
more than any others, have been instrumental in uniting church and state
in the past, and been characteristic of such unions, both in America
and Europe.
A REMARKABLE OMISSION.
That the writer of this decision should have searched and gathered
from European documents, from colonial laws, and from State court decisions
from the time of Columbus to recent years,-- declarations so utterly at
variance with the American doctrine of the separation of church and
state--and omitted entirely all reference to those famous state documents,
petitions, remonstrances, and memorials bearing on religious liberty
produced between the signing of the
Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the United States
Constitution when the national government was being formed or to those
other prominent State and national utterances touching the same subject
since then, such as the famous Sunday Mail Reports adopted by Congress in
1829 and 1830. and the Supreme Court Decision of California in 1858,
setting aside the State Sunday law as unconstitutional is indeed most
remarkable. During the first period mentioned the national government was
founded. During this time was fought out the great struggle for religious
freedom which resulted in divorcing religion from civil government in this
country, and in founding a nation without an established or legally
declared religion. This decision passes this all by as though it were no
part of American history, and as though it had never happened. Such an
omission seems indeed remarkable.
The language in which Abraham Lincoln characterized a similar
omission in Stephen A. Douglas's defense of the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States in 1856, in the Dred Scott case, written by
Chief Justice Taney, in which the doctrine was set forth that a colored man
" had no rights which the white man was bound to respect," seems eminently
fitting here. He said: "I ask, How extraordinary a thing
it is that a man who has occupied a seat on the floor of the Senate [or on
the bench of the Supreme Court -- Ed.] of the United States, . . .
pretending to give a truthful and accurate history of the slavery question
[or of the question of religion and the nation-- Ed.] in this country,
should so entirely ignore the whole of that portion of our history--the
most important of all! Is it not a most extraordinary spectacle that a man
should stand up and ask for any confidence in his statements who sets out
as he does with portions of history, calling upon the people to believe
that it is a true and fair representation, when the leading part, the
controlling feature, of the whole history is carefully suppressed?
" And now he asks the community to believe that the men of the
Revolution were in favor of his 'great principle,' when we have the naked
history that they themselves dealt with this very subject matter of his
principle, and utterly repudiated his principle -- acting upon a precisely
contrary ground. It is as impudent and absurd as if a prosecuting attorney
should stand up before a jury, and ask them to convict A as the murderer of
B, while B was standing alive before them."
Though a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States,
Lincoln said that that decision was wrong in principle. and that it should
be reversed. So it may be said now of the "Christian nation's" decision of
1892. It is wrong in principle, and should be reversed. It certainly does
not voice the religious liberty principles of the founders of the national
government. In principle and as precedent it is pernicious and mischievous.
This has been clearly demonstrated by the use that has already been made of
it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
buc...@exis.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[BACK TO THE ACTUAL DECISION]
recites: " Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the
Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant
the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents,
solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and
combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better
Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid."
The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional
government was instituted in ''1638-1639, commence with this declaration: "
Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Almighty God by the wise disposition of
his diuyne pruidence so to Order and dispose of things that we the
Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now
cohabiting, and dwelling in and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the
Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered
togather the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace and vnion of
such a people there should be an orderly and decent Gouernment established
according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all
seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne
our selues to be as one Publike State or Commonwealth; and doe, for our
selues and our Successors and such as shall be adioyned to vs att any tyme
hereafter, enter into Combination and Confereration togather to mayntayne
and presearue the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus wch
we now prfesse, as also the discipline of the Churches, wch according to
the truth of the said gospell is now practiced amongst as."
In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the
province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited: "Because no People can be
truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if
abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious
Profession and Worship; And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience,
Father of Lights and Spirits; and the Author as well as Object of all
divine Knowledge, Faith and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and
persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and
declare," etc.
Coming nearer to the present time, the Declaration of Independence
recognizes the presence of the divine in human affairs in these words: "We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." " We,
therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General
Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the
rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by authority of the good
people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare," etc.; " And for
the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of
Divine Providence, we mutually; pledge to each other our lives, our
fortunes, and our sacred honor."
If we examine the Constitutions of the various States, we find in
them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every Constitution of
every one of the forty-four States contains language which either directly
or by clear implication recognizes a profound reverence for religion and an
assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the well
being of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is
found in the Constitution of Illinois, 1870: " We, the people of the State
of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and
religious liberty which he hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking
to him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same
unimpaired to succeeding generations," etc.
It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers shall
take an oath closing with the declaration "so help me God." It may be in
clauses like that of the Constitution of Indiana, 1816, article 2, section
4: "The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is
most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed
the most solemn appeal to God." Or in provisions such as are found in
articles 36 and 37 of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of
Maryland, 1867: "That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in
such
manner as he thinks most acceptable to him, all persons are equally
entitled to protection in their religious liberty: wherefore, no person
ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his
religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless,
under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or
safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure
others in their natural, civil, or religious rights, nor ought any person
to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract,
to maintain any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person,
otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account
of his religious belief, provided he believes in the existence of God, and
that, under his dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable
for his acts, and be rewarded or punished there for, either in this world
or the world to come; that no religious test ought ever to be required as
a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than
a declaration of belief in tile existence of God; nor shall the Legislature
prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this
Constitution." Or like that in articles 2 and 3 of Part I of the
Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780: "It is the right as to well as the
duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the
Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. . As the
happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil
government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as
these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the
institution of the Public worship of God and of public instructions in
piety, religion, and morality, therefore, to promote their happiness and to
secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of
this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to
authorize and require, and the Legislature shall, from time to time,
authorize and require the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other
bodies Politic or n religious societies to make suitable provisions, at
their own expense, for the institution of the Public worship of God and for
the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety,
religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made
voluntarily." Or as in sections 5 and 14 of article 7 of the Constitution
of Mississippi, 1832: " No person who denies the being of a God, or a
future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil
department of this state. . . . Religion, morality, and knowledge being
necessary to good government, the : preservation of liberty, and the
happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be
encouraged in this State." Or by article 22 of the Constitution of
Delaware, 1776, which required all officers, besides an oath of allegiance,
to make and subscribe the following declaration: " I, A. B., do profess
faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ his only Son, and in the Holy
Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy
Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
buc...@exis.net
Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to
have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the
first amendment a declaration common to the Constitutions of all the
States, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc.
And also provided in article I, section 7 (a provision common to many
Constitutions), that the Executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted)
within which to determine whether he will approve or
veto a bill.
There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal
language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm
that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings,
declarations of private persons; they are organic utterances; they
speak the voice of the entire people. While, because of a general
recognition of this truth, the question has seldom been presented to the
courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth (11 Serg. &
Rawle, 394· 400)1 it was decided that "Christianity, general Christianity,
is and always has been, a part of the com mon law of Pennsylvania; . . .
not Christianity with an established church, and tithes, and spiritual
courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." And in
The People v. Ruggles (8 Johns., 290,
294, 295), Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law,
speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said: "The
people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess
the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule punish at all, or to
punish indiscriminately, the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or
of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we
are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted
upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those
impostors." And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Executors (2 How.,
127, 198), this court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its
provision for the creation of a college into which no minister should be
permitted to enter, observed: "It is also said, and truly, that the If
Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania." (6)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[REBUTTAL FOOTNOTE]
(6). In the case of ex parte Newman, 9 California, 502, Justice Burnett,
of the Supreme Court of California. said:'; We often meet with the
expression that Christianity is a part of the common law. Conceding that
this is true, it is not perceived how it can influence the decision of a
constitutional question. The Constitution of this State will not tolerate
any discrimination or preference in favor of any religion; and, so far as
the common law conflicts with this provision, it must yield to the
Constitution. Our constitutional theory regards all religions, as such,
equally entitled to protection, and all equally entitled to any preference.
Before the Constitution they are all equal." While Christianity may be the
religion of many or even of a majority of the people of the country, this,
under the American system of government, gives no authority or warrant to
any court, State or national, to say that Christianity is the religion of
the nation or a part of the law of the land. See jei- plvr ferson and the
Supreme Court of Ohio on the subject, ante pages f,O,p
zo8 and 460.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
buc...@exis.net
PART 9 OF 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[BACK TO THE ACTUAL DECISION]
United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this
country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in
another nation?
Suppose in the Congress that passed this act some member had
offered a bill which in terms declared that, if any Roman Catholic Church
in this country should contract with Cardinal Manning to come to this
country and enter into its service as pastor and priest; or any Episcopal
Church should enter into a like contract with Canon Farrar; or any Baptist
Church should make similar arrangements with Rev. Mr. Spurgeon; or any
Jewish synagogue with some eminent rabbi, such contract should be adjudged
unlawful and void, and the church making it be subject to prosecution and
punishment, can it be believed that it would---have received a minute of
approving thought or a single vote? Yet it is contended that such was in
effect the meaning of this statute. The construction invoked cannot be
accepted as correct. It is a case where there was presented a definite
evil, in view of which the Legislature used general terms with the purpose
of reaching all phases of that evil, and thereafter, unexpectedly, it is
developed that the general language thus employed is broad enough to reach
cases and acts which the whole history and life of the country affirm could
not have been intentionally legislated against. It is the duty of the
courts: under those circumstances, to say that, however broad the language
of the statute may he. the act. although within the letter, is not within
the intention of the Legislature, and, therefore, cannot be within the
statute.
The judgment will be reversed, and the case remanded for further
proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: AMERICAN STATE PAPERS Bearing On Sunday
Legislation, Revised and Enlarged Edition, Compiled and Annotated by
William Addison Blakely, Revised Edition Edited by Willard Allen Colcord,
The Religious Liberty Association, Washington D.C. 1911, pp 487-513)
buc...@exis.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[BACK TO THE ACTUAL DECISION]
expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find
everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note
the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an
appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative
bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills,
" In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the
Sabbath; with the general cessation of all secular business, and the
closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on
that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city,
town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing
everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations,
with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every
quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be
noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[REBUTTAL FOOTNOTE]
(7).. How this declaration on the part of the Supreme Court of the United
States was received, and the light in which it has been regarded ever since
by the National Reformers and other advocates of a union of church and
state in this country, may be gathered from the following:
In the " Christian Statesman " of June 25, 1892, the official organ
of the National Reform Association, one of the secretaries of the
association said:
" Is not this the time to remember that the United States Supreme
Court has officially declared (in a document that reads as if largely
gathered from the National Reform Manual) that this is a Christian nation?"
The " Pearl of Days," the official organ of the American Sabbath
Union, of May 7, 1892, said that this decision "establishes clearly the
fact that our government is Christian," and added:
"This decision is vital to the Sunday question in all its aspects,
and places that question among the most important issues now before the
American people. . . . And this important decision rests upon the
fundamental principle that religion is imbedded in the organic structure of
the American government--a religion that recognizes, and is bound to
maintain, Sunday as a day for rest and worship."
In its issue of May 21, 1892, the "Christian Statesman" said:
"Christianity is the law of the land.' 'This is a Christian nation." U. S.
Supreme Court, February 29, 1892. The Christian church, therefore, has
rights in this country. Among those is the right to one day in seven
protected from the assaults of greed, the god of the world, that it may be
devoted to worship of the God of heaven and earth."
And just before Thanksgiving of that year. the same paper, under
date of November 19, 1892, printed the following article:
"CHRISTIAN POLITICS.
" The Supreme Court Decision.
"The Greatest Occasion for Thanksgiving.
"This is a Christian nation.' That means Christian government,
Christian laws, Christian institutions, Christian practices, Christian
citizenship. And this is not an outburst of popular passion or prejudice.
Christ did not lay his guiding hand there, but upon the calm.
dispassionate, supreme judicial tribunal of our government. It is the
weightiest, the noblest, the most tremendously far-reaching in its
reconsequences of all the utterances of that sovereign tribunal. And that
utterance is for Christianity, for Christ. 'A Christian nation!' Then this
nation is Christ's nation, for nothing can be Christian that does not
belong to him. Then his word is its sovereign law. Then the nation is
Christ's servant. Then it ought to, and must, confess, love, ·and obey
Christ. All that the National Reform Association seeks, all that this
department of Christian politics works for, is to be found in the
development of that royal truth, 'This is a Christian nation.' It is the
hand of the second of our three great departments of national government
·throwing open a door of our national house, m one that leads straight to
the throne of Christ.
" Was there ever a Thanksgiving day before that called us to bless
our God for such marvelous advances of our government and citizenship
toward Christ?
"‘O sing unto the Lord a new song; for he hath done marvelous
things: his right hand, and his holy arm, hath gotten him the victory...
Sing unto the Lord with the harp; with the harp, and the voice of a psalm.'
"
This shows that these National Reformers and "Christian politicians
" recognized in this decision a national judicial sanction for all they had
ever asked in the way of religious legislation, and particularly in the way
of Sunday legislation. And the fact that within only a few months after the
rendering of this decision Congress passed its first Sunday legislation
(see pages 370-377), and,
that since then over fifty Sunday-law bills and something like half a
dozen religious constitutional amendment bills have been introduced in
Congress, is some evidence of its far-reaching effects and of how it helped
to set the tide in this government in the wrong direction -- in the way of
religious legislation.
And that Justice Brewer, who wrote the opinion, considered Sunday
legislation as vitally connected with his conception of a " Christian
nation," is evident from the fact that in his little work of ninety-eight
pages. entitled " The United States a Christian Nation." published in
1905. after starting out with a citation to this decision of the Supreme
Court, he refers to Sunday and Sunday laws no less than thirty-three times,
and justifies the enforcement of Sunday observance by law upon the ground
that " respect for Christianity implies respectful treatment of its
institutions and ordinances ; " that'' the citizen who does not attend
[church],--does not even share in the belief of those who do,-- ought ever
to bear in mind the noble part Christianity has taken in the history of the
republic;" and that, the American Christian is entitled to his quiet hour."
Pages 54, 55 As well might the Jew, whose ancestors fought in the war of
the Revolution, and through whom came to us the Bible and even the Christ,
demand, upon the same ground, respect for Jewish institutions and
ordinances, laws enforcing the universal observance of Saturday, and thus
the American Jew's right to his " quiet hour."
In this same book Justice Brewer traces the origin of American
Sunday laws in general to the Sunday law of Charles II, thus:
" By the English statute of 29 Charles II no tradesman, artificer,
A workman, laborer, or other person was permitted to do or exercise any
worldly labor, business, or work of ordinary calling upon the Lord's day,
or any part thereof, works of necessity or charity only excepted. That
statute, with some variations, has been adopted by most if not all the
States of the Union." Pages 28, 29.
Every one who has ever read the law of Charles II knows that it is
religious. And Justice Brewer was candid enough to admit the religious
character of the American Sunday laws, based, as they are, upon this
English law of Charles II, in the following words:
" Indeed, the vast volume of official action, legislative and
judicial, recognizes Sunday as a day separate and apart from the others, a
day devoted not to the ordinary pursuits of life. It is true in many of the
decisions this separation of the day is said to be authorized by the police
power of the State and exercised for purposes of health. At the same time,
through a large majority of them there runs the thought of its being a
religious day, consecrated by the commandment, 'Six days shalt thou labor,
and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy
God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter,
thy man servant, nor thy maid servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger
that is within thy gates.' " Id., pages 29, 30.
But if Sunday laws are religious, as here admitted, they are
unconstitutional, and a correct. unbiased, and impartial application of
American principles would so adjudge them in every State in the nation as
well as under the national Constitution itself.
The whole trend, therefore, of the latter part of this decision,
justifying and upholding religious laws and Sunday legislation, was away
from American principles and from both the spirit and the letter of the
Constitution of the United States, by which the Supreme Court is created,
and the principles of which that Court is supposed to correctly interpret,
uphold, and defend. No power is conferred by the Constitution upon any
branch of the national government to make any pronouncement as to the
religious character of the nation.
As Madison said: "There is not a shadow of right in the general
government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it
would be a most flagrant usurpation." Declaring, as it did, the national
"creed," it did more than merely to "intermeddle" with religion. So far as
could be done by a court decision, it united church and state in the United
States, and created a religious
establishment.
The reference in next to the last paragraph of the decision to a
Jewish synagogue in this country contracting with some eminent foreign
rabbi, and the repudiation of the idea that such contract would be void
under the law in question, shows that it was not because this is a
Christian nation any more than because it is a Jewish nation that no such
ruling should hold; but because of the fact that labor of this kind was not
the kind of labor the law referred to.
It is evident, therefore, that all this extended argument and array
of proofs to show that this is a Christian nation was not only unnecessary,
but irrelevant,--a gratuitous sandwiching in of a lot of National Reform,
church and state argument because of the character of the case seemed to
afford a convenient opportunity to do so,-- a revoicing in a national
judicial decision, of the Un-American position taken by Justice Field in
his dissenting opinion in the ex parte Newman case in California, in 1858.
See page 434·
It may be a matter of interest just here to state that Justice
Field was not only an uncle of Justice Brewer, but that both were members
of the Supreme Court of the United States when this case came before that
body.
While this decision was hailed with delight by National Reformers
and the advocates of a union of church and state in this country,it is not
all they wish. Thus, Dr. David McAllister, in the preface to his " Manual
of Christian Civil Government," p.9, third ed.. says: '' While our
Supreme Court in the above-quoted decision has said incidentally that 'this
is a Christian nation,' and while multitudes of our people also say so, the
nation itself has not said so. It speaks directly in its fundamental law,
the written Constitution of the United States, in which it proclaims its
own character. And in that authoritative instrument there is no
acknowledgment of Christ. In that confession of its political and
moral character it does not say that it is Christian."
Only a complete overturning Of the great principle of religious
liberty upon which he national government was founded will satisfy these
American advocates of a national established religion. And when they
succeed in accomplishing this, they may learn, when it is too late, that
they have sold their birthright, and that there are others claiming
priority of rights here, both as regards country and religion. But this
decision meant a long step in the backward, downward course.
In an address on " The Church and the Government." delivered in
the Foundry Methodist Episcopal Church, Washington, D. C., March 13, 1910,
Bishop Earl Cranston, D. D., said: .' Suppose this were to be declared a
Christian nation by a constitutional interpretation to that effect. What
would that mean! Which of the two contending definitions of Christianity
would the word " Christian indicate! -- The Protestant idea, of course, for
under our system majorities rule, and the majority of Americans are
Protestants. Very well. But suppose that by the additions or certain
contiguous territory with twelve or more millions of Roman Catholics, the
annexation of a few more islands with half as many more, and the same rate
of immigration as now, the majority some years hence should be Roman
Catholics.--who doubts for a moment that the reigning Pope would assume
control of legislation and government?
He would say with all confidence and consistency, 'This is a
Christian nation. It was so claimed from the beginning and so declared many
years ago. A majority defined then what Christianity was, the majority will
define now what Christianity now is and is to be.'
That 'majority' would be the Pope." " The Church and the Government," by
Bishop Earl Cranston, pages 6, 7.
But this is just what the Supreme Court did in this decision. In so
many words it declared this "a Christian nation," and, after citing first,
Catholic. and then English church and state authority, cited the
Constitution itself in support of the declaration.
And that the Papacy has its eye on this country, and is bending its
energies to swing this nation back into the fold of the Catholic Church, is
well known to all intelligent and observing men. And that the Papacy still
holds to the doctrine of a union of church and state is also well known. In
his letter to the bishops of France, dated February 11, 1906, Pope Plus X,
opposing the position of the French government upon this question, said:
" That it is necessary to separate church and state is a thesis
absolutely false,--a most pernicious error. Based in fact upon the
principle that the state ought not to recognize any religious faith, it is,
to begin with. deeply insulting to God; for the Creator of man is also the
founder of human societies, and he maintains them as he does us. We owe
him, therefore, not only private worship, but also a public and social
worship in his praise." "Readings in Modern
European History," by Professors James Harvey Robinson and Charles A.
Beard, of Columbia University, N. Y., page 229.
What reasoning! that public and social worship must be done through
the store, or requires a union of church and state !
Regrettable as is the fact, and unintentional as it may have been,
into the hands of an ecclesiastical power holding such views regarding
church and state and religious liberty, was the Supreme Court playing when
it declared this a " Christian nation."
Dan Cyr
about? You sent it to five (5) news groups, and I am pretty sure that only one, or two might have been
interested. Now every "reply" to your postings will appear on all five (5) news groups.
Think, man, before you post!
Dan Cyr
Herman
Dan Cyr wrote in message <38a2d8bf$0$35...@news.execpc.com>...
buc...@exis.net
>:|Do you get paid by the word to post this stuff on news groups, regardless of what the news groups are
>:|about?
Nope.
>:|You sent it to five (5) news groups, and I am pretty sure that only one, or two might have been
>:|interested. Now every "reply" to your postings will appear on all five (5) news groups.
Which particular group are you in. This and related discussions have been
going on is these same groups since Oct or Nov. This thread is just an out
take of a thread already found in most if not all of the above groups. it
was a sub-thread within that thread. I separated it to make it easier to
follow along and keep track of.
I am surprised you haven't seen it before. The thread it has been a sub
thread in is
Re: Deism Dominant in Colonial Times?
and that thread has been around at least 165 days or so.
The five groups are all historical groups, except one and it was
constitutional law or the Constitution.
How can you figure that the subject matter of what was posted did not apply
to those groups?
The information posted was a U S Supreme Court decision-------hence U S
Constitution
The dicta of the decision, which took up more than half the decision dealt
with early American history-----hence the history channels
The reason this is being discussed at all is because another brought it up
in the history channels.
>:|
>:|Think, man, before you post!
I did.
There is not a single NG in the list that these posts do not have a
connection with.
Not that it matters, but i do believe that just recently someone stated
that De ja News defined anything over four NGs as being spam. Others
disagreed,. saying so long as the topic fit the NGs it was fine.
Well take your pick, there were 5 NGS of which I personally only added alt
politics usa constitution to the existing list being used in the deism
thread.
All five are related to the topic.
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
Dan Cyr
Apparently not many, when all they want to do is discuss religion (didn't it use
to be considered rude to do so in public?).
I'd be interested in some of their discussions if it was not so personal,
attacking, nasty, or thought that they were attempting to converse about
history, not attempting to attack or defend some personal point of view. They
have going on about it for months, without ever changing anyone's mind or
convictions, so let it go!
They remind me of a couple of old drunks, blizzed to the gills, standing a foot
away from each other, and screaming (without ever hearing anything from the
other). To drunk to notice the audience, and too drunk to care.
What is worse is how they manage to post the same messages in different news
groups, regardless of the ng's stated purpose. Do they have any idea of the
clutter they cause, or the people they drive off?
Dan
Herman wrote:
> Think? Aw come on Dan, its only buckeye inentions that count. <grin>
>
> Dan Cyr wrote in message <38a2d8bf$0$35...@news.execpc.com>...
> >Do you get paid by the word to post this stuff on news groups, regardless
> of what the news groups are
> >about? You sent it to five (5) news groups, and I am pretty sure that only
> one, or two might have been
> >interested. Now every "reply" to your postings will appear on all five (5)
> news groups.
> >
> >Think, man, before you post!
> >
> >Dan Cyr
> >
Gardiner
>
> Do you get paid by the word to post this stuff on news groups, regardless of what the news groups are
> about? You sent it to five (5) news groups, and I am pretty sure that only one, or two might have been
> interested. Now every "reply" to your postings will appear on all five (5) news groups.
>
> Think, man, before you post!
Too much to ask of Alison.
Gardiner
>
> PART 1 OF 9
>
> THE "CHRISTIAN NATION" DECISION.(1)
> SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Part 1 of 9???
Further proof that Alison uses newsgroups as webhosting space. The fact is that
if Alison wanted to direct the readers to the entire text of this decision, he
could have referred us to a number of websites currently available, such as
http://pages.preferred.com/~tpardue/church.html
But this is too much to ask Alison. He is under the delusion that if he posts
here a mass of material which is available all over the net, then people will
think he is really smart or that he has taken the time to type in a whole lot of
material for our "edification."
I think most people are seeing it for what it is: incessant and annoying,
impersonal and arrogant. (cf Cyr's recent posts).
Any time Alison's posts begin with "Part one of ....." you can bet that whatever
he is posting is more properly posted on a permanent website, and only a URL to
such should be posted in these forums. But Alison thinks that Deja.com serves as
a convenient and cheap web-host.
Unless we use our filter functions, we're condemned to have to abide this.
Freedom of expression is fundamental, thanks to the Protestant dissenters; but
freedom to ignore is just as fundamental.
RG
mscu...@my-deja.com
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> buc...@exis.net wrote:
> >
> > PART 1 OF 9
> >
> > THE "CHRISTIAN NATION" DECISION.(1)
> > SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
>
> Part 1 of 9???
I realize that should some directly address your assertions with
substantiation you immediately feel the need to poison the well. But
you say something below that strikes me as humorous.
[snip]
> Unless we use our filter functions, we're condemned to have to abide
this.
> Freedom of expression is fundamental, thanks to the Protestant
dissenters; but
> freedom to ignore is just as fundamental.
Freedom of expression was a gift of the Protestant Dissenters as long
as that expression was NOT a protestantism different from theirs,
Catholicism, Atheism (which is really no expression at all and that
bothered them to no end), Quaker, or anything that caused them to think
that their little blissful existence was being inturrupted. C'mon,
Gardiner, I know you aren't a Constitutional Scholar but you claim
knowledge of Colonial history. You know that what oyu wrote above is
pretty self-serving. At least I hope you do.
--
Mike Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Richard A. Schulman
Mike In-the-newsgroups-I'm-not-concerned-about-my-reputation Curtis
writes:
>Freedom of expression was a gift of the Protestant Dissenters as long
>as that expression was NOT a protestantism different from theirs,
>Catholicism, Atheism (which is really no expression at all and that
>bothered them to no end), Quaker, or anything that caused them to think
>that their little blissful existence was being inturrupted.
You've conveniently forgotten that where freedom of expression does
come to be established first, it is in the Protestant countries, e.g.,
the U.S. and Britain.
Perhaps your idea of freedom of expression derives from the good deist
republic of Robespierre? Here one had perfect freedom of expression
once one's head sat in a panier, unencumbered by its former attachment
to a neck.
Or is your paragon, for freedom of expression, one of the atheist
republics -- Soviet Russia, North Korea, The People's Republic of
China, or Cuba?
---
Richard Schulman
Remove antispamming XYZ for email reply
PGP id: 0xAFB852BF
Herman
for some to stir arguments or to lure the niave in to circular arguments (I
fell into those when I first started) just so that they can indulge in
personal attacks. And with the level of aninimety that available here its
more difficult to determine at forst glance the source of the initial
posting.
I will admit that sometimes I enjoy a good game of fun poking but I also
try not over indulge in because I think it can , in excessive usage, damage
ones creditibility.
Herm
Dan Cyr wrote in message <38a32f64$0$46...@news.execpc.com>...
>How many people does it take to kill a news group off?
>
>Apparently not many, when all they want to do is discuss religion (didn't
it use
>to be considered rude to do so in public?).
>
>I'd be interested in some of their discussions if it was not so personal,
>attacking, nasty, or thought that they were attempting to converse about
>history, not attempting to attack or defend some personal point of view.
They
>have going on about it for months, without ever changing anyone's mind or
>convictions, so let it go!
>
>They remind me of a couple of old drunks, blizzed to the gills, standing a
foot
>away from each other, and screaming (without ever hearing anything from the
>other). To drunk to notice the audience, and too drunk to care.
>
>What is worse is how they manage to post the same messages in different
news
>groups, regardless of the ng's stated purpose. Do they have any idea of
the
>clutter they cause, or the people they drive off?
>
>Dan
>
>Herman wrote:
>
>> Think? Aw come on Dan, its only buckeye inentions that count. <grin>
>>
>> Dan Cyr wrote in message <38a2d8bf$0$35...@news.execpc.com>...
>> >Do you get paid by the word to post this stuff on news groups,
regardless
>> of what the news groups are
>> >about? You sent it to five (5) news groups, and I am pretty sure that
only
>> one, or two might have been
>> >interested. Now every "reply" to your postings will appear on all five
(5)
>> news groups.
>> >
>> >Think, man, before you post!
>> >
>> >Dan Cyr
>> >
>
>
mscu...@my-deja.com
"Herman" <Her...@monster.org> wrote:
> I think you hit it with they don't care. The NG's have become
sounding board
> for some to stir arguments or to lure the niave in to circular
arguments (I
> fell into those when I first started) just so that they can indulge in
> personal attacks. And with the level of aninimety that available here
its
> more difficult to determine at forst glance the source of the initial
> posting.
> I will admit that sometimes I enjoy a good game of fun poking but I
also
> try not over indulge in because I think it can , in excessive usage,
damage
> ones creditibility.
>
> Herm
It's a difficult decision to make. I've decided that I'm not going to
respond to personal attacks from Schulman or Gardiner or Childress or
anyone for that matter. I do my best to post historical material. New
material. I recently had some fun with Sarpi.
I'll tell you though. Members of a newsgroup can post NEW threads.
Think of it! Isn't that much more profductive than complaining.
What a concept.
buc...@exis.net
>:|Dan Cyr wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Do you get paid by the word to post this stuff on news groups, regardless of what the news groups are
>:|> about? You sent it to five (5) news groups, and I am pretty sure that only one, or two might have been
>:|> interested. Now every "reply" to your postings will appear on all five (5) news groups.
>:|>
>:|> Think, man, before you post!
>:|
>:|Too much to ask of Alison.
Oh yes, Mr self-rightous. yea right
Remember this?
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 07:32:40 -0600, Rick Gardiner
<Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>]cody...@yahoo.com wrote:
>]>
>]> buc...@exis.net wrote in 1/10/00 message
>]> <387ace8e...@news.exis.net>...
>]> ...toward Mr. Gardiner:
>]> >I seriously doubt that you have convinced very many others of anything. By
>]> >and large those who have shown up since last March has shown up to contest
>]> >your theories, not support or add to them.
>]>
>]> Mr. Buckeye, your speculative doubt and conclusion is recognized but
>]> not necessarily shared; how many have 'showed up' for prior
>]> participation in this religion-in-history discussion has more to do
>]> with an estimate of zeal than the degree of general support for any
>]> individual's position. Your inappropriate attempt to influence how I
>]> and others may judge this religion-in-history 'discussion' says
>]> something negative about your methods. Another negative is that you
>]> are among the worst of this religion-in-history group who SPAM many
>]> newsgroups or forums with your excessive crossposting of articles and
>]> responses.
>]
>]LOL
>]
>]Guess this guy knows Alison too!!!!
Mr. Gardiner, you are no better about SPAMMING as my posting revealed;
whether a person crossposts to 5, 8 or 13 groups it is all SPAM.
I also appreciate Mr. Buckeye's likely frustration in trying to hit
your moving target of propaganda.
Cody
Others see you differently then you see you. They see you far more
accurately
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a sample of Gardiner at his best:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=543495546&fmt=text
From: Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
Subject: Re: Deism's part in American Revolution
Date: 02 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <381EE20E...@pitnet.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <3809286B...@deism.com>
<7vdj6o$vkq$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net> <381AF8D7...@pitnet.net>
<381D0790...@deism.com> <381D16C5...@pitnet.net>
<R8sdOMe4mYakgj...@4ax.com>
<381DD960...@universitylake.org>
<nN8dOHAEHlT4Bz...@4ax.com> <381E2E84...@pitnet.net>
<jnelson-0211...@hyp1-043.myhost.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: ab...@alpha.net
X-Trace: homer.alpha.net 941548067 207.250.192.21 (Tue, 02 Nov 1999
07:07:47 CST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: Gard...@pitnet.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 07:07:47 CST
Newsgroups:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.religion.deism,alt.deism,alt.history.colonial
Mr. Nelson,
Are you serious?? Do you really mean to say that the causes and
motivations of a war have nothing to do with the war? Are guns and
strategies the only thing important when discussing a war? Perhaps it would
behoove you to read a bit of John Adams regarding what the revolution
really was
(try http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=144&parent=54)
"But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American
war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution
was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious
sentiments of their duties and obligations"
Adams to H. Niles, 2/13/1818
The discussion as to the ideas behind the revolution is as pertinent as can
be. Quite frankly, I don't find a discussion of muskets, etc., very
interesting; so please keep take such off-subject banter to alt.guns or
something.
RG
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
John L. Nelson wrote:
>
> Back again with this off-subject stuff?
>
> I thought you had taken this whole thing to the newsgroups that would be
> interested. This is a Rev. war newsgroup, not alt.religion.deism or
> alt.deism.
> As the bunch of you cross-post to these also, I would believe that you
> KNOW that this is not the place for this discussion.
>
> Please take it to one of the Deism groups, this is for discussion of Rev.
> War things, NOT FOR THE DISCUSSION OF RELIGION, THE BELIEFS OF THE
> FOUNDERS, OR THE PERSONAL BELIEFS OF A FEW PEOPLE THAT THINK THAT THEIR
> IDEAS, (FOOLISH, STUPID, INANE OR INSPIRED) ARE NEEDED IN THIS GROUP.
> Keep it on topic or go to the correct group, please
>
> Thank you,
>
> John Nelson
======================================================================
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> PART 1 OF 9
>:|>
>:|> THE "CHRISTIAN NATION" DECISION.(1)
>:|> SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
>:|
>:|Part 1 of 9???
Yep, real life and history isn't as simple as your sound bites and religion
in every fence posts tries to make it
What these nine parts actually consist of is the entire Holy Trinity
opinion coupled with an article that was published a few years after the
opinion was handed down rebutting it.
Since you like to talk about the Holy Trinity opinion so much and since you
elected to extract only a part of it for one of your many web pages I
thought it would be nice if readers might be able to find the entire
opinion. Also that it would be nice if they had something to compare what
you aid about part of it and what someone else of that approx time period
had to say about the same part you like so well.
Now I don't expect you to try and deal with anything in this thread, you
usually don't. You just whine and cry about my posting.
Kenneth Childress
<buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
>>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>>:|>
>>:|> PART 1 OF 9
>>:|>
>>:|> THE "CHRISTIAN NATION" DECISION.(1)
>>:|> SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
>>:|
>>:|Part 1 of 9???
>
>
>Yep, real life and history isn't as simple as your sound bites and religion
>in every fence posts tries to make it
>
>What these nine parts actually consist of is the entire Holy Trinity
>opinion coupled with an article that was published a few years after the
>opinion was handed down rebutting it.
Since you poo-poo dissenting SC opinions, of what possible relevance is
an article rebutting a decision? Seems to me, if you are consistent, you
wouldn't bother posting it. After all, it has no legally binding
authority.
[...]
--
Kenneth Childress
Oh, I don't know. Complaining seems to be one of your favorite
pasttimes.
--
Rick Gardiner
>
> In article <38A38AF5...@pitnet.net>,
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> > buc...@exis.net wrote:
> > >
> > > PART 1 OF 9
> > >
> > > THE "CHRISTIAN NATION" DECISION.(1)
> > > SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
> >
> > Part 1 of 9???
>
> substantiation you immediately feel the need to poison the well. But
> you say something below that strikes me as humorous.
Look, I don't mind Alison referring us to the entire text of the majority
opinion of the Supreme Court in the Holy Trinity case; all I am suggesting is
the same thing that you suggested in one of your sane moments: just refer us
to a URL instead of dumping part 1 of six million in this group. Alison's
contention that people aren't savvy enough to use a URL link is very
condescending and patronizing.
> > Unless we use our filter functions, we're condemned to have to abide this.
> > Freedom of expression is fundamental, thanks to the Protestant dissenters; but
> > freedom to ignore is just as fundamental.
>
> Freedom of expression was a gift of the Protestant Dissenters as long
> as that expression was NOT a protestantism different from theirs,
> Catholicism, Atheism (which is really no expression at all and that
> bothered them to no end), Quaker, or anything that caused them to think
> that their little blissful existence was being inturrupted.
Try Dr. Haynes's page at http://www.fac.org/publicat/cground/ch03_1.html
(Or should I have been Alisonian and cut and paste the whole thing?)
> C'mon,
> Gardiner, I know you aren't a Constitutional Scholar but you claim
> knowledge of Colonial history.
C'mon, Curtis, I know you aren't very fond of primary sources, but you must
have a least heard a rumor of a dissenter named Roger Williams? Try http://www.constitution.org/bcp/religlib.htm
RG
Scott Erb
Rick Gardiner wrote:
> Look, I don't mind Alison referring us to the entire text of the majority
> opinion of the Supreme Court in the Holy Trinity case; all I am suggesting is
> the same thing that you suggested in one of your sane moments: just refer us
> to a URL instead of dumping part 1 of six million in this group. Alison's
> contention that people aren't savvy enough to use a URL link is very
> condescending and patronizing.
Actually, posting URLs is often "debate on the cheap" -- one makes a point and then posts a URL that quite often
doesn't say what the debator says. Since most people who lurk don't go following every URL, its a tactic that often
is used by people with weak arguments to make them seem stronger to lurkers.
I think its better to post whole bits in the post, or at least relevant bits, perhaps with a URL for those who
really want more.
cheers, scott
>
Rick Gardiner
>
> Rick Gardiner wrote:
>
> > Look, I don't mind Alison referring us to the entire text of the majority
> > opinion of the Supreme Court in the Holy Trinity case; all I am suggesting is
> > the same thing that you suggested in one of your sane moments: just refer us
> > to a URL instead of dumping part 1 of six million in this group. Alison's
> > contention that people aren't savvy enough to use a URL link is very
> > condescending and patronizing.
>
> Actually, posting URLs is often "debate on the cheap" -- one makes a point and then posts a URL that quite often
> doesn't say what the debator says.
Call it what you will, it is more in line with standard usenet etiquette. So
you throw etiquette to the wind, ok. What else should we expect that you will
compromise? Scholarship?
RG
mscu...@my-deja.com
This IS rich, Mr. Erb. Gardiner caring about etiquette. That is
something he never cared about before. Frankly, it is rather obvious
why he cares about it now. Yes, it takes time to unobfuscate
the "scholarship" Gardiner puts forth in this newsgroup. What rankles
is that he makes an assertion about something and then I or another
post the context of his claim showing he is wrong. This thread is one
of several parts. It totally destroyed his claims about this Holy
Trinity Case. I thought is was quite polite to present it in parts to
make it easier to read and save.
In a nutshell, Gardiner, doesn't like to be wrong. Ever.
Mike Curtis
Dan Cyr
The man never called anyone a Nazi. Only you stated that he had. He suggested that certain people, like those who deny
the holocaust, refuse to admit that opposing points of view even exist, and that they must attack rather than accept that
they might be wrong, or even admit that there might be grounds for error on their part All out offense in an attempt to
cover up any means of defense fools no one.
Back off, and attempt to carry on a discussion of reason.
Dan
"Richard A. Schulman" wrote:
> Rick Gardiner:
> >> Call it what you will, it is more in line with standard usenet etiquette. So
> >> you throw etiquette to the wind, ok. What else should we expect that you will
> >> compromise? Scholarship?
>
> Scott Erb:
> >Here you are being very illogical, even dishonest.
>
> Mr. Erb performs an act of oneupsmanship on MIke Curtis. Both of them
> denounce their opponents as Nazis at the drop of a pin, but Mr. Erb
> with Pavlovian reflexivity also insists his opponents are "liars" and
> "dishonest."
>
> >First, I do not agree with your view on netiquette.
>
> It's neither Mr. Gardiner's view nor mine but that of the people who
> created the Internet. You should be aware of these rules, since your
> principal form of gonadal stimulation seems to be posting ten to
> fifteen banalities a day to various newsgroups.
>
> > I got a nasty e-mail from your ally here Shulyman who said that
> >cross posting to one more group was a violation of netiquette.
>
> >this is an open forum, and I don't see any breach of netiquette.
>
> The email was a courtesy copy of a post I made to my newsgroup,
> soc.history.war.us-revolution. The prohibition against cross-posting
> to more than four newsgroups is longstanding and widely held:
>
> http://sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov/info/guide/Crossposting.html
>
> Some ISPs even enforce it by throwing the extra crossposts away.
>
> >Second, you seem to suggest that since I don't agree with you on what netiquette is, then there can be no compromise
> >and scholarship?
>
> Neither Mr. Gardiner nor I wrote the rules which you are so wilfully
> flouting. Since you choose to spit on a basic rule of civil behavior
> in the newsgroups, do not complain if you find yourself treated quite
> roughly henceforth. Your claim to be a college teacher is belied by
> behavior more akin to that of an adolescent hacker.
>
> (Illegal fifth crosspost to alt.society.liberalism removed from the
> header.)
Scott Erb
mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > Actually, posting URLs is often "debate on the cheap" -- one makes
> a point and then posts a URL that quite often
> > > doesn't say what the debator says.
> >
> > Call it what you will, it is more in line with standard usenet
> etiquette. So
> > you throw etiquette to the wind, ok. What else should we expect that
> you will
> > compromise? Scholarship?
>
> This IS rich, Mr. Erb. Gardiner caring about etiquette.
These guys seem to whine that etiquette is being violated while they
attack, call names, and insult. Apparently that doesn't violate
etiquette. Apparently adding a group to the cross posts and not posting
URLs in favor of text does.
A strange concept they have. I think they want to avoid content and real
discussion by hiding behind some rather bizarre smokescreen about
"etiquette"
> That is
> something he never cared about before. Frankly, it is rather obvious
> why he cares about it now. Yes, it takes time to unobfuscate
> the "scholarship" Gardiner puts forth in this newsgroup. What rankles
> is that he makes an assertion about something and then I or another
> post the context of his claim showing he is wrong. This thread is one
> of several parts. It totally destroyed his claims about this Holy
> Trinity Case. I thought is was quite polite to present it in parts to
> make it easier to read and save.
>
> In a nutshell, Gardiner, doesn't like to be wrong. Ever.
>
> Mike Curtis
No one likes to be wrong. But a mature mind can admit when they are
wrong. An honorable mind will be thankful when they are shown wrong,
because it gives them a chance to learn something.
I've been very unimpressed with this Gardiner character, but I'll give him
a chance to respond with content and back away from the evasions. I
suspect, though, he's driven by religious bias and not a real desire for
truth. I suspect his goal is to tie Christianity and American government
together some how, and to pick and choose evidence to try to promote that
claim.
You know as well as I that history is so full of sayings, examples and
interpretations that if someone is not honest and careful, they can pick
and choose bits and pieces to try to make almost anything seem like a
reasonable interpretation of history. The way to deal with that is
careful analysis and discussion of the claims. Honorable people accept
that; dishonorable ones try to run form that kind of scrutiny through a
game of dodge, weave, evade and distort.
So far, I'm under the impression this Gardiner character is not among the
honorable kind. But perhaps he's just gotten caught in the flamewar
mentality. That's happened to me before, it can get all of us to behave
beneath our normal standards. So I'll see if he can settle down and alter
his tone a bit.
cheers, scott
MacDonald Reid
OH! Was that what he was talking about?
As a "lurker", I had been following this debate half-heartedly. For
sure, I didn't read the entire opinon from the Supreme Court.
Personally, I don't think any branch of any government should become
involved in any part of any religion - and that includes the Supreme
Court.
Regardless, if you are correct, and the originator of this string is
suggesting some kind of theocracy in this country, I'd suggest he look
around and/or read a few history books.
Religion is not nor has it ever been a basis for good government. If we
look to modern Iran, Afghanistan or even India, we see the results of
religions interfering in the governmental processes. If we look to the
past, we read of Cromwell, the Court of the Star Chamber, the Spanish
conquest of the New World and the Crusades.
Surely, nobody in their right mind is suggesting a return to the days
when Church and State were one and the same.
Thanks,
Mac
--
Visit me at: macdon...@my-deja.com
for information on my books
and sites where you can buy them.
Rick Gardiner
>
> I've been very unimpressed with this Gardiner character,
My goal has never been to impress you. Sorry. And, by the way, the way you
have entered this discussion with your arrogant proclamations about
"imbeciles" etc., was even more unimpressive. You are clearly not new to
interactions with some of these posters, and it is quite obvious that you are
not interested in colonial American history, but rather blowing your horn.
For a political science teacher, you sure don't exercise the restraint that
scholars usually exhibit. You would not survive on the faculty at my school.
> but I'll give him
> a chance to respond with content and back away from the evasions.
Like the content you have provided??
> I
> suspect, though, he's driven by religious bias and not a real desire for
> truth. I suspect his goal is to tie Christianity and American government
> together some how, and to pick and choose evidence to try to promote that
> claim.
The U.S. follows the Protestant principle of the division of two Kingdoms: The
physical and the spiritual. The civil government has only to do with the
physical. Therefore, you are wrong in suggesting that I somehow want to see
the Government dictating spiritual issues. That would be the worst.
On the other hand, I would argue that Christianity had a lot to do with the
founding era. That is so blatant that you'd have to be blind to deny it.
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
> You know as well as I that history is so full of sayings, examples and
> interpretations that if someone is not honest and careful, they can pick
> and choose bits and pieces to try to make almost anything seem like a
> reasonable interpretation of history. The way to deal with that is
> careful analysis and discussion of the claims. Honorable people accept
> that; dishonorable ones try to run form that kind of scrutiny through a
> game of dodge, weave, evade and distort.
Dishonorable people also bend over backwards to try to disprove the obvious.
If people would be able to shake off the Christian role in American history by
proving that 2+2=5, you would see alison, curtis, and sinclair in here every
day showing all kinds of mathematical tricks to make it work. As it is,
however, they do something very similar: e.g., attempt to show that John Adams
and John Jay were insignificant in the founding.
> So far, I'm under the impression this Gardiner character is not among the
> honorable kind.
I got that impression from you on your first post against the myth-following
imbeciles in the general public whom politicians must hood-wink with a
pretense of religion.
> So I'll see if he can settle down and alter
> his tone a bit.
I see. You take the high road. LOL.
Hypocrisy is not a virtue.
RG
Mike Curtis
>Scott Erb wrote:
[personal attack snipped]
>> but I'll give him
>> a chance to respond with content and back away from the evasions.
>
>Like the content you have provided??
Looking in the mirror, Gardiner?
>> I
>> suspect, though, he's driven by religious bias and not a real desire for
>> truth. I suspect his goal is to tie Christianity and American government
>> together some how, and to pick and choose evidence to try to promote that
>> claim.
>
>The U.S. follows the Protestant principle of the division of two Kingdoms: The
>physical and the spiritual. The civil government has only to do with the
>physical. Therefore, you are wrong in suggesting that I somehow want to see
>the Government dictating spiritual issues. That would be the worst.
No you want it in the Luther or Calvinistic sense.
>On the other hand, I would argue that Christianity had a lot to do with the
>founding era. That is so blatant that you'd have to be blind to deny it.
>http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
A lot to do with? What is the founding era so that we are all on the
page as you. The last time you did this line you kept shifting the
dates.
>> You know as well as I that history is so full of sayings, examples and
>> interpretations that if someone is not honest and careful, they can pick
>> and choose bits and pieces to try to make almost anything seem like a
>> reasonable interpretation of history. The way to deal with that is
>> careful analysis and discussion of the claims. Honorable people accept
>> that; dishonorable ones try to run form that kind of scrutiny through a
>> game of dodge, weave, evade and distort.
>
>Dishonorable people also bend over backwards to try to disprove the obvious.
Nothing you have presented to prove your assertion has been obvious.
What has been obvious is the out of context quotes and events you use
to make your assertions.
1. Distorted Bradford and Winslow's reason for coming to America.
2. Distorted Jefferson's 1803 letter to Benjamin Rush and the phrase,
"I am a Christian" in that letter.
3. Handwaved away Madison's use of deistic language in his letters and
documents.
4. Misunderstood Locke's THE LETTER CONCERNING TOLERATION
5. Clouded the history of colonial common law and where it came from.
6. Misused supreme court dicta by turning it into a decision
7. Did the same thing with a minority opinion.
I could go on. These are only the few that immediately spring to mind.
>If people would be able to shake off the Christian role in American history by
>proving that 2+2=5,
We are not trying to do what you think we are. *I* am trying to put it
into perspective and in the proper emphasis.
> you would see alison, curtis, and sinclair in here every
>day showing all kinds of mathematical tricks to make it work. As it is,
>however, they do something very similar: e.g., attempt to show that John Adams
>and John Jay were insignificant in the founding.
John Jay took part. I never said he wasn't significant. I did have
problems with him being a key player. I never claimed anything at like
this about Adams other than show that his book DEFENSE was not
influential during the Constitutional Convention. So that Scott Erb
can now see the games you play with those who debate you I explain all
this to the boredom of the rest of the group. Oh, you don't read posts
that refute your assertions. I guess that way your world remains all
warm and fuzzy.
Mike Curtis
Scott Erb
Richard A. Schulman wrote:
> Mr. Erb performs an act of oneupsmanship on MIke Curtis. Both of them
> denounce their opponents as Nazis at the drop of a pin, but Mr. Erb
> with Pavlovian reflexivity also insists his opponents are "liars" and
> "dishonest."
Actually, you are demonstrably lying since I have not called you a nazi.
> Neither Mr. Gardiner nor I wrote the rules which you are so wilfully
> flouting.
These aren't "rules," and I'm not flounting them. It is perfectly legitimate to add one newsgroup to a thread. You are
the one who is ridiculing, lying, and trying to hide behind so-called 'netiquette' to avoid substance. You're not
fooling anyone.
> Since you choose to spit on a basic rule of civil behavior
> in the newsgroups, do not complain if you find yourself treated quite
> roughly henceforth. Your claim to be a college teacher is belied by
> behavior more akin to that of an adolescent hacker.
>
> (Illegal fifth crosspost to alt.society.liberalism removed from the
> header.)
I'm not "spitting" on any rules, and adding a fifth group is not "illegal." But if it makes you feel better, I removed
"alt.history" so now there are only four groups.
You're just trolling, nothing more.
Rick Gardiner
>
> Actually there is a good many principles that the founders adopted
> from the Cherokees. Of course you would consider their religion pagan
> and be ready to burn them at a stake if we let you have the chance.
> Your nonsense means nothing in the face of real facts.
> Now for one small example: the words of Thomas Jefferson on public
> education:
>
> I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for
> the diffusion of knowledge mong the people. No other sure foundation
> can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness. Preach
> my dear sir a crusade against ignorance; establish and improve the law
> for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the
> people alone can protect us against those evils, and that the tax
> which will be paid for this purpose is not more than a thousandth part
> of what will be paid to kibgs, priests and nobles who will rise up
> among us if we leave the people in ignorance.
>
> gee it does seem as if old Tom had a pretty sour view of priests be
> enumerating them in that passage, huh?
For the sake of argument I will grant you the fact that Thomas Jefferson was a
critic of clericalism. But that wasn't your assertion, pal. Your assertion was
much broader. You said, as stated just below, "the founders hated big
religion." Most of them did not, as I have demonstrated, and you have ignored.
> >> In fact the evidence abounds that the founders'
> >> intention was just the opposite. The founders hated big religion.
> >
> >George Washington? John Witherspoon? Roger Sherman? John Adams? Ben Franklin?
> >Sam Adams? Patrick Henry? John Jay?
>
> They all hated big religion and how big religion held power in Europe.
Are you now modifying your assertion to refer to the European church in the
pre-enlightenment world. For, if so, you may have a case. But your haphazard,
irresponsible, and erroneous broad statement, "the founders hated big
religion" is absolutely bogus.
> Once again they founded this country on no religion.
The Federal government was prohibited from making any law respecting the
establishment of religion. However, "this country" is made up of sovereign
states, each of which had the right to, and many which did, found themselves
upon religious principles
> >> I can see why you snipped it out and tried to run away as you have no
> >> sane way of refuting it.
> >
> >Refuting what? You haven't posted any evidence to refute. You have simply
> >asserted an unsupportable assertion.
>
> so you snipped it again like a little coward. Once again we'll repost
> what the little coward runs from
I only snipped the parts that I agreed with. You told us which churches
controlled which countries in Europe. Fine, no disagreement. You told us the
founders did not want the U.S. gov't to promote religious bigotry. Fine, no
disagreement. Jefferson and Madison didn't want religious bigotry. Fine, no disagreement.
Now defend your silly little claim that the "founders hated big religion."
Hint: Thomas Jefferson was not "the founders."
> Here is a little hint for you gardner. This nation was not founded as
> a christian nation. In fact the evidence abounds that the founders'
> intention was just the opposite. The founders hated big religion.
> England was dominated by the Church of England, France and Italy by
> the Catholic church and Germany by the Lutherans. The founders'
> intention was to set up a new nation independent of all religious
> bigotry and religions. The words of Jefferson and Madison testifies to
> that fact.
>
> The remainder of the cowards incidential nonsense mercifully snipped
> as its meaningless.
Mike Curtis
Check >> 1. Distorted Bradford and Winslow's reason for coming to
America.
Check >> 2. Distorted Jefferson's 1803 letter to Benjamin Rush and the
phrase,
Check >> "I am a Christian" in that letter. That was more Schulman
than you in the recent go around. But, heck, you supported him in his
distortion.
Check >> 3. Handwaved away Madison's use of deistic language in his
letters and documents.
>> 4. Misunderstood Locke's THE LETTER CONCERNING TOLERATION
See below.
>> 5. Clouded the history of colonial common law and where it came from.
>> 6. Misused supreme court dicta by turning it into a decision
Just look at the Holy Trinity Threads for evidence on this folks. I
don't need to go back over it. Gardiner's been doing this one for a
year now.
>> 7. Did the same thing with a minority opinion.
This is still in the group. Do a search.
>Thank you for your list. I'll use this challenge as a means to return to
>"content" as so many have been giving lip-service to in the last few days--
But I do see you decided to snip and complain rather than return to
content on ALL of these. <smile>
>> 4. Misunderstood Locke's THE LETTER CONCERNING TOLERATION
>
>My understanding is detailed at
>http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/liberty.html
>I'd love for you to personally show me with primary evidence where my primary
>evidence in that post is erroneous. You can't. You can bring in a tangential
>point from a secondary writer on how Locke was latitudinarian and suspected of
>arminianism by many, but that has nothing at all to do with the origin or effect
>of the Letter Concerning Toleration.
The Locke scholar made it very clear what Locke's roots were on this.
Who he was reading at the time. Then he went through the content.
Whooten even mentioned Milton, but I'll bet you didn't get that far.
Why don't you try to this time.
To make it easy on everyone here is the rebuttal to the article
contained in "Everything in American History . . ." Which Gardiner is
that liberty URL on your web page. Get it? It's a rebuttal. I think
that is the correct word.
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=574997308
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=574997312
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=574997318
I hope everyone reads this so that they know that this stuff HAS been
addressed and that Gardiner is simply repeating the same old tired
stuff like nothing has been said about it. Now what kinds of other
people argue like this? Creationists, Holocaust Deniers . . . .
Mike Curtis
Mike Curtis
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>
>> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> 5. Clouded the history of colonial common law and where it came from.
>
>I've generally agreed with Joseph Story, the American Founder, Harvard Law
>Professor, and Supreme Court Justice, in this regard.
>
>(see http://www.universitylake.org/history/story.html)
>
>Other than that, I think Professor Harold Berman's works are decisive in terms
>of a correct understanding of this issue.
Good for you. But name-dropping is debate on the cheap.
We'll start with the settlers of New Plymouth having already settled.
Based on records it appears they brought no manuals of law with them
until after 1636. (Goebel, 34) We have a group who felt they could
"create a corporate capacity on the civil side by complying with its
own formalities of ecclesiastical association, which looked primarily
to the Bible for substantive norms of conduct." (Goebel, 32) They
brought the experiences of their English burroughs with them along
with an imperfect memory of local laws. They built a set of local laws
based on those experiences and the "Plymouth court records bare a
striking resemblance to those of the English manorial courts of this
period." (Haskins, 41) Not only did they bring their past legal
experiences along with them, as well as their religion, they even
brought aspects of their Dutch experiences with them. (Haskins, 41)
"There were several references to the common law of England, by which
to a substantial degree they felt bound. But there are other
provisions that reflect local English customs of the districts from
which they had come."
They changed law that caused them grief in the home countries. The
laws involving property, debtors, creditors, and the importance of the
family as a unit. (Haskins, 40) Their dissatisfaction with English
land law and with english criminal law and procedure resulted in
something quite different from English common law. They relied upon
and made literal use of biblical texts "in framing provisions relating
to crime provides, in another area, evidence not only of tradition and
design, but the continuing importance of the religious ideals which
had inspired the founding of the colony." (Haskins, 40) I take issue
with Haskins on that score based on the order that Bradford and
Winslow stressed their complaints. I've posted this information in
other threads.
These laws on behavior are Mosaic and the saints did rely quite a bit
on the Mosaic Laws contained in the Old testament which the first five
books used to be the Torah to the Jews. This was a product of various
civilizations also. There was some codification of the law in the
world's history of jurisprudence. We have the Code of Hammurabi, the
Twelve Tables at Rome along with the "primitive Anglo-Saxon
compilations which antedate the Norman Conquest." (Haskins, 39)
One of the innovations by the folks at Plymouth was the civil
marriage. They introduced a legal marriage performed by officers of
the civil government. "Bradford speaks of the practice as having been
founded on the 'laudable custome of the Low-cuntries,' nd appears to
be one of the fruits of the Pilgrims' sojourn in Holland." (Haskins,
43)
Another advance was dealing with primogeniture. As early as 1627 a
visitor commented on the practice of evenly distributing property
evenly among the children. The eldest only " 'has an acknowledgement
for his senority of birth.' The reference to seniority was to the
practice of giving a double portion to the eldest son, pursuant to the
precept of Deuteronomy 21:17, upon which it was ostensibly based."
(Haskins, 43).
Another novel change was for providing the window with one third of
both real and personal property upon the death of her husband. Only by
exception as was the old practice in England could a window share in
personal property. (Haskins 43)
Most important of all and probably as a result of experiences in
England Plymouth introduced a system of recording sales, gifts,
mortgages, and other conveyances of houses and lands. "Stemming in
part from a peasant psychosis bred of years of misery brought on by
the enclosure movements, . . . , the recording system furnished basic
guarantees of security of land titles." (Haskins, 43)
They codedified their laws to prevent arbitrary actions of the state
from occurring as was their experience elsewhere. These colonists
lived under the rule of law. No man was above the law.
So "if we remember that these men were English commoners and religious
zealots, the records of civilization in their motherland will enable
us to effect that meticulous and microscopic reconstruction essential
to the true depiction of transplantation of any culture. Local custom,
substantive as the Winchester measure, pretentious as the notion of
the code, ineradicable as the methods of law administration,
fortuitous as a form of tenure; bitter experience at the hands of a
zealous bishop and his pursuivants, or a stony-hearted evicting
landlord; hope and salvation in the Word of god preached by word or
pamphlet, these things are the materials that went with settlers to
Plymouth and out of which their law was fashioned." (Goebel, 36)
"As in ancient Greece, where the promotion of good order in the
community was believed to give individuals a wider freedom, so in
Plymouth the community was believed to thrive in the right living of
its members. Indeed, there is more than casual relation between
Plymouth ideals and the recurrent statements throughout Greek
literature that to obey the law is to be free. That idea was echoed
and given wide currency by Cicero, and later was reinforced by Puritan
doctrine which prescribed obedience to the law as a religious duty."
(Haskins, 45) This does not mean that all law is religious.
This as things were in 1636. Changes would result in the colony's
laws. Additions would be made. Other colonies would develop local laws
based on their customs and experiences that would be quite different
from those of the Puritans. This doesn't exclude the thought of them
borrowing from each other. The examples cited above show that though
behavioral law was along biblical and mosaic lines there was also a
body of civil law. There was law that was English common law made in
ways that they could best remember and then there was new innovative
laws.
So when one persons asserts that Christianity was a part of the common
law, I suppose one can say that is a true assertion but then go on to
explain what else the law was also. Mentioning only one part is rather
devious and deceptive.
This article was quickly put together from two articles in _American
Law and the Constitutional Order - Historical Perspectives_, edited by
Lawrence M. Freedman and Harry N. Scheiber, Harvard, Second Edition,
1988. The page number I referenced above are from that edition.
Mike Curtis
as algernon sidney wrote:
Liars ought to have good memories.
Discourses on Government. Chap. ii. Sect. xv.
Mike Curtis
>> 1. Distorted Bradford and Winslow's reason for coming to America.
I covered this by showing I was correct. You complained about
reposting a discussion we already had over the same points. And this,
despite your repeating the same litany. I also covered the Luther
letter of Madison's above.
>> 2. Distorted Jefferson's 1803 letter to Benjamin Rush and the phrase,
>> "I am a Christian" in that letter.
This has been covered also and is next.
>> 3. Handwaved away Madison's use of deistic language in his letters and
>> documents.
I covered this and you did the same thing as you did with the Bradford
and Madison/Luther letter, you snipped the evidence and complained
about it being a repost. Let make it clear to you that you never once
addressed those reposts. I suspect I know why. You weren't able to go
further the first time around and you really had nothing new to add
the second time around. So you resorted to whining and complaining
instead.
My purpose is two-fold:
1. showing the new folks here how you deal with history
2. showing the people here how I've dealt with history with you.
I wouldn't have to if:
1. you stopped insulting and discussed a bit of history
2. stopped lying about my arguments and my honesty
Now. On to the Jefferson letter!
>> 4. Misunderstood Locke's THE LETTER CONCERNING TOLERATION
This will be next, btw, after the Jefferson letter. :-)
>> 2. Distorted Jefferson's 1803 letter to Benjamin Rush and the phrase,
>> "I am a Christian" in that letter.
>
>Actually it was Mr. Schulman who (rightly) cited this evidence in response to
>the claim that Jefferson considered himself a deist. His point was that
>Jefferson "considered himself a Christian" which the Rush letter proves
>(http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl153.htm)
1. No one knew what Jefferson considered himself. That was a secret.
Not many American's with deistic views stood up and shouted at the
world that they were deists. Know why? You would know why if you
bothered to read both secondary and primary material on the period
which puts the why's together. One reason is that deism and atheism
were seen as the same thing. We both know that Jefferson was accused
of being an atheist in his own time.
>You, then, tried to rebuff that by saying Jefferson "modified" his claim.
>Although you probably meant that Jefferson "qualified" his claim, you still
Oh, you are right, in my rush I used the wrong word. Maybe I should
pick at you language? Actually I have far more to do clearing up your
distortions.
>never proved that Schulman or I "distorted" Jefferson's claim. Jefferson claimed
>to be a Christian, never a deist.
Yes, I did prove that Schulman distorted the claim. See below. If you
go use a letter and only recognize that phrase, that is dishonest
reporting.
Schulman:
>All of them but Franklin can certainly be called Christians, even
>Jefferson, as he himself insists in the 1803 letter to Rush.
Actually, this is false. And this is why I haven't much respect for
your assertions.
From the Letter:
"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 never claimed any other."
Now I can go get several historians who are Jefferson scholars if you
wish that hoop to be jumped through. But I'll tell you what they will
say. They will tell you that the first sentence is aimed at organized
religion. This means the Church systems of Christianity. There are
several letters in which Jefferson makes this abundantly clear. The
emphasis on *human* is his own and it indicates that Jefferson sees
Jesus as not anything supernatural or as some son of God and even goes
so far as to claim that Jesus never made any claim in that direction.
The letter you seek to distort goes on and speaks of a letter from
Priestly comparing Jesus to Socrates which Jefferson finds interesting
so he builds his syllabus made up of sayings from the philosopher
Jesus. So Jefferson has a very very personal view of how he uses the
term Christian
Your deception is noted.
>> 3. Handwaved away Madison's use of deistic language in his letters and
>> documents.
>
>What the heck is "deistic language"? If you mean phrases like "the preserver of
>mankind," "the God of Nature," or "the supreme being," then you'd have to admit
>that Thomas Aquinas and Calvin also frequently used deistic language. That would
>not, however, say anything at all about them being deists.
I covered this now and you chose to complain and not to reply.
>> 4. Misunderstood Locke's THE LETTER CONCERNING TOLERATION
>
>My understanding is detailed at
>http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/liberty.html
>
>I'd love for you to personally show me with primary evidence where my primary
>evidence in that post is erroneous. You can't. You can bring in a tangential
>point from a secondary writer on how Locke was latitudinarian and suspected of
>arminianism by many, but that has nothing at all to do with the origin or effect
>of the Letter Concerning Toleration.
>
>> 5. Clouded the history of colonial common law and where it came from.
>
>I've generally agreed with Joseph Story, the American Founder, Harvard Law
>Professor, and Supreme Court Justice, in this regard.
>
>(see http://www.universitylake.org/history/story.html)
>
>Other than that, I think Professor Harold Berman's works are decisive in terms
>of a correct understanding of this issue.
>
>> 6. Misused supreme court dicta by turning it into a decision
>
>Brewer's reflections upon the early history of America were part of the Majority
>Opinion of the Supreme Court in a particular case.
>http://pages.preferred.com/~tpardue/church.html
>
>A Court's "opinion" is its judgment and decision. As alison has stated numerous
>times in his multiple posts, a Supreme Court "opinion" and a Supreme Court
>"decision" are used interchangeably.
>
>Again, you are simply wrong in denying that Brewer's history was included in the
>opinion/decision of the court.
>
>> 7. Did the same thing with a minority opinion.
>
>Although it is dangerous to assume, I imagine you are referring to the Rehquist
>reference in which he suggested abandoning Jefferson's private correspondence as
>a legally binding document.
>
>If you look closely at the context in which I cited Rehnquist, I was not trying
>to make a "legal" case whatsoever, but rather a historical point. Rehnquist does
>have a solid repuation as a legal historian, and his judgment about Jefferson's
>correspondence as a historical matter is as valuable as the next scholar's.
>
>> I could go on. These are only the few that immediately spring to mind.
>
>How about setting forth direct evidence before you "go on."
>
>> So that Scott Erb
>> can now see the games you play with those who debate you I explain all
>> this to the boredom of the rest of the group. Oh, you don't read posts
>> that refute your assertions. I guess that way your world remains all
>> warm and fuzzy.
>
>I have read almost all of your posts, for you tend to be more interested in a
>dialogue than your buddy alison who, you'd have to admit, is a one-man-monologue
>and a skipping record. If you dare to say you read (and reread and reread) all
>of the "part 1 of 300" posts he makes and remakes to this group, you are lying.
>
>I used to generally ignore Sinclair, as he had the inability to refrain from
>foul language and constant "we know who your friends are" and the
>resume'-critique rhetoric which was a waste of everyone's time. Lately, I have
>not seen him throwing around the four letter words as liberally as at first, but
>he still tends to prefer the "you love Jerry Falwell" strategy more than the
>work of a historian. In that light, if I'm in a hurry, Sinclair's posts are
>usually the first ones to be skipped.
>
>I have read, with great interest, all of erb's posts do date; but at this point
>they seem to be headed south. I've yet to see him provide much of a
>demonstration of familiarity with the primary material. But I'm sure the next
>few days will be very telling in this regard.
>
>RG
Scott Erb
Gardiner wrote:
> >
> > When have I ever used the word "imbecile" here? You're making stuff up now!That
> > is a blatant lie you just told!
>
> One of your first posts was a criticism of the "general public" which forces
> politicians to be insincere in their religious sentiments, because they "believe
> mythologies."
> http://x30.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587020701
Oh-oh, I'm starting to really doubt your honesty here. I clicked that URL and found I
wrote this:
" Actually I suspect they were simply mocking the Americans. Obviously it wasn't a
religious war. The ideology driving the American revolutionaries was from the French
enlightenment, they were moving beyond the middle age belief authority
comes from a religion or a God. They often used "god" in their terminology, like
politicians do today, because the general public still tended (as a smaller but still
significant portion do today) to believe such mythologies.ciao, scott
Now, again, WHERE DO I USE THE WORD IMBECILE??!!!!
You see, Rick, this is why I doubt your honesty. I called you on the carpet for
WRONGLY accusing me of calling people imbeciles. You respond by pretending the
accusation was different, and posting a URL which (I presume) you hope people will
think I indeed used the word imbecile.
You should have just apologized. You could have said, "I'm sorry, you didn't call
people imbeciles, that was wrong for me to claim." Then you could say, "I found this
idea that religion is a mythology to be offensive." I would have said, "Point well
taken, that was too provocative, here is what I meant."
Instead, your response seemed more designed to avoid admitting your error, and avoid
communication.
Stop it!
> This came on the same day that "another" person named "Scott," who has never
> posted to this forum before in his life, made a post echoing the sentiments you
> expressed above:
> http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587003117
There I see posts that include a Scott Bryan, Wavle and Buckeye. Now, unless you say
all people with the same first name are responsible for each other's posts, that isn't
very relevant. Still, I don't see the word imbecile from him either, so that really
doesn't explain your charge.
> > The U.S. follows the Protestant principle of the division of two Kingdoms: The
> > > physical and the spiritual. The civil government has only to do with the
> > > physical. Therefore, you are wrong in suggesting that I somehow want to see
> > > the Government dictating spiritual issues. That would be the worst.
> >
> > When did I suggest that? You're making this up as you go along!
>
> Oh my, here we go again.
>
> "I suspect his goal is to tie Christianity and American government together some
> how"
> http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587265039
Yes, but not to make government decide spiritual things. I'm more concerned about you
arguing religion should be more involved in deciding governmental acts.
If you deny that as well, then I'll say "thank you, my suspicion was wrong." You only
denied wanting government to control spiritual decisions. That wasn't my fear.
> > > On the other hand, I would argue that Christianity had a lot to do with the
> > > founding era. That is so blatant that you'd have to be blind to deny it.
> > > http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
> >
> > When did I say it didn't?
>
> "The ideology driving the American revolutionaries was from the French
> enlightenment, they were moving beyond the middle age belief authority comes
> from a religion or a God. They often used "god" in their terminology, like
> politicians do today, because the general public still tended (as a smaller but
> still significant portion do today) to believe such mythologies.ciao, scott"
> http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587020701
Yes, but religion was involved. I see how you could have gotten the impression from my
quote that they used "God" only as a political rhetoric tool, so here your
misunderstanding of my view is based on my miscommunication, so I apologize. However,
I think my basic point -- that they weren't devout, that they were very secular in
their training and thinking -- can stand along side recognition of the impact of
religious thought on traditions, cultures, and many of the founders.
> It is really tedious to have to remind someone like you of your own sentiments.
> If you can't even keep track of your own assertions, don't expect me to continue
> to serve as your personal secretary.
That kind of insult-exit is irrelevant, mean spirited, and totally contrary to the type
of spirit that the religion you claim to be important in history -- Christianity --
requires. A loving understanding is superior to insults and the like. Still, you
haven't apologized or admitted you were wrong in claiming I called people imbeciles,
something you stated over and over. Until you admit that, and apologize for your
error, it appears as if you are very quick to see the speck in someone else's eye,
while ignoring the log in your own.cheers, scott
>
buc...@exis.net
>:|mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
>:|>
>:|> What rankles
>:|> is that he makes an assertion about something and then I or another
>:|> post the context of his claim showing he is wrong. This thread is one
>:|> of several parts. It totally destroyed his claims about this Holy
>:|> Trinity Case.
>:|
>:|And just what "claims" have I made about the holy trinity case??
The Supreme Court concluded
The Supreme Court said
Supreme Court decision or opinion.
Everyone of the above, if left without explanation, implies things that are
not true. You are fully aware of that fact, which is why you use it.
It is why anyone who cites Holy Trinity in any manner with regards to
"Christian nation" uses it. To imply an official stamp of approval on their
claims this is a "Christian nation."
Supreme Court rulings/holdings are not history lessons. They are legally
binding statements of law. The dicta of said cases, which is what the
whole "Christian nation" discourse, the so called history lesson you claim
you are actually using it for is a judge's personal opinion, his ramblings,
etc.
You want to be honest, you would explain this fact whenever you post or
cite Holy Trinity. Why? Because the vast majority of people do not know how
to read and understand court opinions. They tend to think every word has
official and important meaning. You know this. You also know that every
word does not have importance and/or important meaning.
>:|It would seem
>:|to me that you are implying that I have claimed that Holy Trinity proves that
>:|Christianity is the official established religion of the U.S. That is the
>:|strawman which you and alison continue to want to build and knock down.
You are implying that the U S Supreme placed its official stamp of approval
on that declaration. if you were not you would point out that the dicta was
meaningless.
I notice you do not say:
A Supreme Court justice once wrote this was an Christian nation in the
non-essential, non-legal, non-important, portion of a decision he wrote
Justice David Brewer wrote this is a Christian nation in the non-important
portion of a S C Decision he once wrote, and in a book he wrote a few years
later.
I am sure you are bright enough to figure out others ways of doing it if
you really wanted to make sure that no one came away with the wrong
impression.
buc...@exis.net
>:|> 6. Misused supreme court dicta by turning it into a decision
>:|
>:|Brewer's reflections upon the early history of America were part of the Majority
>:|Opinion of the Supreme Court in a particular case.
>:|http://pages.preferred.com/~tpardue/church.html
They were the ramblings of a justice.
Do you bother to point this out?
>:|
>:|A Court's "opinion" is its judgment and decision. As alison has stated numerous
>:|times in his multiple posts, a Supreme Court "opinion" and a Supreme Court
>:|"decision" are used interchangeably.
Playing word games are we?
They don't mean the same thing, as what follows will show.
Also no one who is ethical and honest is going to select words that can
easily give false impressions in the minds of those who do not understand
court the language of court decisions, etc..
DEFINITION OF SOME TERMS:
DECISION:. A determination arrived at after consideration of facts, and, in
legal context, law. A popular rather than technical or legal word; a
comprehensive term having no fixed, legal meaning. It may be employed as
referring to ministerial acts as well as to those that are judicial or of
a judicial character.
A determination of a judicial or quasi judicial nature. A judgment,
decree, or order pronounced by a court in settlement of a controversy
submitted to it and by way of authoritative answer to the questions raised
before it. The term is broad enough to cover both final judgments and
interlocutory orders. And though sometimes limited to the sense of
judgment, the term is at other times understood as meaning simply the first
step leading to a judgment; or as an order for judgment. The word may also
include various rulings, as well as orders, including agency and commission
orders.
The findings of fact and conclusions of law which must be in
writing and filed with the clerk. "Decision" is not necessarily synonymous
with "opinion." A decision of the court is its judgment; the opinion is
the reasons given for that judgment, or the expression of the views of the
judge. But the two words are sometimes used interchangeably.
OPINION: A document prepared by an attorney for his client, embodying his
understanding of the law as applicable to a state of facts submitted to
him for that purpose; e.g. an opinion of an attorney as to the
marketability of a land title as determined from a review of the abstract
of title and other public records.
The statement by a judge or court of the decision reached in regard
to a cause tried or argued before them, expounding the law as applied to
the case, and detailing the reasons upon which the judgment is based.
An expression of the reasons why a certain decision (the judgment)
was reached in a case. A majority opinion is usually written by one judge
and represents the principles of law which a majority of his colleagues on
the court deem operative in a given decision; it has more precedential
value than any of the following. A separate opinion may be written by one
or more judges in which he or they concur in or dissent from the
majority opinion. A concurring opinion agrees with the result reached by
the majority, but disagrees with the precise reasoning leading to that
result. A dissenting or minority opinion disagrees with the result reached
by the majority and thus disagrees with the reasoning and/or the principles
of law used by the majority in deciding the case. A plurality opinion is
agreed to by less than a majority as to the reasoning of the decision, but
is agreed to by a majority as to the result. A percuriam opinion is an
opinion "by the court" which expresses its decision in the case but whose
author is not identified. A memorandum opinion is a holding of the whole
court in which the opinion is very concise.
>:|
>:|Again, you are simply wrong in denying that Brewer's history was included in the
>:|opinion/decision of the court.
LOL
BZZZZZZZZZZ, nice reframe, but false. I know of no one who has ever claimed
the Christian nation dicta didn't exist. Another invented argument by
Gardiner.
>:|
>:|> 7. Did the same thing with a minority opinion.
>:|
>:|Although it is dangerous to assume, I imagine you are referring to the Rehquist
>:|reference in which he suggested abandoning Jefferson's private correspondence as
>:|a legally binding document.
>:|
>:|If you look closely at the context in which I cited Rehnquist, I was not trying
>:|to make a "legal" case whatsoever, but rather a historical point.
Yea, right.
>:|Rehnquist does
>:|have a solid repuation as a legal historian, and his judgment about Jefferson's
>:|correspondence as a historical matter is as valuable as the next scholar's.
He expressed an opinion that there is no historical information to support,
in fact the historical information does the exact opposite.
That does not support a solid reputation as a Historian, legal or
otherwise. (I actually believe he fancies himself as a historian, period.)
buc...@exis.net
>:|silverback wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Here is a little hint for you gardner. This nation was not founded as
>:|> a christian nation.
>:|
>:|It really depends upon what you mean by that. If you mean that Christianity is
>:|not identified as the official religion of the state, you are absolutely
>:|correct. If you mean the the preponderance of the people who comprised the
>:|nation weren't Christians, you are dead wrong about that. If you mean that none
>:|of the principles of government adopted by the founders were Christian in origin
>:|you are dead wrong about that, too.
>:|
>:|> In fact the evidence abounds that the founders'
>:|> intention was just the opposite. The founders hated big religion.
>:|
>:|George Washington?
>:|John Witherspoon?
>:|Roger Sherman?
>:| John Adams?
>:|Ben Franklin?
>:|Sam Adams?
>:|Patrick Henry?
>:|John Jay?
This is your list, are trying to say these were the only founders?
>:|George Washington?
Not an orthodox Christian.
>:|John Witherspoon?
Not nearly as big a "founder" as you try and make him. Not al agree with
you on his role and place.
Madison parted company with him on Church/state
>:|Roger Sherman?
>:| John Adams?
Not an orthodox Christian
>:|Ben Franklin?
not an orthodox Christian
>:|Sam Adams?
What role did he play in the church/state battles and in the founding of
the Constitutional form of government that was created in 1787
>:|Patrick Henry?
What role did he play in the church/state battles and in the founding of
the Constitutional form of government that was created in 1787
>:|John Jay?
Not a key founder as has been shown
>:|
>:|> I can see why you snipped it out and tried to run away as you have no
>:|> sane way of refuting it.
>:|
>:|Refuting what? You haven't posted any evidence to refute. You have simply
>:|asserted an unsupportable assertion.
>:|
>:|1) George Washington was a committed vestryman in the Anglican Church. Are you
>:|suggesting that he secretly "hated" being part of that "big religion" in spite
>:|of the fact that he attended services as often as circumstances allowed?
Shall we re post all the Washington evidence again?
How many times have you been trashed thus far on this subject? Four, five
times? Shall we go for another?
>:|
>:|2) John Witherspoon was an ordained clergyman in the Presbyterian Church (as
>:|well as being Madison's prof at Princeton). Are you suggesting that Witherspoon
>:|secretly "hated" the institution he represented?
LOL, You made the list, you selected whom to include in it.
He didn't name this person, you did.
>:|
>:|3) Sherman was a Congregationalist Deacon who occasionally filled the pulpit in
>:|his home church, preaching on such topics as the importance of receiving the
>:|Lord's supper. Are you suggesting that Sherman secretly "hated" his association
>:|with this big religion and did it all as a pretence for 70 years?
Ho hum. These are from your list.
>:|
>:|4) John Adams was an avid churchgoer who said that "Christianity is goodness
>:|itself to man." I suppose your view is that he had his fingers crossed behind
>:|his back as he wrote those words.
>:|
You have been spanked more then once on the subject of this person too,
shall we re post all of that again?
>:|5) Benjamin Franklin supported the founding and subsistence of a number of
>:|ecclesiastical organizations throughout his life, and he urged his admirers to
>:|attend church regularly. Was he simply a sadist who wished ill upon those who
>:|looked to him for advice?
>:|6) Sam Adams intended that a "Christian Sparta" be established in America? And
>:|are you suggesting that he too was schizophrenic?
Did he win?
>:|
>:|7)Patrick Henry finished his life with these words in his will: "This is all the
>:|inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them
>:|one which will make them rich indeed." Of course, in your view, since Henry
>:|"hated" religion, he was simply wishing a curse on his family.
Henry got his ass kicked by Madison over establishments of religion. the
Christian religion at that
>:|
>:|8)John Jay was an executive officer in the American Bible Society. It was a
>:|society dedicated to propagating "big religion." In your view, he was a member
>:|of an organization he hated.
Him and Pat Robertson would have been great buddies, however, you picked
him for your list, the original poster did not, you list is not a very
complete list, and in no way refutes the facts given by the original
poster.
Jay was a small player in the founding.
Scott Erb
Gardiner wrote:
> Mike Curtis wrote:
> >
> > Let's clear up the distortions that are beginning. This does have to
> > do with colonial history.
> >
> > We've been through this discussion before. But it is on topic so I'll
> > spread it out here so that all can catch up. This includes Nathan who
> > I'd enjoy getting comments from on this.
>
> The post which Curtis reposted here, probably for the third or fourth time,
> could have been much more easily referred to by URL. Instead, we get another
> rerun from last spring.
Actually, I found it a very enlightening post. Can you deal with the points he
made, or are you going to dishonestly try to obfuscate by complaining it should have
been a URL.
I have never seen a poster as evasive as you!
> Perhaps Curtis and Alison should start a group called alt.nick.at.nite where
> they can simply post rerun after rerun on a weekly basis of all their old posts.
>
> RG
Mikes points stand. Your response is simply an insult and a whine.
Perhaps you're just trying to hide the fact you can't really defend your biases?
I'm also waiting for your apology for claiming I had proclaimed people imbeciles.
silverback
<Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>silverback wrote:
>>
>> Actually there is a good many principles that the founders adopted
>> from the Cherokees. Of course you would consider their religion pagan
>> and be ready to burn them at a stake if we let you have the chance.
>> Your nonsense means nothing in the face of real facts.
>> Now for one small example: the words of Thomas Jefferson on public
>> education:
>>
>> I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for
>> the diffusion of knowledge mong the people. No other sure foundation
>> can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness. Preach
>> my dear sir a crusade against ignorance; establish and improve the law
>> for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the
>> people alone can protect us against those evils, and that the tax
>> which will be paid for this purpose is not more than a thousandth part
>> of what will be paid to kibgs, priests and nobles who will rise up
>> among us if we leave the people in ignorance.
>>
>> gee it does seem as if old Tom had a pretty sour view of priests be
>> enumerating them in that passage, huh?
>
>For the sake of argument I will grant you the fact that Thomas Jefferson was a
>critic of clericalism. But that wasn't your assertion, pal. Your assertion was
>much broader. You said, as stated just below, "the founders hated big
>religion." Most of them did not, as I have demonstrated, and you have ignored.
Actually they did hate big religion that is why they founded the new
nation with religious freedom. A new concept in the world at that time
as England had the Church of England and both France and Utlay was
still suffering under the pope and Germany was dominated by the
Lutherans.
>
>> >> In fact the evidence abounds that the founders'
>> >> intention was just the opposite. The founders hated big religion.
>> >
>> >George Washington? John Witherspoon? Roger Sherman? John Adams? Ben Franklin?
>> >Sam Adams? Patrick Henry? John Jay?
>>
>> They all hated big religion and how big religion held power in Europe.
>
>Are you now modifying your assertion to refer to the European church in the
>pre-enlightenment world. For, if so, you may have a case. But your haphazard,
>irresponsible, and erroneous broad statement, "the founders hated big
>religion" is absolutely bogus.
>
no it is not. In fact the constitution is the very proof of that.
>> Once again they founded this country on no religion.
>
>The Federal government was prohibited from making any law respecting the
>establishment of religion. However, "this country" is made up of sovereign
>states, each of which had the right to, and many which did, found themselves
>upon religious principles
>
nonsense gardner, the federal governm,ent is the supreme law and
states cannot violate federal law. States have only limited
sovereignty and it certainly doesn't extend to creating a state
religion.
>
>> >> I can see why you snipped it out and tried to run away as you have no
>> >> sane way of refuting it.
>> >
>> >Refuting what? You haven't posted any evidence to refute. You have simply
>> >asserted an unsupportable assertion.
>>
>> so you snipped it again like a little coward. Once again we'll repost
>> what the little coward runs from
>
>I only snipped the parts that I agreed with. You told us which churches
>controlled which countries in Europe. Fine, no disagreement. You told us the
>founders did not want the U.S. gov't to promote religious bigotry. Fine, no
>disagreement. Jefferson and Madison didn't want religious bigotry. Fine, no disagreement.
>
you ran from it, until I forced you to deal with it.
>Now defend your silly little claim that the "founders hated big religion."
>Hint: Thomas Jefferson was not "the founders."
>
Most scholars will disagree with you on that. Even though he was not
present at the constitution convention.
>> Here is a little hint for you gardner. This nation was not founded as
>> a christian nation. In fact the evidence abounds that the founders'
>> intention was just the opposite. The founders hated big religion.
>> England was dominated by the Church of England, France and Italy by
>> the Catholic church and Germany by the Lutherans. The founders'
>> intention was to set up a new nation independent of all religious
>> bigotry and religions. The words of Jefferson and Madison testifies to
>> that fact.
>>
>> The remainder of the cowards incidential nonsense mercifully snipped
>> as its meaningless.
***********************************************
GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
*********************************************
Scott Erb
Gardiner wrote:
(note Garinder did not respond to most of Silverback's points)
> silverback wrote:
> >
> > Here is a little hint for you gardner. This nation was not founded as
> > a christian nation.
>
> It really depends upon what you mean by that. If you mean that Christianity is
> not identified as the official religion of the state, you are absolutely
> correct. If you mean the the preponderance of the people who comprised the
> nation weren't Christians, you are dead wrong about that. If you mean that none
> of the principles of government adopted by the founders were Christian in origin
> you are dead wrong about that, too.
It means neither. It means that regardless of the religion of most of the people
who originally lived here, the rules and principles guiding the state are at base
secular. All secular beliefs can be said to have been influenced by religious
beliefs, but that does not make them religious or the country religious.
The country is one based on principles that are designed to apply universally to
all, and not depend on religious belief.
> > In fact the evidence abounds that the founders'
> > intention was just the opposite. The founders hated big religion.
>
> George Washington? John Witherspoon? Roger Sherman? John Adams? Ben Franklin?
> Sam Adams? Patrick Henry? John Jay?
>
> > I can see why you snipped it out and tried to run away as you have no
> > sane way of refuting it.
>
> Refuting what? You haven't posted any evidence to refute. You have simply
> asserted an unsupportable assertion.
> ) George Washington was a committed vestryman in the Anglican Church. Are you
> suggesting that he secretly "hated" being part of that "big religion" in spite
> of the fact that he attended services as often as circumstances allowed?
He was also a Mason.
> 2) John Witherspoon was an ordained clergyman in the Presbyterian Church (as
> well as being Madison's prof at Princeton). Are you suggesting that Witherspoon
> secretly "hated" the institution he represented?
> 3) Sherman was a Congregationalist Deacon who occasionally filled the pulpit in
> his home church, preaching on such topics as the importance of receiving the
> Lord's supper. Are you suggesting that Sherman secretly "hated" his association
> with this big religion and did it all as a pretence for 70 years?
> 4) John Adams was an avid churchgoer who said that "Christianity is goodness
> itself to man." I suppose your view is that he had his fingers crossed behind
> his back as he wrote those words.
>
> 5) Benjamin Franklin supported the founding and subsistence of a number of
> ecclesiastical organizations throughout his life, and he urged his admirers to
> attend church regularly. Was he simply a sadist who wished ill upon those who
> looked to him for advice?
Another Mason. In fact, many very secular people who distrust big religion do
things like that at times in their lives. I know of committed atheists who were
once ordained ministers, and people who are avidly opposed to the religious right
and their attempts to undue the separation of church and state by saying it only
meant establishing a religion but who privately are very religious. I myself have
strong spiritual beliefs, though I find big religion to be more of a negative than
positive influence.
> 6) Sam Adams intended that a "Christian Sparta" be established in America? And
> are you suggesting that he too was schizophrenic?
Who said anything about schizophrenia? Again, you're putting words in people's
mouth.
> 7)Patrick Henry finished his life with these words in his will: "This is all the
> inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them
> one which will make them rich indeed." Of course, in your view, since Henry
> "hated" religion, he was simply wishing a curse on his family.
>
> 8)John Jay was an executive officer in the American Bible Society. It was a
> society dedicated to propagating "big religion." In your view, he was a member
> of an organization he hated.
>
> Consider yourself refuted.
> RG
All you do is pick and choose certain quotes or aspects of a few people's lives, and
then try to assert religious belief. A number of the above were Masons. Many
people who go to church believe foremost in secular principles. And, of course,
you pick and choose a few of the founders, you don't draw links to try to show that
these particular acts meant extreme devotion (I'm sure some were devout, others were
simply going along with the customs of the day). Finally, there is nothing to link
any of this to how this country is to operate.
No, I think you're talking around the issue to protect a bias.
It wouldn't be so bad if you weren't so arrogant and obnoxious in your style. That
suggests to me that you are not looking for real discussion, but instead simply want
to pontificate and personally attack those with whom you disagree.
The only response to that is to not let you get away with it -- to make sure your
tactics are ineffective. I believe people are doing it, I don't think you're
convincing too many people.
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
Gardiner wrote:
> Dan Cyr wrote:
> >
> > The man never called anyone a Nazi. Only you stated that he had.
>
> Dan, you are very much like a racist, child-molesting, serial killer.
>
> Please note that I didn't CALL YOU a racist, child-molesting, serial killer, I
> only LIKENED you to one :)
>
> If you see a big difference between the two, you sure have a different way of
> seeing things than ordinary people do.
Alas, your dishonesty shines through again, Rick.
Nobody said you were very much like a nazi. Your tactics were compared to other
groups that distort history, holocaust deniers among them. That is very
different. You choose that to simply play the victim, ignore the reason why the
comparison was made (your distortions) and try to pretend that since you were
called a nazi the other person was nasty and their argument was on its face wrong.
But the point stands unrefuted. Your distortions are comparable to other groups
who distort history. You have to address those points.
> The fact that Curtis and Erb continually liken me to Nazis is tantamount to
> calling me one.
I never likened you to a nazi, Rick. I don't think I even used the term Nazi, that
comes from you. Yet you claimed I proclaimed people imbeciles, which I never did.
When I called you on the carpet for that lie, you didn't apologize but posted a
URL, perhaps hoping people would assume it was in there. It wasn't -- I reposted
the quote from the URL. So not only didn't you apologize, but you tried to make it
seem you had evidence for something you knew you didn't have. That is undeniable
dishonesty on your part. Then you claimed that another poster named Scott Bryan
said nasty things, perhaps trying to excuse yourself by confusing me with him. But
it was clear he was a different person, and he didn't use imbecile either.
So you obfuscated, you knew you were wrong, and you didn't apologize.
Then you pointed out that I had made a quote that created an impression I denied
later. When I saw that you indeed could have taken the quote to mean what you
thought, and I denied, I took the blame for the miscommunication and apologized.
That is the honorable thing to do.
You also tried to insinuate I hang around the Rush Limbaugh newsgroup (I don't --
but posts from alt.society.liberalism often get cross posted there by others and
when I respond so do my posts), which was an irrelevant personal comment, designed
to try to simply attack and ridicule. You complain about "netiquette" if someone
posts something long, using that complaint as a way to dodge the issue raised via
an attack on the posters "etiquette."
> If you don't get this simple idea, I don't know how to put it any more vividly.
The simple idea is that your tactics show you to be a dishonest poster, trying to
promote a point of view over having a real discussion. I think if you look inside
and think about your responses you'll see that. You are provoking the kind of
responses you decry. I think you may be doing that intentionally to try to hide
the weakness of your position. Perhaps I'm wrong, I'll keep watching and giving my
two cents, looking at your analysis and logic -- how you interpret primary sources
(which is the issue at stake).
You may insult me as you wish. That's par for the course in net debates.
cheers, scott
Richard A. Schulman
>> Mr. Erb performs an act of oneupsmanship on MIke Curtis. Both of them
>> denounce their opponents as Nazis at the drop of a pin, but Mr. Erb
>> with Pavlovian reflexivity also insists his opponents are "liars" and
>> "dishonest."
Scott Erb:
>Actually, you are demonstrably lying since I have not called you a nazi.
I didn't say you called *me* a nazi. You seconded Curtis in implying
that Mr. Gardiner in implying was pro-nazi. Here are your words on
Feb. 17th:
>[S]omeone who distorts history for a propagandistic purpose can
> indeed be compared to a holocaust denier, there is nothing inappropriate
> about that.
To the contrary, there are two things inappropriate about that: first
of all, Mr. Gardiner's rendition of the American Revolution has been a
hundred times more accurate than his opponents Curtis, Alison, and
Sinclair, now joined by you; secondly, your dictum would leave any
historian accused of bias, whether fairly or unfairly, of being "like
a holocaust denier" -- a truly stupid, unuseful, and adolescent
outcome.
And you have vindicated my claim that you scream "liar" at the
slightest breath of criticism with this your latest response of "liar"
to my statement that you are overfond of screaming "liar"!
Richard A. Schulman
wrote (to Rick Gardiner):
>Given you lied about me...
There goes the Erb "bot" again. Isn't robotic programming wonderful?
And of course there's also his "signature" Netiquette-violating fifth
crosspost (which I will delete).
Mike Curtis
>Richard Schulman:
>>> Mr. Erb performs an act of oneupsmanship on MIke Curtis. Both of them
>>> denounce their opponents as Nazis at the drop of a pin, but Mr. Erb
>>> with Pavlovian reflexivity also insists his opponents are "liars" and
>>> "dishonest."
>
>Scott Erb:
>>Actually, you are demonstrably lying since I have not called you a nazi.
>
>I didn't say you called *me* a nazi. You seconded Curtis in implying
>that Mr. Gardiner in implying was pro-nazi. Here are your words on
>Feb. 17th:
Schulman, you are a bit slow. Neither of said either one of you
historical distortionists is pro-Nazi or a Nazi. Prove that we did say
so and if you can't, shut up about it and apologize.
rest of the troll is snipped
Mike Curtis
Richard A. Schulman
wrote:
>What seemed really
>bizarre was one of these guys (Gardiner or Schulman) who said tried to make a claim
>atheism led to bad government, and christianity to good government.
Not quite, but but we're still waiting for you:
1) to disprove the Weber-Landes thesis (joined by hundreds of other
scholars) that Christianity, especially its Protestantist variant, led
to modern science, capitalist industrial development, and democratic
republics;
2) to prove that history's best examples of deist and atheist
governments were or are good governments: Jacobin France (publicly
deist), Soviet Russia (atheist), People's Republic of China (atheist),
North Korea (atheist), and Cuba (atheist).
Oh, and I see you're back to excessive cross-posting again.
Richard A. Schulman
(silverback) wrote:
>Here is a little hint for you gardner. This nation was not founded as
>a christian nation. In fact the evidence abounds that the founders'
>intention was just the opposite. The founders hated big religion.
>England was dominated by the Church of England, France and Italy by
>the Catholic church and Germany by the Lutherans. The founders'
>intention was to set up a new nation independent of all religious
>bigotry and religions. The words of Jefferson and Madison testifies to
>that fact.
This latest dispenser of warmed-over turds from the
Curtis-Alison-Sinclair-Erb group comes to alt.society.liberalism
courtesy of Scott Erb's Netiquette-violating crossposts to
alt.society.liberalism, where "silverback" hangs out with Mr. Erb.
Clearly, the strategy of the Curtis-Alison-Sinclair-Erb group is that
since they can't win their arguments through historical scholarship
and the modest constraints of Usenet etiquette, they'll simply try to
destroy the newsgroups by flooding them with nettrash.
Richard A. Schulman
(silverback) wrote:
>Actually there is a good many principles that the founders adopted
>from the Cherokees.
Claims of American Indian influence on the Constitution have not fared
well with professional historians who have researched these claims.
But here's your chance to be a hero. Post your evidence so that we may
all scrutinize it.
Richard A. Schulman
>>What the heck is "deistic language"? If you mean phrases like "the preserver of
>>mankind," "the God of Nature," or "the supreme being," then you'd have to admit
>>that Thomas Aquinas and Calvin also frequently used deistic language. That would
>>not, however, say anything at all about them being deists.
Mike Curtis:
>From Paul A. Rahe, Republics Ancient & Modern - Inventions of
>Prudence: Constituting the American Regime (Chapel Hill, 1994) page
>53-54 plus notes for Schulman.
Mr. Curtis, I read your post carefully. Some of it was concerned with
Madison, much of it wasn't. The material that was concerned with
Madison was from secondary sources. You've simply got to dig into the
Madison Papers if you want to make your case. I don't know anything
about William Cavell Rives. Surely you can admit that if he had deist
tendencies himself he might be overly eager to see them in Madison, or
that, as Mr. Gardiner suggests, he may have read too much into certain
phrases, thinking them "signature" deist phrases, whereas in truth
they had a wider currency.
Of all the so-called founders, I have thought Franklin the most likely
to have been a deist but have indicated uncertainty even here. And
with good reason. I've just been going through David Freeman Hawke's
_Franklin_, a semi-scholarly biography of Franklin that takes him up
to 1776. Hawke, who is very pro-Franklin, gives direct quotes from
Franklin, including a direct quote of a Franklin prayer of
thanksgiving to God for helping him numerous times in situations of
adversity. The prayer clearly reflects a belief in a personal God who
cares for his flock. This is not a view that one would expect of a
Deist, who believes that God created the universe and then let it run
by itself without any further intervention by Him.
Mike Curtis
>Rick Gardiner:
>>>What the heck is "deistic language"? If you mean phrases like "the preserver of
>>>mankind," "the God of Nature," or "the supreme being," then you'd have to admit
>>>that Thomas Aquinas and Calvin also frequently used deistic language. That would
>>>not, however, say anything at all about them being deists.
>
>Mike Curtis:
>
>>From Paul A. Rahe, Republics Ancient & Modern - Inventions of
>>Prudence: Constituting the American Regime (Chapel Hill, 1994) page
>>53-54 plus notes for Schulman.
>
You title is incorrect for no one here is suggesting that Madison was
a deist. What he was not is orthodox in his thinking. That's what the
article was about and what it was for.
Trolls will be deleted unread as long as all they do is hurl abuse.
Mike Curtis
Scott Erb
Mike Curtis wrote:
> My purpose is two-fold:
> 1. showing the new folks here how you deal with history
> 2. showing the people here how I've dealt with history with you.
>
> I wouldn't have to if:
> 1. you stopped insulting and discussed a bit of history
> 2. stopped lying about my arguments and my honesty
>
> Now. On to the Jefferson letter!
Rest snipped-
I'm not trotting out primary material because I'm learning from watching this
debate. What I am interested in, is learning more about this era, I've focused
mostly on European history.
I've noticed that Mike has given patient and very thoughtful replies, and my comments
in response to Rick have been amazement at the way he avoids the issues raised, makes
illogical assertions, and using insult as a means to not answer a question. I'm also
dismayed by his digging into personal stuff -- whereas I've been very critical of
Rick's style and posts, he's attacked my ability to do my job (saying I wouldn't last
long at his institution), falsely claimed I hang out in the limbaugh newsgroup, and
falsely said I proclaimed people imbeciles.
My conclusion: I'm learning more from Mike than from Rick. Rick raises some good
material, but is weak in interpreting it in context, especially when confronted with
other material that do not support his conclusion. Rather than accept that his
conclusion may need to be reconsidered (something Mike DOES accept, such as his
continued uncertainty over how to assess Jay's role), Rick attacks those who don't
agree.
My conclusion so far is Mike has shown intellectual integrity; I doubt Rick's.
But I'll keep my eyes open and try to learn more from all of you. You know more
about primary sources of this history, but as a social scientist who understands some
historiography, I believe I can comment on the nature of the debate and
analysis/interpretation.
cheers, scott
silverback
<RichardAS...@att.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 05:59:02 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com
>(silverback) wrote:
>
>>Actually there is a good many principles that the founders adopted
>>from the Cherokees.
>
>Claims of American Indian influence on the Constitution have not fared
>well with professional historians who have researched these claims.
>But here's your chance to be a hero. Post your evidence so that we may
>all scrutinize it.
still trying to revise history. Actually as time goes on even more
influence from the AMerican Indian surfaces.
>---
>Richard Schulman
>Remove antispamming XYZ for email reply
>PGP id: 0xAFB852BF
***********************************************
Gardiner
>
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 08:00:22 -0600, Rick Gardiner
> <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >For the sake of argument I will grant you the fact that Thomas Jefferson was a
> >critic of clericalism. But that wasn't your assertion, pal. Your assertion was
> >much broader. You said, as stated just below, "the founders hated big
> >religion." Most of them did not, as I have demonstrated, and you have ignored.
>
> Actually they did hate big religion that is why they founded the new
> nation with religious freedom.
I wonder if that's why Madison got all excited about the fact that his views on
"freedom of religion" had increased "big church membership" in the 19th century?
Perhaps alison can inform you on that score.
> >Are you now modifying your assertion to refer to the European church in the
> >pre-enlightenment world. For, if so, you may have a case. But your haphazard,
> >irresponsible, and erroneous broad statement, "the founders hated big
> >religion" is absolutely bogus.
>
> no it is not. In fact the constitution is the very proof of that.\
Please indicate where the Constitution indicates a hatred for large religions.
> >The Federal government was prohibited from making any law respecting the
> >establishment of religion. However, "this country" is made up of sovereign
> >states, each of which had the right to, and many which did, found themselves
> >upon religious principles
>
> nonsense gardner, the federal governm,ent is the supreme law and
> states cannot violate federal law. States have only limited
> sovereignty and it certainly doesn't extend to creating a state
> religion.
You are simply in error.
The Massachusetts Constitution contained the following long after the U.S.
Constitution was ratified:
"As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil
government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these
cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the
public worship of GOD, and of public instructions in piety, religion and
morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and
preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right
to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the
legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns,
parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, to make
suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public
worship of GOD, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant
teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision
shall not be made voluntarily."
In the 1860's, as a result of the Republican measures of Lincoln & friends, the
14th amendment had important ramifications upon the perview of the 1st. But your
assertion that states did not have establishments is equal in its accuracy to
your statement that the founders hated big religion.
> >Now defend your silly little claim that the "founders hated big religion."
> >Hint: Thomas Jefferson was not "the founders."
>
> Most scholars will disagree with you on that. Even though he was not
> present at the constitution convention.
Please read carefully what I wrote. Thomas Jefferson was not the founderS, he
was a founder. The founders' views of religion are not summed up in Jefferson's
views.
RG
silverback
<RichardAS...@att.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 00:07:40 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com
>(silverback) wrote:
>
>>Here is a little hint for you gardner. This nation was not founded as
>>a christian nation. In fact the evidence abounds that the founders'
>>intention was just the opposite. The founders hated big religion.
>>England was dominated by the Church of England, France and Italy by
>>the Catholic church and Germany by the Lutherans. The founders'
>>intention was to set up a new nation independent of all religious
>>bigotry and religions. The words of Jefferson and Madison testifies to
>>that fact.
>
>This latest dispenser of warmed-over turds from the
>Curtis-Alison-Sinclair-Erb group comes to alt.society.liberalism
>courtesy of Scott Erb's Netiquette-violating crossposts to
>alt.society.liberalism, where "silverback" hangs out with Mr. Erb.
Translation, we're using his sorry ass to mop up the floor over here
and tidy the place up a bit. You noticed how he didn't even bother to
try and refute my points. He knows he would sound like a idiot if he
did so. Thats whats got his shorts in a knot.
>
>Clearly, the strategy of the Curtis-Alison-Sinclair-Erb group is that
>since they can't win their arguments through historical scholarship
>and the modest constraints of Usenet etiquette, they'll simply try to
>destroy the newsgroups by flooding them with nettrash.
the only nettrash is you sewer rat.
silverback
<RichardAS...@att.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 18:20:06 -0500, Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>What seemed really
>>bizarre was one of these guys (Gardiner or Schulman) who said tried to make a claim
>>atheism led to bad government, and christianity to good government.
>
>Not quite, but but we're still waiting for you:
>
>1) to disprove the Weber-Landes thesis (joined by hundreds of other
>scholars) that Christianity, especially its Protestantist variant, led
>to modern science, capitalist industrial development, and democratic
>republics;
no religion especially any form of christianity has only been a
deterent to science. it was religion that said the earth was flat even
after an abundance of evidence suggesting that the Egyptians had
travel into the Altantic.
It was religion that insisted that the earth was the center of the
universe.
It was religion that still claims evolution is wrong.
It was religion that prevented fetus tissue from being used in
research.
its religion that wants to ban birth control in the fight agaisnt the
single greatest problem in the wrold, over population.
There is nothing democratic about religion or any theology.
>
>2) to prove that history's best examples of deist and atheist
>governments were or are good governments: Jacobin France (publicly
>deist), Soviet Russia (atheist), People's Republic of China (atheist),
>North Korea (atheist), and Cuba (atheist).
Nazi Germany Christian
any of the third world fascist hellholes in Central and South America
----christian nations every single last one of them.
South Korea---quasi fascist government--christian for a large part
More people have been killed in wars due to religion than any other
single cause.
>
>Oh, and I see you're back to excessive cross-posting again.
Gardiner
I am going to go out on a limb and trust that you are willing to be fair,
reasonable, and common sensical in admitting what occurred here.
Here are the facts and the extent of the "mistakes" that you and I have both
made.
1) On Feb 17 two new participants entered the fray in alt.history.colonial
2) Both were making very similar, almost mirrored, statements on that same day:
-"They [the founders] often used 'god' in their terminology, like politicians do
today, because the general public still tended (as a smaller but still
significant portion do today) to believe such mythologies"
http://x30.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587020701
AND
-"if one or all of our founding fathers suspected religion was the crock of shit
we know it to be today they still would have had to pay lip service to it. Just
as modern politicians must appease the same cowards and imbeciles too timorous
to accept their own mortality today."
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587003117
3) Both of these posters were named Scott, but neither had ever been seen in
this group before.
4) Two Scotts, both new, same day, saying the same thing--a coincidence which
made it very easy for anyone to inadvertantly conflate the two into one.
5) In retrospect, it does seem that these were two different-new-Scotts who were
saying the same thing and I mistakingly attributed to you a word "imbecile"
which the other scott used, but your post implied.
Now here is the irresponsible behavior you have been exhibiting, but have not
yet fessed up to.
1) The "other" scott indeed did use the word "imbeciles," but you have
persistently and repeatedly denied that he did in your lashing out at me. An
apology is in order.
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587003117
2) All day long in post after post after post you have stated "Gardiner STILL
refuses to admit and apologize." You said it in three posts in a row, as if I
had been reading each and every one as you posted them, and simply ignored them
all. Throughout the day today, however, I was not reading newsgroups, but rather
attending school and church functions. This is the first time I have had a
chance to adequately address your misunderstanding of my misunderstanding.
So it is done. We have both proven to be capable of missing something in a post.
I missed the differences in last names which was right in front of my face, and
you missed the word "imbeciles" which was right in front of yours.
As far as I'm concerned, let's move on. If you're like curtis, im sure you'll
continue to ride this horse and milk it for all its worth. that's your choice.
this kind of banter is not at all informative to those who lurk these groups to
follow interesting and substantive conversations about history.
RG
Gardiner
>
> regardless of the religion of most of the people
> who originally lived here, the rules and principles guiding the state are at base
> secular.
You have stated that more than once. Are you planning to provide any evidence
for the assertion or do you claim to have the power of pontification?
> > Refuting what? You haven't posted any evidence to refute. You have simply
> > asserted an unsupportable assertion.
>
> > ) George Washington was a committed vestryman in the Anglican Church. Are you
> > suggesting that he secretly "hated" being part of that "big religion" in spite
> > of the fact that he attended services as often as circumstances allowed?
>
> He was also a Mason.
You have claimed that you are a skilled critique of logic. If that is truly the
case you will recognize that your assertion here is a red herring.
The original poster (silverback) has asserted that the founders hated big
religion. I have reminded silverback that washington was a routine contributor
to "big religion," which would seem to directly counter his assertion regarding
washington's hatred of big religion.
Now you have asserted that washington was a mason, which i do not dispute; but
how it is relevant to supporting silverback's claim that the founders hated big
religion is not apparent.
Are you claiming that masons inherently were haters of big religion? You'll have
to support that with some evidence, if so, because that is not my understanding
of mason doctrine.
On the other hand, if you were not really trying to support silverback's bogus
assertion that the founders hated big religion, but rather attempting to
redirect the conversation down an entirely different road, please do it in a
different thread so that the logic of this thread can be explored to its
completion without a diversionary attempt to rescue silverback's unsupportable
claim.
> > 2) John Witherspoon was an ordained clergyman in the Presbyterian Church (as
> > well as being Madison's prof at Princeton). Are you suggesting that Witherspoon
> > secretly "hated" the institution he represented?
>
> > 3) Sherman was a Congregationalist Deacon who occasionally filled the pulpit in
> > his home church, preaching on such topics as the importance of receiving the
> > Lord's supper. Are you suggesting that Sherman secretly "hated" his association
> > with this big religion and did it all as a pretence for 70 years?
>
> > 4) John Adams was an avid churchgoer who said that "Christianity is goodness
> > itself to man." I suppose your view is that he had his fingers crossed behind
> > his back as he wrote those words.
> >
> > 5) Benjamin Franklin supported the founding and subsistence of a number of
> > ecclesiastical organizations throughout his life, and he urged his admirers to
> > attend church regularly. Was he simply a sadist who wished ill upon those who
> > looked to him for advice?
>
> Another Mason. In fact, many very secular people who distrust big religion do
> things like that at times in their lives. I know of committed atheists who were
> once ordained ministers, and people who are avidly opposed to the religious right
> and their attempts to undue the separation of church and state by saying it only
> meant establishing a religion but who privately are very religious. I myself have
> strong spiritual beliefs, though I find big religion to be more of a negative than
> positive influence.
Are you mind-reading with regard to the founders, or do you have any evidence
that they were engaging in double-talk and a pretense of support of religious
institutions?
> > 6) Sam Adams intended that a "Christian Sparta" be established in America? And
> > are you suggesting that he too was schizophrenic?
>
> Who said anything about schizophrenia? Again, you're putting words in people's
> mouth.
Silverback said the founders hated big religion. If Adams wanted America to be
one big Christian country, he must have been schizophrenic--attempting to create
that which he hated.
> All you do is pick and choose certain quotes or aspects of a few people's lives, and
> then try to assert religious belief.
It's more than just an isolated few quotes (see
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html)
> A number of the above were Masons.
No disagreement here.
> Many
> people who go to church believe foremost in secular principles. And, of course,
> you pick and choose a few of the founders,
Which ones would you suggest we consider?
> you don't draw links to try to show that
> these particular acts meant extreme devotion
Who is alleging any "extreme devotion"?? I'm just refuting the assertion that
they hated religion.
> (I'm sure some were devout, others were
> simply going along with the customs of the day). Finally, there is nothing to link
> any of this to how this country is to operate.
That was not the focus of this thread. The focus of my posting was not to build
an argument that the principles upon which the U.S. was founded were derived
from Christianity (I have done that elsewhere), the purpose of this thread was
simply to refute silverback's sloppy unqualified assertion that the founders
hated big religion.
I succeeded, and now you are beginning to really make yourself look dumb by
trying to rescue silverback.
> No, I think you're talking around the issue to protect a bias.
At least you admit that it is only what you think. You are entitled to your
opinion.
> It wouldn't be so bad if you weren't so arrogant and obnoxious in your style. That
> suggests to me that you are not looking for real discussion, but instead simply want
> to pontificate and personally attack those with whom you disagree.
I've looked at some of your posts in alt.rush-limbaugh. It's the same old song:
Erb the "tactic patrol." Very little contributions of substance, but a whole lot
of bantering about who is the worst insulter, who uses what kind of tactics,
yada yada yada.
Please take it elsewhere.
> The only response to that is to not let you get away with it -- to make sure your
> tactics are ineffective.
So that's basically your game isn't it? You really don't give a hoot about
historical conversation, you just want to be "tactic patrol," the self appointed
arbiter of matters you know not of.
If you choose to stay around in this role alone, blessings to you; but don't
expect much attention from those who aren't interested in the ideological
jousting which you are accustomed to in alt.rush-limbaugh
RG
Gardiner
>
> Schulman, you are a bit slow. Neither of said either one of you
> historical distortionists is pro-Nazi or a Nazi. Prove that we did say
> so and if you can't, shut up about it and apologize.
You know curtis, you are very much like a massive pile of pig exrement on the
floor of the barn.
Please notice that I didn't say that you ARE a massive pile of pig excrement on
the floor of the barn.
Hopefully this illustrates the silly games you are playing by denying your
liberal use of the "Nazi" label which you have done in this context for months
upon months upon months.
RG
Gardiner
>
> My conclusion so far is Mike has shown intellectual integrity; I doubt Rick's.
Perhaps what I need to to to earn your favor is to start haphazardly throwing
the "nazi" label at anyone who disagrees with me. That is "integrity" in your
book. LOL.
RG
Gardiner
>
>
> Alas, your dishonesty shines through again, Rick.
> Nobody said you were very much like a nazi. Your tactics were compared to other
> groups that distort history, holocaust deniers among them. That is very
> different. You choose that to simply play the victim, ignore the reason why the
> comparison was made (your distortions) and try to pretend that since you were
> called a nazi the other person was nasty and their argument was on its face wrong.
>
> But the point stands unrefuted. Your distortions are comparable to other groups
> who distort history. You have to address those points.
>
> > The fact that Curtis and Erb continually liken me to Nazis is tantamount to
> > calling me one.
>
> I never likened you to a nazi, Rick. I don't think I even used the term Nazi, that
> comes from you.
Granted, I am not a WWII scholar, but I do recall that Rudolph Hoess was a Nazi.
Curtis made the analogy of me to Hoess
http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=586387686
And within a few hours you were defending this desperate approach
http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587094241
This is really getting extremely boring. I think this is about as relevant to
American history as Sinclair's analysis of my resume, or of Danaher's denial of
the Hebrew Herems.
I think I'm going to follow Schulman's lead and take a week vacation until the
scum and residue which has recently found (was baited?) its way into this forum
gets flushed. Perhaps the thing to do is for those of us who are interested in
Colonial america to take our conversation into the group that these bottom
feeders have abandoned to bring their smut here, i think it was something like
alt.inflammatory.rush-limbaugh
We'll just do a swap of groups.
silverback
wrote:
>silverback wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 08:00:22 -0600, Rick Gardiner
>> <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >For the sake of argument I will grant you the fact that Thomas Jefferson was a
>> >critic of clericalism. But that wasn't your assertion, pal. Your assertion was
>> >much broader. You said, as stated just below, "the founders hated big
>> >religion." Most of them did not, as I have demonstrated, and you have ignored.
>>
>> Actually they did hate big religion that is why they founded the new
>> nation with religious freedom.
>
>I wonder if that's why Madison got all excited about the fact that his views on
>"freedom of religion" had increased "big church membership" in the 19th century?
>Perhaps alison can inform you on that score.
Actually Madison was opposed to big religions and state religions.
Very much opposed to them as a matter of fact.
>
>> >Are you now modifying your assertion to refer to the European church in the
>> >pre-enlightenment world. For, if so, you may have a case. But your haphazard,
>> >irresponsible, and erroneous broad statement, "the founders hated big
>> >religion" is absolutely bogus.
>>
>> no it is not. In fact the constitution is the very proof of that.\
>
>Please indicate where the Constitution indicates a hatred for large religions.
>
please show us where in the constitution that this country was founded
as a christian nation. No silly claims it must be a direct word for
word quote.
>> >The Federal government was prohibited from making any law respecting the
>> >establishment of religion. However, "this country" is made up of sovereign
>> >states, each of which had the right to, and many which did, found themselves
>> >upon religious principles
>>
>> nonsense gardner, the federal governm,ent is the supreme law and
>> states cannot violate federal law. States have only limited
>> sovereignty and it certainly doesn't extend to creating a state
>> religion.
>
>You are simply in error.
Yer a ninny states have very little sovereignty. the federal
government is sovereign and if state laws violate the federal laws the
state law is unenforceble.
>
>The Massachusetts Constitution contained the following long after the U.S.
>Constitution was ratified:
>
>"As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil
>government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these
>cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the
>public worship of GOD, and of public instructions in piety, religion and
>morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and
>preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right
>to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the
>legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns,
>parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, to make
>suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public
>worship of GOD, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant
>teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision
>shall not be made voluntarily."
and it was illegal as well as unconstitutional.
>
>In the 1860's, as a result of the Republican measures of Lincoln & friends, the
>14th amendment had important ramifications upon the perview of the 1st. But your
>assertion that states did not have establishments is equal in its accuracy to
>your statement that the founders hated big religion.
>
>> >Now defend your silly little claim that the "founders hated big religion."
>> >Hint: Thomas Jefferson was not "the founders."
>>
>> Most scholars will disagree with you on that. Even though he was not
>> present at the constitution convention.
>
>Please read carefully what I wrote. Thomas Jefferson was not the founderS, he
>was a founder. The founders' views of religion are not summed up in Jefferson's
>views.
>
>RG
***********************************************
silverback
wrote:
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>
>> Schulman, you are a bit slow. Neither of said either one of you
>> historical distortionists is pro-Nazi or a Nazi. Prove that we did say
>> so and if you can't, shut up about it and apologize.
>
>You know curtis, you are very much like a massive pile of pig exrement on the
>floor of the barn.
you know gardner you might even get away with that with Mike. But go
ahead an make my day and try it on me. This weasel knows if he wants
bacon in the morning he has to wrestle with the pig today. Ya its a
dirty job and the pig enjoys getting dirty but then when the pig
suddenly realizes whose the guest of honor at dinner tomorrow makes it
all worth while.
>
>Please notice that I didn't say that you ARE a massive pile of pig excrement on
>the floor of the barn.
>
>Hopefully this illustrates the silly games you are playing by denying your
>liberal use of the "Nazi" label which you have done in this context for months
>upon months upon months.
>
silverback
wrote:
>Scott Erb wrote:
>>
>>
>> Alas, your dishonesty shines through again, Rick.
>> Nobody said you were very much like a nazi. Your tactics were compared to other
>> groups that distort history, holocaust deniers among them. That is very
>> different. You choose that to simply play the victim, ignore the reason why the
>> comparison was made (your distortions) and try to pretend that since you were
>> called a nazi the other person was nasty and their argument was on its face wrong.
>>
>> But the point stands unrefuted. Your distortions are comparable to other groups
>> who distort history. You have to address those points.
>>
>> > The fact that Curtis and Erb continually liken me to Nazis is tantamount to
>> > calling me one.
>>
>> I never likened you to a nazi, Rick. I don't think I even used the term Nazi, that
>> comes from you.
>
>Granted, I am not a WWII scholar, but I do recall that Rudolph Hoess was a Nazi.
>Curtis made the analogy of me to Hoess
>http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=586387686
>
>And within a few hours you were defending this desperate approach
>http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587094241
>
>This is really getting extremely boring. I think this is about as relevant to
>American history as Sinclair's analysis of my resume, or of Danaher's denial of
>the Hebrew Herems.
>
>I think I'm going to follow Schulman's lead and take a week vacation until the
>scum and residue which has recently found (was baited?) its way into this forum
translation he was getting his ass kicked and is running off to hide.
>gets flushed. Perhaps the thing to do is for those of us who are interested in
>Colonial america to take our conversation into the group that these bottom
>feeders have abandoned to bring their smut here, i think it was something like
>alt.inflammatory.rush-limbaugh
>
>We'll just do a swap of groups.
***********************************************
mscu...@my-deja.com
That isn't calling you a Nazi. Posting the URL says nothing about what
I really said. What I told you was that Hoess found that telling the
truth made his life easier. He didn't have to remember his lies. I then
suggested that you, OTOH, do not always tell the truth, as in this
instance, and so can't remember what lies you've told and get caught
forming other ones. Like now. No one called you a Nazi or even said you
were Nazi-like, or even like a Nazi. Try reading what people actually
write to you and not what you wish they would write to you. Okay?
> And within a few hours you were defending this desperate approach
> http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587094241
>
> This is really getting extremely boring. I think this is about as
relevant to
> American history as Sinclair's analysis of my resume, or of Danaher's
denial of
> the Hebrew Herems.
Want to go through that mine field of error again, Gardiner? People do
save up these old files on their hard drives. I've started to label
mine by subject so I can avoid retyping responses to material you've
already presented in the past.
--
Mike Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mscu...@my-deja.com
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> Mike Curtis wrote:
> >
> > Schulman, you are a bit slow. Neither of said either one of you
> > historical distortionists is pro-Nazi or a Nazi. Prove that we did
say
> > so and if you can't, shut up about it and apologize.
>
> You know curtis, you are very much like a massive pile of pig
exrement on the
> floor of the barn.
>
excrement on
> the floor of the barn.
But, in fact, I smell better than a massive pile of pig excrement. I'll
wear the shoe you offer. I don't have to, but why not? I'm a massive
pile of pig excrement that knows my history better than most massive
piles of excrement. I'm a massive pile of pig excrement that does not
use techniques in my debate that holocaust deniers, creationists or
pure propagandists do. So, at the very least, I am is an honorable
massive pile of pig excrement. <smile> And proud of it. <bigger smile>
> Hopefully this illustrates the silly games you are playing by denying
Not at all. For what you said to be so is simply a weak attempt at name
calling and isn't even a workable analogy. Good try though. I'll keep
the cigar and send it to the White House. Allow me to explain. Saying
I'm like a pile of pig excrement on the floor of a barn says nothing at
all! OTOH, my comparing your debate tactics to those used by the
holocaust deniers I'm most familiar with and then giving examples says
a lot more. Saying your debate tactics are like theirs doesn't
associate you with their philosophies or any particualr party line. All
it says is that you debate dishonestly like they do. In fact, this post
is another prime example.
>your
> liberal use of the "Nazi" label which you have done in this context
for months
> upon months upon months.
As a descritption of your methods? Yup. I stand by it and I can and did
prove it. I've got threads of deniers using the same debate tactics as
you. In fact, I had one try this same exact ploy on me. It didn't work
because, well, I could actually prove what _I_ was saying. What must
frustrate you is that *I* already did so in this thread with that list
I gave you. You had a chance to actually present a new argument for
each one. But no, you presented the same old material you presented
about a year ago. Then when failing that you went on to suggest that
people were calling you a Nazi. When that didn't work you tried this.
Case closed.
mscu...@my-deja.com
doubt Rick's.
>
> Perhaps what I need to to to earn your favor is to start haphazardly
throwing
> the "nazi" label at anyone who disagrees with me.
Nothing stops you from lying about whatr others have said to you does
it. Now you are only trolling and flaming, Gardiner. Don't pretend to
be taking the hight road.
> That is "integrity" in your
> book. LOL.
<That's an embarrassed laugh from Mr. Gardiner.>
mscu...@my-deja.com
gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback) wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 19:49:44 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >silverback wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 08:00:22 -0600, Rick Gardiner
> >> <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >For the sake of argument I will grant you the fact that Thomas
Jefferson was a
> >> >critic of clericalism. But that wasn't your assertion, pal. Your
assertion was
> >> >much broader. You said, as stated just below, "the founders hated
big
> >> >religion." Most of them did not, as I have demonstrated, and you
have ignored.
> >>
> >> Actually they did hate big religion that is why they founded the
new
> >> nation with religious freedom.
> >
> >I wonder if that's why Madison got all excited about the fact that
his views on
> >"freedom of religion" had increased "big church membership" in the
19th century?
> >Perhaps alison can inform you on that score.
>
> Actually Madison was opposed to big religions and state religions.
> Very much opposed to them as a matter of fact.
Actually, Madison was opposed to governmental secular involvement at
all levels with religion. If it grew that would be fine but it would
grow of its own accord. Sort of like a successful private business.
Gardiner has asserted this view in the past and I agreed with him on
this particular view of Madison.
Scott Erb
apologize (I guess Mike is right, you NEVER apologize -- you must never think you do
anything wrong) by saying that I was wrong in saying another Scott didn't use the word
imbecile? Well, I apologize for claiming he didn't, I missed it. Now, again, I expect you
to apologize to me for wrongly claiming I proclaimed people imbeciles, and then trying to
rationalize it away.
Again, I expect an apology.
I also never called you a nazi, as you know.
I expect an apology.
Also, you brought up my profession saying that I wouldn't last at a teacher at your
institution (for what you called a lack of restraint -- an ironic insult coming from someone
with the reputation for flames and attacks that you have).
I expect an apology.
Also you did personal research on me, and found out that a lot of my posts (posted mostly
through talk.politics.misc and alt.society.liberalism) were cross posted to some Rush
Limbaugh group. You tried to take that personal stuff and use it to ridicule, wrongly
asserting I hang out in the Rush Limbaugh group. Not only were you wrong, but that kind of
tactic is a dishonest smear attempt.
I expect an apology.
I've apologized to you twice now for mistakes I've made. That is the hallmark of honesty
and integrity -- to recognize when one does something wrong and to make amends. I expect
you to do likewise. Otherwise, I have to conclude that you are not a serious or honest
poster.
You claim you do a lot of church functions, yet seem to pride yourself that you're not a
good Christian and thus don't have to live by the standards your faith requires. At least,
thats the impression you've given me. Here's the deal: The Christian faith (and in this I
agree with its teachings) says that you should treat others honestly, and with love and
caring in your heart. You should be kind to those who hurt you, turn the other cheek, and
try not to offend or attack. The fact others do it to you isn't cause for you to mimick
their behavior. I agree I get sucked into that as well -- that's happened here I'm sure --
but its wrong. I've apologized twice for mistakes, and I'll offer a general apology for my
part in creating a misunderstanding.
However, if you have too much pride in your heart to apologize once, and if you continue, in
the face of your mistakes and attacks, assert that only I am doing any wrong, and I am being
irresponsible, and your behavior has been simply making a slight mistake, I have to conclude
you are not being honest -- perhaps driven by pride, you are not being honest to yourself.
Perhaps that explains as well why you can't see that Mike, Jeff, and others offer legitimate
counter evidence and alternative interpretations for the historical facts you bring up, and
its not something which warrants the kind of mean spirited and heartless counter attacks you
offer. That is strong language, but again, you are so quick to see the speck in the eyes
of others, its seems you do not notice the log in your own.
-scott
Scott Erb
Richard A. Schulman wrote:
> Richard Schulman:
> >> Mr. Erb performs an act of oneupsmanship on MIke Curtis. Both of them
> >> denounce their opponents as Nazis at the drop of a pin, but Mr. Erb
> >> with Pavlovian reflexivity also insists his opponents are "liars" and
> >> "dishonest."
>
> Scott Erb:
> >Actually, you are demonstrably lying since I have not called you a nazi.
>
> I didn't say you called *me* a nazi. You seconded Curtis in implying
> that Mr. Gardiner in implying was pro-nazi. Here are your words on
> Feb. 17th:
>
> >[S]omeone who distorts history for a propagandistic purpose can
> > indeed be compared to a holocaust denier, there is nothing inappropriate
> > about that.
And I explained why (which you snipped) -- how the process of revisionism is
similar no matter what issue the propagandists are trying to distort.
That clearly was NOT comparing you to a nazi or implying you were pro-nazi.
It only notes a similar set of tactics. The Communists and Nazis hated each
other and had very different ideologies, a Nazi is not pro-Communist. Yet
I'll compare many of their practices and methods in condemning each.
Of course, you know that. You snipped where I explained why the comparison
was legitimate because it would not support your claim.
You're just a troll.
Rick Gardiner
>
> In article <38B0D317...@pitnet.net>,
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> > http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=586387686
>
> That isn't calling you a Nazi. Posting the URL says nothing about what
> I really said. What I told you was that Hoess found that telling the
> truth made his life easier. He didn't have to remember his lies. I then
> suggested that you, OTOH, do not always tell the truth, as in this
> instance, and so can't remember what lies you've told and get caught
> forming other ones.
Thanks for clearing that up. So you were saying that I am worse than Hoess (a
Nazi). I feel much better now.
> > And within a few hours you were defending this desperate approach
> > http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587094241
> >
> > This is really getting extremely boring. I think this is about as relevant to
> > American history as Sinclair's analysis of my resume, or of Danaher's denial of
> > the Hebrew Herems.
>
> Want to go through that mine field of error again, Gardiner?
Which one?
The fact that with regard to comparing me to followers of Hitler, Erb said
"the comparison is apt"? (http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587094241)
Or the fact that Sinclair tried to prove that I was never a pastor because
Arkansas and Mississippi are too far away from each other?
Or the fact that Danaher & Stevens can't bear the fact that Deuteronomy
20:16-17 meant what it says?
Go ahead, Repost away. Clog up this group with a dump of material that's not
relevant to the subject matter of this group. That's how it got here the first
time around, and I'm absolutely certain that within 24 hours you will have
turned this group back into alt.gardiner.resume or alt.ancient.israel, and in
RERUN form at that.
By all means, curtis, play your little games. It is very demonstrative of just
what your purpose is here. That's why you talk so much about nazis and
holocaust deniers here. You are hoping that someone might take the bait and
you can turn alt.history.colonial into a discussion you feel more comfortable
with. No wonder that those truly interested in American History have killfiled
all of our conversations; only one tenth of what you bring up is informative
information about American History. This really is boring.
Time for a vacation.
RG
Scott Erb
Richard A. Schulman wrote: Not quite, but but we're still waiting for you:
> 1) to disprove the Weber-Landes thesis (joined by hundreds of other
> scholars) that Christianity, especially its Protestantist variant, led
> to modern science, capitalist industrial development, and democratic
> republics;
Kid, I've read Weber, and you're misrepresenting the whole thesis. Also, given that
much of what got science moving was before the reformation and often in opposition to
the church, your silly attempt to say religion was the cause of the advance of
civilization can be scoffed at. Its not serious enough to warrant spending time on it.
First, YOU make the proof. Don't just through out long quotes, because from what I've
seen those never say what you claim they say. Make a solid argument, built on real
evidence, showing the causal links. Right now, its clear you don't understand Weber or
the nature of his argument. Make a case, step by step, building an argument, and I'll
deal with it. Otherwise, I simply will keep teaching history and political development
as I do -- reflecting the view of almost all scholars, including Weber.
> 2) to prove that history's best examples of deist and atheist
> governments were or are good governments: Jacobin France (publicly
> deist), Soviet Russia (atheist), People's Republic of China (atheist),
> North Korea (atheist), and Cuba (atheist).
Again, you haven't responded to my claim that: 1) Christian countries also had similarly
evil governments -- Germany is a classic example -- and Christianity was used to, say,
burn women accused of being witches, destroy vast Latin American civlizations, etc.,
etc. This PROVES that religion is not the causal variable. 2) I explained the reasons
why there has been failure in most Communist/totalitarian (and in fact that helps
explain China is doing relatively well) nations, and how factors other than your
simplistic and ill-supported religion thesis explain these results.
Sorry, you're simply asserting a bias. You fail.
> Oh, and I see you're back to excessive cross-posting again.
Oh, I see Ms. Manners has another prissy fit. Sheesh. Yet I only cross posted with
one group. Who added the other four?
Dan Cyr
changing the subject, refusal to debate the subject and your insistence on
attacking the individual instead of the discussion, I could only expect you to
refuse to be honest, fair, or any of the other personal beliefs you pretend to
have. You have not disappointed me again.
Dan
Gardiner wrote:
> Dan Cyr wrote:
> >
> > The man never called anyone a Nazi. Only you stated that he had.
>
> Dan, you are very much like a racist, child-molesting, serial killer.
>
> Please note that I didn't CALL YOU a racist, child-molesting, serial killer, I
> only LIKENED you to one :)
>
> If you see a big difference between the two, you sure have a different way of
> seeing things than ordinary people do.
>
> The fact that Curtis and Erb continually liken me to Nazis is tantamount to
> calling me one.
>
> If you don't get this simple idea, I don't know how to put it any more vividly.
>
> RG
Dan Cyr
Dan
Gardiner wrote:
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> >
> > Alas, your dishonesty shines through again, Rick.
> > Nobody said you were very much like a nazi. Your tactics were compared to other
> > groups that distort history, holocaust deniers among them. That is very
> > different. You choose that to simply play the victim, ignore the reason why the
> > comparison was made (your distortions) and try to pretend that since you were
> > called a nazi the other person was nasty and their argument was on its face wrong.
> >
> > But the point stands unrefuted. Your distortions are comparable to other groups
> > who distort history. You have to address those points.
> >
> > > The fact that Curtis and Erb continually liken me to Nazis is tantamount to
> > > calling me one.
> >
> > I never likened you to a nazi, Rick. I don't think I even used the term Nazi, that
> > comes from you.
>
> Granted, I am not a WWII scholar, but I do recall that Rudolph Hoess was a Nazi.
> Curtis made the analogy of me to Hoess
> http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=586387686
>
> And within a few hours you were defending this desperate approach
> http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587094241
>
> This is really getting extremely boring. I think this is about as relevant to
> American history as Sinclair's analysis of my resume, or of Danaher's denial of
> the Hebrew Herems.
>
> I think I'm going to follow Schulman's lead and take a week vacation until the
> scum and residue which has recently found (was baited?) its way into this forum
Dan Cyr
distort history on the subjects you have badly discussed?
Dan
Gardiner wrote:
> Mike Curtis wrote:
> >
> > Schulman, you are a bit slow. Neither of said either one of you
> > historical distortionists is pro-Nazi or a Nazi. Prove that we did say
> > so and if you can't, shut up about it and apologize.
>
> You know curtis, you are very much like a massive pile of pig exrement on the
> floor of the barn.
>
> Please notice that I didn't say that you ARE a massive pile of pig excrement on
> the floor of the barn.
>
> Hopefully this illustrates the silly games you are playing by denying your
> liberal use of the "Nazi" label which you have done in this context for months
> upon months upon months.
>
> RG
Rick Gardiner
>
> Wow, Rick, you lied about me using the word imbecile, and now you justify your refusal to
> apologize (I guess Mike is right, you NEVER apologize -- you must never think you do
> anything wrong) by saying that I was wrong in saying another Scott didn't use the word
> imbecile? Well, I apologize for claiming he didn't, I missed it. Now, again, I expect you
> to apologize to me for wrongly claiming I proclaimed people imbeciles, and then trying to
> rationalize it away.
>
> Again, I expect an apology.
I acknowledged my mistake. (see below). If you are going to take my arm behind
my back and insist and demand that I acknowledge my mistake by saying "uncle"
or getting on my knees and begging for your forgiveness, you'd better go
outside and find some neighborhood kid to play those games with.
> I also never called you a nazi, as you know.
I never alleged that you were a follower of rush limbaugh, or ridiculed you as
such, as you have alleged below. I only said that you've posted a lot in that
group (which is a matter of fact).
But, here we have an example of pure hypocrisy. You recognize that the
association to rush limbaugh is rhetorical and inflammatory, and you don't
like it: you call it a "dishonest smear attempt." But when it comes to an
association with nazis or holocaust deniers, you're quick to defend it and
say, "no one called you a nazi, you were just compared to a nazi." The
hypocrisy is so glaring that I have put my sunglasses on.
You're not the clear, logical, fair, straightforward person you have
advertised yourself to be. You're an ideologue who just wants to pick fights.
You really could care less about American history. Your only interest is in
rhetoric and tactics. You have now wasted almost two days with nothing but "I
said...I didn't say...you said...you better apologize...you don't
apologize..."
You may keep on in this vein if you wish. Life is too short for me in this
regard. A dose of Thoreau is very applicable here.
> Also, you brought up my profession saying that I wouldn't last at a teacher at your
> institution
Correct. Our clientele actually demands that students get taught information.
> Also you did personal research on me, and found out that a lot of my posts (posted mostly
> through talk.politics.misc and alt.society.liberalism) were cross posted to some Rush
> Limbaugh group. You tried to take that personal stuff and use it to ridicule, wrongly
> asserting I hang out in the Rush Limbaugh group. Not only were you wrong, but that kind of
> tactic is a dishonest smear attempt.
LOL.
> I've apologized to you twice now for mistakes I've made. That is the hallmark of honesty
> and integrity -- to recognize when one does something wrong and to make amends. I expect
> you to do likewise. Otherwise, I have to conclude that you are not a serious or honest
> poster.
At this point the hallmark of integrity would be a commitment to academic and
scholarly posts, rather than tactic policing. But, given your posting history
in alt.rush-limbaugh, this seems to give you joy, so, by all means, continue
to do your patrolling. I don't have time for much more of your "you said...I
said...no you said;" you'll have to find another victim to joust with.
> You claim you do a lot of church functions, yet seem to pride yourself that you're not a
> good Christian and thus don't have to live by the standards your faith requires. At least,
> thats the impression you've given me. Here's the deal: The Christian faith (and in this I
> agree with its teachings) says that you should treat others honestly, and with love and
> caring in your heart. You should be kind to those who hurt you, turn the other cheek, and
> try not to offend or attack.
The tactic police has turned preacher. Why don't you try trolling in
alt.bible.born-again? You could really have a ball in there.
> However, if you have too much pride in your heart to apologize once, and if you continue, in
> the face of your mistakes and attacks, assert that only I am doing any wrong, and I am being
> irresponsible, and your behavior has been simply making a slight mistake, I have to conclude
> you are not being honest -- perhaps driven by pride, you are not being honest to yourself.
and psychologist too.
mscu...@my-deja.com
Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
> mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <38B0D317...@pitnet.net>,
> > Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >
> > > http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=586387686
> >
> > That isn't calling you a Nazi. Posting the URL says nothing about
what
> > I really said. What I told you was that Hoess found that telling the
> > truth made his life easier. He didn't have to remember his lies. I
then
> > suggested that you, OTOH, do not always tell the truth, as in this
> > instance, and so can't remember what lies you've told and get caught
> > forming other ones.
>
> Thanks for clearing that up. So you were saying that I am worse than
Hoess (a
> Nazi). I feel much better now.
No, that is not what I'm saying either. Can't you read? I'm saying that
it is better to consistently tell the truth and be honest rather than
to fabricate or distort. This is something you do (fabricate and
distort) quite often and people call you on it. Even now you are trying
to have me say that you are worse than Hoess who was a murderer and I'm
not making that claim at all. It is easy for me to tell you want I
claim because it is there in black and whaite and I try to be
consistent. You however have trouble because you are not consistent.
Not being consistent gets you into trouble.
> > > And within a few hours you were defending this desperate approach
> > > http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587094241
> > >
> > > This is really getting extremely boring. I think this is about as
relevant to
> > > American history as Sinclair's analysis of my resume, or of
Danaher's denial of
> > > the Hebrew Herems.
> >
> > Want to go through that mine field of error again, Gardiner?
>
> Which one?
The one about the Hebrew Herems. You don't pay attention to what you
are reading do you?
> The fact that with regard to comparing me to followers of Hitler, Erb
This is not what is happening. You don't seem to have all your oars in
the water.
said
> "the comparison is apt"? (http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587094241)
The comaprison was of debate tacitcs. Those we are comparing your
debate tactics happen to be holocaust deniers. Some of them are not
Nazis but are anti-Semites. I'm not calling you an anti-Semite I'm
telling oyu what they admit to being.
1. Their tactics are the same as yours.
2. The tacitcs of creationists are the same as yours.
3. Because the tacitcs are the same doesn't mean that you share their
views about American history, Europeqan history, Jews, or anything
else. You share their method of dishonest debate.
Understand yet? Will it take a fifth explanation of the same thing for
oyu to understand the distinction? I can see why oyu have trouble
reading history and that leaves out your trying to understand primary
material.
If you can't understand what I'm saying here, assuming we speak the
same base language, then I think you'd better not get involved in
writing American history.
[snip]
> Go ahead, Repost away. Clog up this group with a dump of material
that's not
> relevant to the subject matter of this group.
No, it is not but *I* do see you *do* understand what I was talking
about above. So your question was obtuse.
[snip]
> By all means, curtis, play your little games. It is very
Apparently you know what I'm talking about so there is no need to
refresh your memory.
> Time for a vacation.
Have fun!
mscu...@my-deja.com
Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> > Wow, Rick, you lied about me using the word imbecile, and now you
justify your refusal to
> > apologize (I guess Mike is right, you NEVER apologize -- you must
never think you do
> > anything wrong) by saying that I was wrong in saying another Scott
didn't use the word
> > imbecile? Well, I apologize for claiming he didn't, I missed it.
Now, again, I expect you
> > to apologize to me for wrongly claiming I proclaimed people
imbeciles, and then trying to
> > rationalize it away.
> >
> > Again, I expect an apology.
>
> I acknowledged my mistake. (see below).
It was more than a mistake. You repeated it ad nauseum throughout the
group.
> If you are going to take my arm behind
> my back and insist and demand that I acknowledge my mistake by
saying "uncle"
> or getting on my knees and begging for your forgiveness, you'd better
go
> outside and find some neighborhood kid to play those games with.
I thought you were an adult. I know that Scott Erb is adult. I even
apologized to you a couple of times. It doesn't hurt. Really.
> > I also never called you a nazi, as you know.
>
> I never alleged that you were a follower of rush limbaugh, or
ridiculed you as
> such, as you have alleged below. I only said that you've posted a lot
in that
> group (which is a matter of fact).
But the singling out of one newsgroup among many was rather dishonest
of you. I do think the impression you wanted to make was to do exactly
that. To associate Erb with a silly right-wing group.
> But, here we have an example of pure hypocrisy. You recognize that the
> association to rush limbaugh is rhetorical and inflammatory, and you
don't
> like it: you call it a "dishonest smear attempt." But when it comes
to an
> association with nazis or holocaust deniers, you're quick to defend
it and
> say, "no one called you a nazi, you were just compared to a nazi." The
> hypocrisy is so glaring that I have put my sunglasses on.
No, none of us compared you to a Nazi. I compared your debate tactics
and mthods of arguing to the debate tactics and methods of arguing used
by Hoolocaust deniers. I also told you, and you ignored it, that I
could just have well used the creationists as an example. It's a
comparison of debate methods and not politics or anything else. That
you want to insist on this comparison to be calling you a Nazi or
comparing you to a Nazi is simply the argument of those children on the
play ground. It isn't what is happening.
> > Also you did personal research on me, and found out that a lot of --
mscu...@my-deja.com
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Richard A. Schulman wrote: Not quite, but but we're still waiting for
you:
>
> > governments were or are good governments: Jacobin France (publicly
> > deist), Soviet Russia (atheist), People's Republic of China
(atheist),
> > North Korea (atheist), and Cuba (atheist).
>
> Again, you haven't responded to my claim that: 1) Christian countries
also had similarly
> evil governments -- Germany is a classic example -- and Christianity
was used to, say,
> burn women accused of being witches, destroy vast Latin American
civlizations, etc.,
And reason to fight wars with the Natives in America.
Scott Erb
Gardiner wrote:
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> > regardless of the religion of most of the people
> > who originally lived here, the rules and principles guiding the state are at base
> > secular.
>
> You have stated that more than once. Are you planning to provide any evidence
> for the assertion or do you claim to have the power of pontification?
Its obvious. If you want to claim otherwise, you have the burden of proof. Though my
specialty is Europe, I've studied enough constitutional law and American politics to know
how the system is set up.
> > > ) George Washington was a committed vestryman in the Anglican Church. Are you
> > > suggesting that he secretly "hated" being part of that "big religion" in spite
> > > of the fact that he attended services as often as circumstances allowed?
> >
> > He was also a Mason.
>
> You have claimed that you are a skilled critique of logic. If that is truly the
> case you will recognize that your assertion here is a red herring.
When have I claimed that I am (what?) a "skilled critique of logic"? Even correcting your
grammar I still am not sure what you mean. And I'm simply pointing out a point that is
logical.
Washington was a member of a church. He was also a mason. Does that mean he believes the
principles of each, or was he going along with various groups out of social pressure?
> The original poster (silverback) has asserted that the founders hated big
> religion. I have reminded silverback that washington was a routine contributor
> to "big religion," which would seem to directly counter his assertion regarding
> washington's hatred of big religion.
I don't know if you've shown anything about big religion.
> Now you have asserted that washington was a mason, which i do not dispute; but
> how it is relevant to supporting silverback's claim that the founders hated big
> religion is not apparent.
I'm making my own claim -- that one can't read too much into membership of anything.
> Are you claiming that masons inherently were haters of big religion? You'll have
> to support that with some evidence, if so, because that is not my understanding
> of mason doctrine.
Again: I'm claiming that one can't read too much into membership of anything in making
conclusions about individuals.-snips-
> Another Mason. In fact, many very secular people who distrust big religion do
> > things like that at times in their lives. I know of committed atheists who were
> > once ordained ministers, and people who are avidly opposed to the religious right
> > and their attempts to undue the separation of church and state by saying it only
> > meant establishing a religion but who privately are very religious. I myself have
> > strong spiritual beliefs, though I find big religion to be more of a negative than
> > positive influence.
>
> Are you mind-reading with regard to the founders, or do you have any evidence
> that they were engaging in double-talk and a pretense of support of religious
> institutions?
Again: I'm stating clearly that one can't read too much in the membership of anyone into a
group, and certainly one can't choose one quote or another -- either pro or anti religion
(and there have been many posted in these threads each way) and make definitive
conclusions. The result of what the founders did was indisputibly a constitutional
democracy (old jargon - Republic) with a secular rather than religious base. That doesn't
mean individuals who made it didn't have religious views, or that religion didn't help
shape the culture. It does mean that the founders did NOT create a "christian nation" or
any other such monstrosity.
-a bunch of really nasty insults deleted-
By the way, you still haven't apologized for your miscues (though I've apologized three
times -- once for not recognizing a quote I made led you to a conclusion I criticized you
for, once for not realizing that a different poster did use the word imbecile, and once in
general for any contribution I made towards miscommunication).
You come back with flagrant personal insults, snide remarks -- in another post I listed a
number of them, accuse me of not being concerned with history, and a whole bunch of other
really nasty personal accusations. You have no basis for that, and in very specific
times I caught you really stating something wrong, you have refused to apologize.
Now, as a scholar, I'm concerned with substance and logic. I'm not concerned with these
silly flame games. Please refrain from that sort of thing, and please acknowledge your
mistakes; it is the honorable thing to do.
buc...@exis.net
>:|> Once again they founded this country on no religion.
>:|
>:|The Federal government was prohibited from making any law respecting the
>:|establishment of religion. However, "this country" is made up of sovereign
>:|states, each of which had the right to, and many which did, found themselves
>:|upon religious principles
Old news. In 1775 all but four colonies had some form of religious
establishments
By 1800 basically only three of your beloved New England states had
religious establishments.
Seems like they were more then happy to end unions between church and
state, religion and government.
By 1820 only one (Mass)
By 1835 none
No state has ever officially established any form of religion since 1775.
(some may argue about Utah, but Utah has been smart enough not to
"officially" do what most know is a bit obvious. in fact it had to end the
official establishment to be accepted into the union.
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
buc...@exis.net
>:|silverback wrote:
>:|>
>:|> On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 08:00:22 -0600, Rick Gardiner
>:|> <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >For the sake of argument I will grant you the fact that Thomas Jefferson was a
>:|> >critic of clericalism. But that wasn't your assertion, pal. Your assertion was
>:|> >much broader. You said, as stated just below, "the founders hated big
>:|> >religion." Most of them did not, as I have demonstrated, and you have ignored.
>:|>
>:|> Actually they did hate big religion that is why they founded the new
>:|> nation with religious freedom.
>:|
>:|I wonder if that's why Madison got all excited about the fact that his views on
>:|"freedom of religion" had increased "big church membership" in the 19th century?
>:|Perhaps alison can inform you on that score.
MARCH 2, 1819
Omitting more minute or less obvious causes, tainting the habits
and manners of the people under Colonial Government, the following ofer
themselves: (1) The negro slavery chargeable in so great a degree on the
very quarter which has furnished most of the libellers. It is well known
that, during the Colonial dependence of Virginia, repeated attempts was
sucessively defeated by the foreign negative on the laws, and that one of
the first offsprings of independent republican legislation was an act of
perpetual prohibtion.. (2) The too unequal distribution of property,
favored by laws derived from the British code, which generated examples in
the opulent class inauspicious to the habits of other classes. (3) The
indolence of most and the irregular lives of many of the established clergy
consisting in a very large proportion, oi foreigners, and these, in no
inconsiderable proportion, of men willing to leave their homes in the
parent country, where their demerit was an obstacle to a provision for
them, and whose degeneracy here was promoted by their distance from the
controuling eyes of their kindred find friends; by the want of
Ecclesiastical superiors in the Colony, or efficient ones in G. Britain who
might maintain a salutary discipline among; them and, finally, by their
independencec both of their congregations and of the civil authority for
their stipends...
That there has been an increase of religious instruction since the
revolution can admit of no question. The English church was originally the
established religion; the character of the clergy that above described. Of
other sects there were but few adherents, except the Presbyterians who
predominated on the W. side of the Blue Mountains. A little time previous
to the Revolutionary struggle the Baptists sprang up, and made a very
rapid progress. Among the early acts of the Republican Legislature, were
those abolishing the Religious establishment, and putting all Sects at
full liberty and on a perfect level. At present the population is divided,
with small exceptions, among the Protestant Episcopalians, the
Presbyterians, the Baptists & the Methodists. Of their comparative numbers
I can command no sources of information. I conjecture the Presbyterians &
Baptists to form each about a third, & the two other sects together third.
The Old churches, built under the establisht at the public expence, have
in many instances gone to ruin, or are in a very dilapidated state, owing
chiefly to a transition desertion of the flocks to other worships. A few
new ones have latterly been built particularly in the towns. Among the
other sects, Meeting
Houses, have multiplied & continue to multiply; the' in general they are
of the of which the Methodists are much the smallest, to make up the
remaining plainest and cheapest sort. But neither the number nor the style
of the Religious edifices is a true measure of the state of religion.
Religious instruction is now diffused throughout the Community by
preachers of every sect with almost equal zeal, the' with very unequal
acquirements; and at private houses & open stations and occasionally in
such as are appropriated to Civil use, as well as buildings appropriated to
that use. The qualifications of the Preachers, too among the new sects
where there was the greatest deficiency, are understood to be improving. On
a general comparison of the present 6r former times, the balance is
certainly & vastly on the side of the present, as to the number of
religious teachers the zeal which actuates them, the purity of their lives,
and the attendance of the people on their instructions. It was the
Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Govt. could
not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, & that the X"
religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its
Clergy. The experience of Virginia
conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Covt.
tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy possesses the
requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success;
Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, 6r
the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total
separation of the Church from the State...
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James
Madison, in Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B.
Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on
Religious Liberty, Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985)
pp 82- 83)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|> nonsense gardner, the federal governm,ent is the supreme law and
>:|> states cannot violate federal law. States have only limited
>:|> sovereignty and it certainly doesn't extend to creating a state
>:|> religion.
>:|
>:|You are simply in error.
>:|
>:|The Massachusetts Constitution contained the following long after the U.S.
>:|Constitution was ratified:
>:|
>:|"As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil
>:|government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these
>:|cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the
>:|public worship of GOD, and of public instructions in piety, religion and
>:|morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and
>:|preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right
>:|to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the
>:|legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns,
>:|parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, to make
>:|suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public
>:|worship of GOD, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant
>:|teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision
>:|shall not be made voluntarily."
>:|
>:|In the 1860's, as a result of the Republican measures of Lincoln & friends, the
>:|14th amendment had important ramifications upon the perview of the 1st. But your
>:|assertion that states did not have establishments is equal in its accuracy to
>:|your statement that the founders hated big religion.
>:|
The House of Rep. passed a, ironically enough, 14th Amendment as one of the
seventeen Amendments sent to the Senate in 1789.
It would have applied some of the other amendments that became known as the
BORs against the states.
It was defeated in the Senate.
Technically, based on the plain language method of Constitution
interpretation, the plain language of Article VI of the U S Constitution
could have been used to end state establishments of religion.
For various reasons, that particular course was never followed.
However, the legal tools were there, because as the original poster stated,
the Constitution was the SUPREME LAW of the land, over any and all state
constitutions. The anti-feds sure recognized that and made a big issue
over it.
buc...@exis.net
>:|Scott Erb wrote:
>:|>
>:|> regardless of the religion of most of the people
>:|> who originally lived here, the rules and principles guiding the state are at base
>:|> secular.
>:|
>:|You have stated that more than once. Are you planning to provide any evidence
>:|for the assertion or do you claim to have the power of pontification?
The U S Constitution
What other eviidence do you need?
Scott Erb
Gardiner wrote:
> Granted, I am not a WWII scholar, but I do recall that Rudolph Hoess was a Nazi.
> Curtis made the analogy of me to Hoess
> http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=586387686
Think of the logic behind your complaint -- if someone compares someone's activities to
that of another person who happens to be a nazi, then you seem to think that is the same
as calling you a nazi (or at least close).
What Mike said, is that your tactics as he was experiencing them are very similar to
those he's found from holocaust deniers, making the point that those who want to revise
history for a bias tend to have similar tactics.
Now, perhaps thats NOT what you're doing, perhaps Mike has misread you. You can
certainly make that case. But his comparison was not invalid simply because the person
involved happened to be a Nazi. As I've pointed out elsewhere, it is a mistake to simply
dismiss Nazis as evil demons and pretend they aren't human and can't be compared to other
groups. When I teach about German politics in the thirties, I have most students
basically convinced they would have seriously thought about supporting the Nazis before
1939 by re-creating the nature of their rise to power, and how they did it. We have to
make comparisons to this and recognize the tactics used, that is not off limits! One
sees it from politicians on the left and right, and we shouldn't fear knowledgable and
accurate comparisons.
That doesn't mean Mike's comparison is accurate, you can refute it. Though so far you've
laughed at my claim Mike is impeccably honest (again, I challenge you to show one place
where he has been dishonest), and you use this to simply condemn Mike and I, with some
very nasty insults even concerning my professional life. I could really compare that
with how the Nazis responded to SPD attacks in the thirties, or how McCarthyists
responded to alleged Communists, or how Communists responded to alleged capitalists (or
later trotskyists) in Russia. I don't think you share any of those views, but its a way
to say that the tactics you use can easily be twisted. I especially am disappointed with
how you want to paint yourself the victim of unfair attacks as you lash out with such
insults at me and others. At the very least, that is a bit disengenuous. Think about
it.
> And within a few hours you were defending this desperate approach
> http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587094241
>
> This is really getting extremely boring. I think this is about as relevant to
> American history as Sinclair's analysis of my resume, or of Danaher's denial of
> the Hebrew Herems.
You're the one complaining and hurling insults. You try to paint yourself as the victim
as you snidely attack others. I don't think thats very effective. Now, you could deal
with the issue, maybe Mike is wrong in thinking you use the tactics of other
revisionists. But the way you've come after me with personal stuff, the way you've
refused to apologize for your mistakes when i've apologized to you, etc., all point to
Mike's analysis being more believable. But I'm keeping an open mind. I've learned that
internet debates can get stuck in distrust and dislike if people simply carry grudges. I
don't.
> I think I'm going to follow Schulman's lead and take a week vacation until the
> scum and residue which has recently found (was baited?) its way into this forum
> gets flushed.
My, again, you go on with the insults! Perhaps I'll repost this in a week :)
> Perhaps the thing to do is for those of us who are interested in
> Colonial america to take our conversation into the group that these bottom
> feeders have abandoned to bring their smut here, i think it was something like
> alt.inflammatory.rush-limbaugh
>
> We'll just do a swap of groups.
???? Again, you're simply trying to lash out at me personally after I informed you I
don't spend time in the limbaugh group.
I think you're feeling pressured. Don't chicken out or get frustrated. Take a deep
breath. Accept that you're dealing with honest folk who simply do not like insults and
arrogance in response to posts. Try to respond with kindness rather than a haughty
spirit. I will try to do likewise, we can step down from these silly insult exchanges
and talk about history.
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
> That isn't calling you a Nazi. Posting the URL says nothing about what
> I really said. What I told you was that Hoess found that telling the
> truth made his life easier. He didn't have to remember his lies. I then
> suggested that you, OTOH, do not always tell the truth, as in this
> instance, and so can't remember what lies you've told and get caught
> forming other ones. Like now. No one called you a Nazi or even said you
> were Nazi-like, or even like a Nazi. Try reading what people actually
> write to you and not what you wish they would write to you. Okay?
You're right! I didn't read carefully enough either, I just assumed from
Gardiner's response that you must have been comparing his tactics to those
of the nazi holocaust deniers. But looking back and reading carefully, I
realize that isn't what you did. I apologize for misstating your
position. Will Rick do likewise?
-scott
Scott Erb
Rick Gardiner wrote:
> > Again, I expect an apology.
>
> I acknowledged my mistake. (see below).
Please apologize. Why is that so hard for you?
> If you are going to take my arm behind
> my back and insist and demand that I acknowledge my mistake by saying "uncle"
> or getting on my knees and begging for your forgiveness, you'd better go
> outside and find some neighborhood kid to play those games with.
I apologized three times, once for accusing you of misstating my position when the quote I made
did create the impression you claimed. Once for not recognizing that Scott Bryan did use the word
idiot. And once in general for any part I played in our lack of getting along.
Asking you to apologize for your mistakes is hardly what you describe above.
Perhaps you're being overly sensitive or defensive here. You seem so prideful you fear that
apologizing will somehow be humiliating. Apology is actually a sign of strength and confidence.
> > I also never called you a nazi, as you know.
>
> I never alleged that you were a follower of rush limbaugh, or ridiculed you as
> such, as you have alleged below. I only said that you've posted a lot in that
> group (which is a matter of fact).
You said I hung out in that group. I never read it, some posts from alt.society.liberalism and
talk.politics.misc get cross posted there. You brought it up as an attempt to try to ridicule me
personally, that was uncalled for. You really should admit that, and apologize.
> But, here we have an example of pure hypocrisy. You recognize that the
> association to rush limbaugh is rhetorical and inflammatory, and you don't
> like it: you call it a "dishonest smear attempt." But when it comes to an
> association with nazis or holocaust deniers, you're quick to defend it and
> say, "no one called you a nazi, you were just compared to a nazi." The
> hypocrisy is so glaring that I have put my sunglasses on.
You weren't even compared to a nazi, as Mike pointed out. But there is a difference -- even
comparing your tactics to those of a holocaust denier is a legitimate argument, its about the
debate. Going in and trying to find personal information to ridicule is not. Calling me a
hypocrite and other similar insults, something you are very willing to engage in, works against
rational discourse.
> You're not the clear, logical, fair, straightforward person you have
> advertised yourself to be.
You again are claiming I'm advertising myself. I am not. You are doing that to try to make it
sound like I boost. It is a tactic of yours that is inappropriate. You should apologize.
> You're an ideologue who just wants to pick fights.
> You really could care less about American history.
Now your insults are getting almost absurdly confrontational and unsubstantiated. What is my
ideology? How dare you say I don't care about American history!
Sir, you owe yet another apology. Why do you lash out so? It contradicts everything your
religion teaches in terms of how you treat others. Why do you do that?
> > Also, you brought up my profession saying that I wouldn't last at a teacher at your
> > institution
>
> Correct. Our clientele actually demands that students get taught information.
So you are saying I don't teach information? How dare you! What causes you to launch such
personal attacks. Check out:http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/lectures.htm
I even post lecture notes online! There was no cause, and is no cause, for such continued mean
spirited personal attacks.
More similar insults deleted.
Rick, you are acting very defensive, prone to attack, and unwilling to admit any mistake or error
on your part. Again, I apologize for all I've done to make the situation so unpleasant.
Remember, its better to act in a loving, caring way to others, just as the teacher in your
religion, Jesus, a moral philosopher I greatly respect, teaches you to do in your relationships.
Step back from this silliness.
Rethink your style. Stop the attacks. It doesn't help.
Scott Erb
Rick Gardiner wrote:
> Thanks for clearing that up. So you were saying that I am worse than Hoess (a
> Nazi). I feel much better now.
Gee, Rick, given the insults you've been throwing my way, I really don't think you have
much cause to complain.
Consider:
> The fact that with regard to comparing me to followers of Hitler, Erb said
> "the comparison is apt"? (http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587094241)
You're hung up on Nazis, Rick. The comparison, as I explained, is apt when one
compares different groups of historical revisionists who twist history to their own
ends, be it to support Islamic fundamentalism, holocaust revisionism, or christian
revisionism. Some of these revisionists may be nazis, many are not. That is
irrelevant to the issue at hand.
You insult a lot, but want to try to paint yourself a victim here, screaming that
somehow Mike and I are horrid because we compared you to someone who is a nazi.
Rick, seriously, I mean you no ill harm and want this debate to reach a higher level.
But you have insulted me many times over, hinted I was like "scum," suggested I was not
worthy to for my profession, and got into a lot of personal stuff I snipped, and if you
do that, you're going to find people being very willing to consider such comparisons
apt. You seem to be going for personal attacks over all else. Stop it. I recognized
when you had legitimate complaints about me (over things smaller than those!),
apologized, and in general went the extra mile to apologize for my part in any
misunderstanding.
Why not do the same, shake hands, and talk? Why the pretense?
> Or the fact that Sinclair tried to prove that I was never a pastor because
> Arkansas and Mississippi are too far away from each other?
Somehow, I find it hard to accept that was all he claimed.
> Or the fact that Danaher & Stevens can't bear the fact that Deuteronomy
> 20:16-17 meant what it says?
That God ordered the Jews to holy war? Yeah, the old testament is full of a lot of
stuff like that. What was the point?
> Go ahead, Repost away. Clog up this group with a dump of material that's not
> relevant to the subject matter of this group. That's how it got here the first
> time around, and I'm absolutely certain that within 24 hours you will have
> turned this group back into alt.gardiner.resume or alt.ancient.israel, and in
> RERUN form at that.
Don't be so defensive! Look at yourself! Maybe your arrogant manner and way of
insulting others while never apologizing or accepting blame for any bad blood is
partially the cause for how people are treating you. Seriously, step back, relax, and
try to approach this with a sense of kindness. Thats much more effective in the long
run.
> By all means, curtis, play your little games. It is very demonstrative of just
> what your purpose is here. That's why you talk so much about nazis and
> holocaust deniers here. You are hoping that someone might take the bait and
> you can turn alt.history.colonial into a discussion you feel more comfortable
> with. No wonder that those truly interested in American History have killfiled
> all of our conversations; only one tenth of what you bring up is informative
> information about American History. This really is boring.
>
> Time for a vacation.
When you go on vacation, think about what you claim. You've got a hateful heart,
lashing out at people who think differently then you, unable to tolerate that some
people may have very different interpretations. You can't admit when you make mistake
and you insult, but you play the victim and refuse to apologize when the shoe is on the
other foot. Dammit Rick, you're supposed to believe in what the New Testament teaches
if you are what you say you are, and not a hypocrite. Is your behavior really in line
with that? Wouldn't it be more honorable to stop attacking. I know, I know, I sound
like a preacher, but I believe what I'm saying. I really do find New Testament
teaching to be very wise, and though I do not believe that Jesus was a God, I tend to
get along well with most Christians because I respect their beliefs and find they often
have the same view on how to treat others as I do. Thats one reason I'm amazed that
you are so spiteful and mean!
Oh well, maybe you just need that vacation. It happens to all of us :)
>
>
> RG
Scott Erb
Rick Gardiner wrote:
> Thanks for clearing that up. So you were saying that I am worse than Hoess (a
> Nazi). I feel much better now.
Gee, Rick, given the insults you've been throwing my way, I really don't think you have
much cause to complain.
Consider:
> The fact that with regard to comparing me to followers of Hitler, Erb said
> "the comparison is apt"? (http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587094241)
You're hung up on Nazis, Rick. The comparison, as I explained, is apt when one
compares different groups of historical revisionists who twist history to their own
ends, be it to support Islamic fundamentalism, holocaust revisionism, or christian
revisionism. Some of these revisionists may be nazis, many are not. That is
irrelevant to the issue at hand.
You insult a lot, but want to try to paint yourself a victim here, screaming that
somehow Mike and I are horrid because we compared you to someone who is a nazi.
Rick, seriously, I mean you no ill harm and want this debate to reach a higher level.
But you have insulted me, hinted I was like "scum," suggested I was not worthy to for
my profession, and got into a lot of personal stuff I snipped, and if you do that,
you're going to find people being very willing to consider such comparisons apt. You
seem to be going for personal attacks over all else. Stop it.
> Or the fact that Sinclair tried to prove that I was never a pastor because
> Arkansas and Mississippi are too far away from each other?
>
> Or the fact that Danaher & Stevens can't bear the fact that Deuteronomy
> 20:16-17 meant what it says?
>
> Go ahead, Repost away. Clog up this group with a dump of material that's not
> relevant to the subject matter of this group. That's how it got here the first
> time around, and I'm absolutely certain that within 24 hours you will have
> turned this group back into alt.gardiner.resume or alt.ancient.israel, and in
> RERUN form at that.
>
Scott Erb
buc...@exis.net wrote:
(on my claim that the US is not a Christian nation, Rick responded:
> >:|
> >:|You have stated that more than once. Are you planning to provide any evidence
> >:|for the assertion or do you claim to have the power of pontification?
Followed by buckeye:
> The U S Constitution
>
> What other eviidence do you need?
I think Rick has gone on vacation. I'm hoping that when he comes back he'll settle down,
and perhaps not get so defensive. I am not one to dislike someone for having a different
point of view, and certainly want to understand Rick's position better. But its hard to
get past the arrogance and insults. I hope he reconsiders his tactics.
-scott
buc...@exis.net
>:|
>:|
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|
>:|(on my claim that the US is not a Christian nation, Rick responded:
>:|
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|You have stated that more than once. Are you planning to provide any evidence
>:|> >:|for the assertion or do you claim to have the power of pontification?
>:|
>:|Followed by buckeye:
>:|
>:|> The U S Constitution
>:|>
>:|> What other eviidence do you need?
>:|
>:|I think Rick has gone on vacation.
Nope, he is still here. he has decided to look silly in another area, by
taking a stand declaring cjourts.judges, etc do not make law, that all
three branches of government do not make law, etc.
>:|I'm hoping that when he comes back he'll settle down,
>:|and perhaps not get so defensive. I am not one to dislike someone for having a different
>:|point of view, and certainly want to understand Rick's position better. But its hard to
>:|get past the arrogance and insults. I hope he reconsiders his tactics.
>:|-scott
He won't he has done it for only a few days of a year now.
The very first post I ever saw and responded to of his (March 5, 1999) was
a post wheere he implied a person had no intergrity if they didn't agree
with him.
=======================================================
My first reply to him and that post that I ran across quite by accident
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/5/99
alt.politics.usa.constitution
Re: Christianity and the Founders
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
>:|
>:|Robert L. Johnson wrote:
>:|>
>:|> I just visited the site and the way it looks to me is the book makes the
>:|> claim that America owes its existence to Christianity and that
>:|> Christianity permeates the founding of our country. If this were true
>:|> Jesus would at least be mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or
>:|> the Constitution. Jesus and the Bible are NOT mentioned in either one.
>:|> The Declaration mentions God only in Deistic terms. And that's what
>:|> Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, and many other key founders were - Deists.
>:|>
>:|> Bob
>:|
>:|Dear Bob,
>:|
>:| I perceive you are a committed deist, and I don't want to quarrel with
>:|you about the merits of your religion, but your assertions about American
>:|history are wrong-headed and unsupportable.
>:|
>:| Six facts, I hope you will have the integrity to admit are indisputable:
>:|
Your facts are not indisputable, in fact some are downright incorrect.
I will be more then happy to take each one and discuss them with you.
>:| 1) Neither Jefferson nor Paine were part of the assembly of founders
>:|who wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787.
>:|
>:| 2) Paine was a first generation immigrant to the U.S. at the behest of
>:|Benjamin Franklin, and although his book, COMMON SENSE, was a best seller as a
>:|political tract, his views on religion led him to be labelled an infidel by
>:|the majority of the key founders. As an immigrant it is not fair to say that
>:|Paine's perspective was the product of six generations of life in the American
>:|Colonies. His religious perspective did not represent the consensus of the
>:|colonists. In key places such as Princeton, all students had to refute Paine
>:|as a part of their graduation requirements.
>:|
>:| 3) The following "key founders" were strongly Christian, and by that,
>:|I mean traditional orthodox believers in the trinity:
>:|
>:|Patrick Henry (give me liberty)
>:|Samuel Adams (boston tea party)
>:|Roger Sherman (member of the Dec of Ind committee)
>:|James Otis (taxation w/o rep)
>:|James Madison (father of the constitution)
>:|John Hancock (first signer of the Dec.)
>:|William Churchill Houston (secretary of the 2nd cont cong)
>:|George Wythe (Jefferson's Mentor)
>:|John Witherspoon
>:|Charles Pinckney
>:|
>:| 4) Harvard, William & Mary, Yale, and Princeton were the institutions
>:|where most of the founders received their intellectual formation; all of these
>:|institutions were traditional orthodox Christian academies until the 19th century.
>:|
>:| 5) The two most often quoted sources by the founders were, first, the
>:|Bible, and second, William Blackstone's Common Law Commentaries (See Hyneman &
>:|Lutz). Blackstone was a full fledged believer in revealed religion (i.e., the
>:|bible), and most of his content was rooted in medieval (Catholic) political
>:|philosophy (e.g., the Magna Carta). What's more, the entire Common Law
>:|tradition was rooted in orthodox Christianity.
>:|
>:| 6) The First Great Awakening was the generation in which the founders
>:|were born and reared. The First Great Awakening was led by Jonathan Edwards,
>:|George Whitefield, and John Wesley...their views permeated the colonies; and
>:|they were hardly deists!
>:|
>:| Now a quick word about the men whom I'm sure you will claim for your band:
>:|
>:| GEORGE WASHINGTON: I am quite aware that his religious sentiments are
>:|a great matter of controversy. You mentioned in your post your interest in
>:|Boller's book on Washington. The most celebrated biography of Washington is
>:|Mason Weems' THE LIFE OF GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1809; this book portrays
>:|Washington as a committed orthodox Christian. E.C. McGuire published The
>:|Religious Opinions and Character of Washington in 1836; it debunks the
>:|"Washington the Deist" myth. Finally, I refer you to William J. Johnson,
>:|GEORGE WASHINGTON THE CHRISTIAN (1919).
>:| In a nutshell, there are an abundance of documents authored by
>:|Washington which prevent an honest historian from classifying Washington as a
>:|deist. One example of this is the following prayer: "O most Glorious God, in
>:|Jesus Christ my merciful and loving Father, I acknowledge and confess the weak
>:|and imperfectconfess my guilt, in performances of the duties of this day...for
>:|the sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered upon the cross for me, for his sake,
>:|ease the burden of my sin...direct me to the true object Jesus Christ, the
>:|way, the truth, and the life...These weak petitions I humbly implore thee to
>:|hear and accept and ans. for the sake of thy Dear Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen."
>:|
>:|Bob, it'll take some manipulation of words to derive DEISM from that prayer!!
>:|
>:| JOHN ADAMS: a graduate of Harvard, a place steeped in Puritanism; like
>:|Washington, he used some deistic language, but his explicit creed (1813) was
>:|as follows: "My religion is founded on the hope of pardon for my offenses." It
>:|was his son, John Quincy Adams who made this bold statement in 1821: "The
>:|highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one
>:|indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."
>:|
>:| BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: Of all the founders, Franklin is most deistic. I
>:|will grant him to your cause, with Paine. But you need to be honest enough to
>:|admit that Franklin, as an 81 year old man at the Constitutional Convention
>:|was too feeble to provide the erudition he possessed as a younger man.
>:|Further, you must admit that Franklin was steeped in Puritanism and
>:|Presbyterianism...he studied for the ministry, he wrote a defense of
>:|Predestination, and he was a huge fan of Christianity, even though he demurred
>:|from its precepts. Although Franklin explicitly identified with the Deists
>:|(per AUTOBIOGRAPHY), Puritanism ran through his blood. That is why Franklin is
>:|perhaps the one individual in America most closely identified with "the
>:|Protestant Work Ethic."
>:|
>:| THOMAS JEFFERSON: You might think it outrageous to say that Jefferson
>:|had a Christian view of law and rights. You will point out that Jefferson was
>:|very clearly outside the mainstream in his views of Christ as Savior. He did
>:|not believe Jesus was God. If he did not have an orthodox view of the
>:|Christianity, how could he have a Christian view of law and rights?
>:| Regardless of whatever his personal views of religion were,
>:|Jefferson's political writings were saturated with ÒChristianÓ ideas. This is
>:|a result of Jefferson's immersion in a Christian culture. Whether he
>:|personally confessed Jesus as his savior is of little issue in terms of
>:|whether his theories were Christian. Jefferson adopted, by osmosis, much of
>:|the general Christian world-view of his mentors. Armchair historians easily
>:|forget Jefferson's cultural context; Jefferson's educational training did not
>:|occur in the classroom of Deists in Paris, but at the feet of clergymen in
>:|Virginia. From the time he was nine years old until the time he was sixteen,
>:|he was tutored by two orthodox ministers: Rev. James Maury and Rev. William
>:|Douglas. When he studied law at William and Mary he was not the pupil of
>:|Voltaire. His mentor was Mr. George Wythe, "a devout Christian and by no means
>:|a deist." And although the same cannot be said of Jefferson, it is recorded
>:|that Jefferson admired Wythe's Christian virtue. Jefferson called Wythe "my
>:|second father, my earliest and best friend." Though Jefferson became a
>:|Unitarian who was quite fond of the French deists, he was instilled with
>:|orthodox Christianity in his formative years. Despite his private doubts about
>:|the deity of Christ, as a statesman he complied with tradition, referring to
>:|Jesus as "Our Savior" and "Lord" in the ordinary Christian sense (see the
>:|Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom). In other words, as a son of a
>:|Christian culture, JeffersonÕs blood was Christian. And that blood permeates
>:|the concepts set forth in his political writings.
>:|
>:| Critics like yourself, both Christian and non-Christian, have often
>:|insisted that the U.S. Constitution is not "Christian" because it nowhere
>:|refers to "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Over the years there have been
>:|repeated efforts by some Christian groups to make the Constitution "Christian"
>:|by an amendment that would change the preamble to include a reference to "our
>:|Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." This cosmetic change would add ecclesiastical
>:|language almost as a decoration. It would have no material effect on any of
>:|the concepts in the document. Yet it is supposedly required in the eyes of
>:|some to make the Constitution "Christian." The issue is one of surface versus
>:|substance. It is the substance of the document that makes it a product of Christianity.
>:| In the Puritan outlook, Christian jargon was not the key. The content
>:|and the underlying concepts were the key. The fact that terms such as
>:|"federalism" and "due process of law" had an explicit Christian heritage, and
>:|that the entire Constitution rested on a Puritan view of the ordinary
>:|depravity of man was the kind of evidence that was relevant to showing the
>:|Christian impact on the Constitution.
>:| The language of the Founders was creator-oriented because it dealt
>:|with civil government, law, and individual rights. The Founders did not apply
>:|redeemer-oriented language--Christian jargon--to these documents of public
>:|law, because Calvin, Luther, and dozens of other Protestant political
>:|theorists called it a corruption of the gospel. By using creator-oriented
>:|language, the founders were squarely within the mainstream of the English
>:|Common Law heritage. And they were completely in harmony with the traditional
>:|Puritan use of legal terms and rights terms.
>:| In the Puritan approach, concepts were very important. Some concepts
>:|dealt with law. Others dealt with rights. By 1776, the Puritans were fully
>:|convinced that concepts about the equality of all human beings, individual
>:|inalienable rights, and government by the consent of the governed were fully
>:|biblical ideas. It is not surprising in light of the Puritan impact, that
>:|these ideas were foundational to the American colonial outlook at the time of independence.
>:| These were not Enlightenment concepts or Deistic concepts. They were
>:|Puritan concepts, and fully Christian. And they were more than just Puritan
>:|concepts. They were part of that broader stream of Christian thought in which
>:|the Puritans stood. Where the colonies were concerned, the concepts were
>:|Puritan for the simple fact that for decades the Puritans were purveyors of
>:|these concepts and were intellectual leaders prior to 1776. The concepts were
>:|Christian even though they were expressed in natural terms rather than
>:|ecclesiastical language. In the Puritan approach to the creator-redeemer
>:|distinction, natural language was the right language to use.
>:| To the critics, however, naturalistic language is automatically
>:|suspect. Such language could not be "Christian" because it does not sound
>:|religious enough. People are prone to test the founding documents not by their
>:|concepts and content, but by whether they used Christian jargon. If redemptive
>:|language was not used, many simply assume that the documents were not
>:|"Christian." That is not only a foolish and narrow-minded approach to
>:|evaluating the founders and their writings, it leads to a patently erroneous conclusion.
>:|
>:| In summary, Bob, although deism played a peripheral role in the U.S.
>:|founding, its influence pales in comparison to the central role of orthodox
>:|Christianity. You can find a discounted copy of the book at http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
>:|
>:|Thanks for your response and I'd be glad to continue this dialogue further...
>:|
>:|Gracefully,
>:|Rick
==================================================================
Richard A. Schulman
>[W]e're still waiting for you:
>
>> 1) to disprove the Weber-Landes thesis (joined by hundreds of other
>> scholars) that Christianity, especially its Protestantist variant, led
>> to modern science, capitalist industrial development, and democratic
>> republics;
Scott Erb:
>Kid, I've read Weber, and you're misrepresenting the whole thesis.
Well, you'll have to explain how. Here's the text to refresh your
memory:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/WEBER/toc.html
Erb:
> Also, given that
>much of what got science moving was before the reformation and often in opposition to
>the church,
Modern science begins AFTER the Reformation with such figures as
Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, although there are certainly important
developments in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance. Also, you are
making the mistake of confusing Christianity with the Catholic Church
hierarchy and Catholicism with Protestantism.
> your silly attempt to say religion was the cause of the advance of
>civilization can be scoffed at. Its not serious enough to warrant spending time on it.
Again, you make up a straw man instead of addressing what I actually
say. I asked you to
>> 1) to disprove the Weber-Landes thesis...that Christianity, especially its Protestantist variant, led
>> to modern science, capitalist industrial development, and democratic
>> republics;
Just to make things clearer. This is not a monocausal thesis but
rather a statement that the Protestant reformation played an important
contributory role to the rise of "modern science, capitalist
industrial development, and democratic republics."
>First, YOU make the proof....
Nice try, but that won't work as a tactic. I concede that I must make
the case that Franklin isn't the great founder that he's usually said
to be. I'm the revisionist here, and it's the job of revisionists to
make their case in a convincing way against the standard view. But Max
Weber is the most famous of 20th century sociologists and his essay
"Protestantism and the Spirit of Capitalism" one of the most
influential essays ever written. Similarly, David Landes would
probably be acknowledged by most scholars as the leading living
economic historian. So it's up to you to knock the thesis down. You're
the revisionist in this case.
Schulman:
>> 2) to prove that history's best examples of deist and atheist
>> governments were or are good governments: Jacobin France (publicly
>> deist), Soviet Russia (atheist), People's Republic of China (atheist),
>> North Korea (atheist), and Cuba (atheist).
Erb:
>Again, you haven't responded to my claim that: 1) Christian countries also had similarly
>evil governments -- Germany is a classic example -- and Christianity was used to, say,
>burn women accused of being witches, destroy vast Latin American civlizations, etc.,
>etc. This PROVES that religion is not the causal variable.
No one said that religion is THE unique causal variable. But both
Weber and Landes found it highly significant that modern capitalist
development correlated closely with Protestant areas of Europe and
went to some trouble to explain why they thought this was so. You need
to either acknowledge the correctness of their views or give your
reasons why you think their thesis is wrong.
>2) I explained the reasons
>why there has been failure in most Communist/totalitarian (and in fact that helps
>explain China is doing relatively well) nations,
You did? If so, may I suggest you post a few good posts rather than a
flood of ad hominem and "tactical" posts. Your ideas will be better
attended to.
> and how factors other than your
>simplistic and ill-supported religion thesis explain these results.
My "simplistic and ill-supported religion thesis" is that of Weber and
Landes, which you have been challenged to refute but have thus far
fled from doing. As for the other side of the coin, I simply pointed
out that the leading historical examples of deist and atheist nations
(Jacobin France, Soviet Russia, Communist China, and North Korea) have
been failures.
>> Oh, and I see you're back to excessive cross-posting again.
>
>Oh, I see Ms. Manners has another prissy fit. Sheesh. Yet I only cross posted with
>one group. Who added the other four?
---
Richard Schulman
Remove antispamming XYZ for email reply
PGP id: 0xAFB852BF
Max Hoffmann
Science was before the reformation in especially Islamic countries and
China and the Europeans copied that technology early on to start a
science revolution.
Also if you are talking about Max (good name) Weber, he was talking
about sociological conditions. You are making it sound like he's saying
something he didn't. His view is also not agreed to by everyone, nand
it is not just evangelist but also Catholics (like my family) involved
in science and developments because it was sociological. You need to
study sociology more and Weber.
MH
In article <7p6nbsct483hcccl5...@4ax.com>,
Jeff Sinclair
Richard A. Schulman <RichardAS...@att.net> wrote:
> Richard Schulman:
> >[W]e're still waiting for you:
> >
> >> 1) to disprove the Weber-Landes thesis (joined by hundreds of other
> >> scholars) that Christianity, especially its Protestantist variant,
led
> >> to modern science, capitalist industrial development, and
democratic
> >> republics;
>
> Scott Erb:
> >Kid, I've read Weber, and you're misrepresenting the whole thesis.
>
> Well, you'll have to explain how. Here's the text to refresh your
> memory:
>
> http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/WEBER/toc.html
I have also read Weber's _Protestantism and The Captitalist Ethic_.
Weber's argument had more to do with the work ethic that came along with
a basic ascetic/this-worldly orientation (especially in its emphasis on
delayed gratification) of cultural Protestantism and how it justified
the development of the capitalist class in late 19th century western
society. What's more, Weber also argues that Protestant affiliation of
those who were wealthy may have been a _result_ rather than a _cause_ of
wealth.
From: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/WEBER/WeberCH1.html
"It is true that the greater relative participation of Protestants in
the ownership of capital, in management, and the upper ranks of labor in
great modern industrial and commercial enterprises, may in part be
explained in terms of historical circumstances, which extend far back
into the past, and in which religious affiliation is not a cause of the
economic conditions, but to a certain extent appears to be a result of
them."
<<…..>>
"But further, and especially important: it may be, as has been claimed,
that the greater participation of Protestants in the positions of
ownership and management in modern economic life may to-day be
understood, in part at least, simply as a result of the greater
material wealth they have inherited."
Religious beliefs were influential only in so far as they were used to
justify the already existing social situation. They were also largely
reinterpreted in order to justify the social order, for example,
Luther's concept of "call" differed markedly from the spirit of
capitalism of the time that Weber was writing. It was reinterpreted out
of context, it might be added, to justify not only the hard work for the
sake of hard work of Franklin, but also hard work of self and others for
the sake of worldly profit.
From: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/weber/WeberCH3.html
"The conception of the calling thus brings out that central dogma of all
Protestant denominations which the Catholic division. of ethical
precepts into preecepta and consilia discards. The only way of living
acceptably to God was not to surpass worldly morality in monastic
asceticism, but solely through the fulfillment of the obligations
imposed upon the individual by his position in the world. That was his
calling."
<<…..>>
<<Context: Concerning ways in which others used Luther's concept of
call>>
"In the first place it is hardly necessary to point out that Luther
cannot be claimed for the spirit of capital-ism in the sense in which we
have used that term above, or for that matter in any sense whatever. The
religious circles which today most enthusiastically celebrate that great
achievement of the Reformation are by no means friendly to capitalism in
any sense. And Luther himself would, without doubt, have sharply
repudiated any connection with a point of view like that of Franklin."
<<…..>>
"On the other hand, Luther's numerous statements against usury or
interest in any form reveal a conception of the nature of capitalistic
acquisition which, compared with that of late Scholasticism, is, from a
capitalistic viewpoint, definitely backward. Especially, of course , the
doctrine of the sterility of money which Anthony of Florence had already
refuted."
"But it is unnecessary to go into detail. For, above all the
consequences of the conception of the calling in the religious sense for
worldly conduct were susceptible to quite different
interpretations. The effect of the Reformation as such was only that, as
compared with the Catholic attitude, the moral emphasis on and the
religious sanction of, organized worldly labor in a calling was mightily
increased. The way in which the concept of the calling, which expressed
this change, should develop further depended upon the religious
evolution which now took place in the different Protestant Churches."
Weber also argues that much the same can be said about how Calvin was
reinterpreted in a similar vein to justify such acquisitiveness:
"We thus take as our starting point in the investigation of the
relationship between the old Protestant ethic and the spirit of
capitalism the works of Calvin, of Calvinism, and the other Puritan
sects. But it is not to be understood that we expect to find any of the
founders or representatives of these religious movements considering the
promotion of what we have called the spirit of capitalism as in any
sense the end of his life-work. We cannot well maintain that the pursuit
of worldly goods, conceived as an end in itself, was to any of them of
positive ethical value."
In other words, it can be said legitimately that the religious
traditions were re-interpreted to fit and to justify an already existing
capitalist ethos.
"On the other hand, however, we have no intention whatever of
maintaining such a foolish and doctrinaire thesis as that the spirit of
capitalism (in the provisional sense of the term explained above) could
only have arisen as the result of certain effects of the Reformation, or
even that capitalism as an economic system is a creation of the
Reformation. In itself, the fact that certain important forms of
capitalistic business organization are known to be considerably older
than the Reformation is a sufficient refutation of such a claim. On the
contrary, we only wish to ascertain whether and to what extent religious
forces have taken part in qualitative formation and the quantitative
expansion of that spirit over the world."
In other worlds, you attribute too much influence to Calvinism in the
development of capitalism. Weber argues that its primary value was in
providing justification for the accumulation of wealth of capitalists
and in making more efficient such accumulation, not in the structure and
theory of capitalism. Capitalists took especially Calvin's theory
concerning the elect and predestination and the "signs" of ones election
(differing from Luther's emphasis on sola gratia in significant ways)
and used it to argue that their "wealth" was a sign of their election,
moral and ethical superiority, etc.
From http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/weber/WeberCH4.html
"The typical religion of the Reformed Church, on the other hand, has
from the beginning repudiated both this purely inward emotional piety of
Lutheranism and the Quietist escape from everything of Pascal. A real
pene-tration of the human soul by the divine was made impossible by the
absolute transcendentiality of God compared to the flesh: finitum non
est capax infiniti. The community of the elect with their God could only
take place and be perceptible to them in that God worked (operatur)
through them and that they were conscious of it. That is, their action
originated from the faith caused by God's grace, and this faith in turn
justified itself by the quality of that action. Deep lying differences
of the most important conditions of salvation which apply to the
classification of all practical religious activity appear here. The
religious believer can make himself sure of his state of grace either in
that he feels himself to be the vessel of the Holy Spirit or the tool
of the divine will. In the former case his religious life tends to
mysticism and emotionalism, in the latter to ascetic action; Luther
stood close to the former type, Calvinism belonged definitely to the
latter. The Calvinist also wanted to be saved sola fide. But since
Calvin viewed all pure feelings and emotions, no matter how exalted they
might seem to be, with suspicion, faith had to be proved by its
objective results in order to provide a firm foundation for the
certitudo salutis. It must be a fides efficax, the call to salvation an
effectual calling (expression used in Savoy Declaration)."
It is also no accident that this "religious" justification fit in
nicely with the Social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer, which they also
used to justify their "superiority" in "social evolutionary" terms.
Again, the whole point of how it was used was to justify profit-making
among the capitalist classes:
From: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/weber/WeberCH5.html
"Wealth is thus bad ethically only in so far as it is a temptation to
idleness and sinful enjoyment of life, and its acquisition is bad only
when it is with the purpose of later living merrily and without care.
But as a performance of duty in a calling it is not only morally
permissible, but actually enjoined .The parable of the servant who was
rejected because he did not increase the talent which was entrusted to
him seemed to say so directly. To wish to be poor was, it was often
argued, the same as wishing to be unhealthy; it is objectionable as a
glorification of works and derogatory to the glory of God. Especially
begging, on the part of one able to work, is not only the sin of
slothfulness, but a violation of the duty of brotherly love according to
the Apostle's own word. The emphasis on the ascetic importance of a
fixed calling provided an ethical justification of the modern
specialized division of labour. In a similar way the providential
interpretation of profit-making justified the activities of the business
man. The superior indulgence of the seigneur and the parvenu ostentation
of the nouveau riche are equally detestable to asceticism."
Thus, the modern spirit of capitalism of which Weber wrote, while it
borrowed some religious justifications from the Puritans, essentially
removed the religion from it and used it for its own purposes:
"Since asceticism undertook to remodel the world and to work out its
ideals in the world, material goods have gained an increasing and
finally an inexorable power over the lives of men as at no previous
period in history. To-day the spirit of religious asceticism-whether
finally, who knows?-has escaped from the cage. But victorious
capitalism, since it rests on mechanical foundations, needs its support
no longer. The rosy blush of its laughing heir, the Enlightenment, seems
also to be irretrievably fading, and the idea of duty in one's calling
prowls about in our lives like the ghost of dead religious beliefs.
Where the fulfilment of the calling cannot directly be related to the
highest spiritual and cultural values, or when, on the other hand, it
need not be felt simply as economic compulsion, the individual generally
abandons the attempt to justify it at all. In the field of its highest
development, in the United States, the pursuit of wealth, stripped of
its religious and ethical meaning, tends to become associated with
purely mundane passions, which often actually give it the character of
sport."
"No one knows who will live in this cage in the future, or whether at
the end of this tremendous development, entirely new prophets will
arise, or there will be a great rebirth of old ideas and ideals, or, if
neither, mechanized petrification, embellished with a sort of convulsive
self-importance. For of the fast stage of this cultural development, it
might well be truly said:'
"Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this
nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never
before achieved.""
Also, nowhere does Weber address the development of science, nor for
that matter does he address participatory democracy. Indeed, he
lambastes Puritanism (in Chapter I) for its odiousness to modern day
democratic sensibilities.
Consider your so-called "Weber-Landes" thesis refuted.
> Erb:
> > Also, given that
> >much of what got science moving was before the reformation and often
in opposition to
> >the church,
>
> Modern science begins AFTER the Reformation with such figures as
> Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, although there are certainly important
> developments in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance. Also, you are
> making the mistake of confusing Christianity with the Catholic Church
> hierarchy and Catholicism with Protestantism.
Nonsense. The roots of modern science go back well before the
Reformation. Respected scientific thinkers can be found not only in
Islamic culture prior to the Renaissance and in China, but also in the
ancient Hellenic world. Da Vinci, for example is a striking example of
one of the premier thinkers of the Italian Renaissance whose scientific
discoveries and speculations would not have been possible without the
reintroduction of scientific thinking from the Islamic world.
What's more, Scott Erb is correct in noting that the church (not just
the Catholic church) was hostile to many of these thinkers that you
mention. Luther called Copernicus "an ass" because his discoveries
helped to destroy the earth-centered universe that he and other
religious thinkers clung to. Kepler, while his work on the orbits of the
planets was inspired by religion, was regarded with suspicion by the
authorities and his mother in fact was accused of being a witch. He at
least had the intellectual honesty to discard his religious
preconceptions shaping his assumptions about the orbits of the planets
(namely that they moved within "crystal spheres" corresponding to the
six "perfect" solids) when the empirical data about their orbits
(derived from Tycho Brache) did not allow him to continue to assert
this. Galileo's struggle with the church is well attested, and so on.
Far more often than not, the church, whether it was Catholic or not,
actively tried to bar the scientific search for truth.
The scientific method as it is used today as a tool for research and
understanding can only be said to have been around in its present form
since the late 19th/early 20th century. It's development was mostly in
rather profound conflict with religion, especially Protestant religion.
> > your silly attempt to say religion was the cause of the advance of
> >civilization can be scoffed at. Its not serious enough to warrant
spending time on it.
>
> Again, you make up a straw man instead of addressing what I actually
> say. I asked you to
>
> >> 1) to disprove the Weber-Landes thesis...that Christianity,
especially its Protestantist variant, led
> >> to modern science, capitalist industrial development, and
democratic
> >> republics;
And it has indeed been disproved. To those who have the time, I would
indeed invite you to examine Weber's thesis as noted in Mr. Schulman's
URL above. It says something quite different than what Mr. Schulman is
asserting.
> Just to make things clearer. This is not a monocausal thesis but
> rather a statement that the Protestant reformation played an important
> contributory role to the rise of "modern science, capitalist
> industrial development, and democratic republics."
The phrasing of your presentation of the "Weber-Landes" thesis suggests,
in contradiction to your clarification, that it was the major factor.
Weber himself notes that the development of capitalism itself appears
independently of Calvinist thought:
From: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/weber/WeberCH2.html
"Nevertheless, we provisionally use the expression spirit of (modern)
capitalism to describe that attitude which seeks profit rationally and
systematically in the manner which we have illustrated, by the example
of Benjamin Franklin. This, however, is justified by the historical fact
that that attitude of mind has on the one hand found its most suitable
expression in capitalistic enterprise, while on the other the enterprise
has derived its most suitable motive force from the spirit of
capitalism."
"But the two may very well occur separately. Benjamin Franklin was
filled with the spirit of capitalism at a time when his printing
business did not differ in form from any handicraft enterprise. And we
shall see that at the beginning of modem times it was by no means the
capitalistic entrepreneurs of the commercial aristocracy, who were
either the sole or the predominant bearers of the attitude we have here
called the spirit of capital-ism. It was much more the rising strata of
the lower industrial middle classes."
[…..]
"And, as a rule, it has been neither dare-devil and unscrupulous
speculators, economic adventurers such as we meet at all periods
of economic history, nor simply great financiers who have carried
through this change, outwardly so inconspicuous, but nevertheless so
de-cisive for the penetration of economic life with the new spirit. On
the contrary, they were men who had grown up in the hard school of life,
calculating and daring at he same time, above all temperate and
reliable, shrewd d completely devoted to their business, with strictly
bourgeois opinions and principles. One is tempted to think that these
personal moral qualities have not the slightest relation to any ethical
maxims, to say nothing of religious ideas, but that the essential
relation between them is negative. The ability to free oneself from the
common tradition, a sort of liberal enlightenment, seems likely to be
the most suitable basis for such a business man's success. And to-day
that is generally precisely the case. Any relation-ship between
religious beliefs and conduct is generally absent, and where any exists,
at least in Germany, it tends to be of the negative sort. The people
filled with the spirit of capitalism to-day tend to be indifferent, if
not hostile, to the Church. The thought of the pious boredom of paradise
has little attraction for their active natures; religion appears to them
as a means of drawing people away from labor in this world."
It was its religious emphases in the work ethic and in delayed
gratification which allowed and justified the massive accumulation of
capital among the capitalist classes in western society. Weber nowhere
argues that it was responsible for the development of capitalism itself
(except in its use to justify pushing workers that much harder according
to the work ethic) or of modern science and democratic republics.
> >First, YOU make the proof....
>
> Nice try, but that won't work as a tactic. I concede that I must make
> the case that Franklin isn't the great founder that he's usually said
> to be. I'm the revisionist here, and it's the job of revisionists to
> make their case in a convincing way against the standard view. But Max
> Weber is the most famous of 20th century sociologists and his essay
> "Protestantism and the Spirit of Capitalism" one of the most
> influential essays ever written. Similarly, David Landes would
> probably be acknowledged by most scholars as the leading living
> economic historian. So it's up to you to knock the thesis down. You're
> the revisionist in this case.
Except that you misrepresent Weber and it is you who are the revisionist
here. I have provided plenty of information from Weber himself to knock
down that assertion. The thesis is primarily about how the capitalist
ethic more or less captured aspects of Puritan thought in order to
justify both the amassing of vast wealth through the work ethic and the
superior "moral position" of the capitalist for doing so. By Weber's
time, what "religion" there had been in that had been largely
eliminated, as was also shown. Moreover, Weber nowhere argues that
Calvinism is responsible for capitalism, the development of democratic
institutions, or science.
The thesis has not only been knocked down. It has been sliced to
ribbons.
> Schulman:
> >> 2) to prove that history's best examples of deist and atheist
> >> governments were or are good governments: Jacobin France (publicly
> >> deist), Soviet Russia (atheist), People's Republic of China
(atheist),
> >> North Korea (atheist), and Cuba (atheist).
>
> Erb:
> >Again, you haven't responded to my claim that: 1) Christian countries
also had similarly
> >evil governments -- Germany is a classic example -- and Christianity
was used to, say,
> >burn women accused of being witches, destroy vast Latin American
civlizations, etc.,
> >etc. This PROVES that religion is not the causal variable.
>
> No one said that religion is THE unique causal variable. But both
> Weber and Landes found it highly significant that modern capitalist
> development correlated closely with Protestant areas of Europe and
> went to some trouble to explain why they thought this was so. You need
> to either acknowledge the correctness of their views or give your
> reasons why you think their thesis is wrong.
And the reason for that was elaborated in the first chapter showing that
capitalism and the wealth that came with it came largely prior to
Calvinist thought. Calvinism, especially as it was "re-worked" in
service of capitalism, was used not so much to drive capitalism (except
to the extent that the capitalist class expected everyone else to work
as hard as they did in order to make money for them), but to justify the
accumulation of wealth as a result of it.
> >2) I explained the reasons
> >why there has been failure in most Communist/totalitarian (and in
fact that helps
> >explain China is doing relatively well) nations,
>
> You did? If so, may I suggest you post a few good posts rather than a
> flood of ad hominem and "tactical" posts. Your ideas will be better
> attended to.
Where has Scott Erb posted a flood of ad hominem or "tactical" posts.
Stick to the content.
> > and how factors other than your
> >simplistic and ill-supported religion thesis explain these results.
>
> My "simplistic and ill-supported religion thesis" is that of Weber and
> Landes, which you have been challenged to refute but have thus far
> fled from doing. As for the other side of the coin, I simply pointed
> out that the leading historical examples of deist and atheist nations
> (Jacobin France, Soviet Russia, Communist China, and North Korea) have
> been failures.
"Thesis" challenged and refuted.
--
Quod si nihil cum potentiore juris humani relinqui
tur inopi, at ego ad Deos vindices humanea superbiae
confugiam - Livy, bk 9, ch. 1
Scott D. Erb
Yesterday I was grading papers all day and didn't have time to get to this.
Good job. Thanks. Its my birthday, so I'll consider the work you did on
this a birthday present, allowing me to focus on the fact I have a meeting
at 7:30 AM and have to teach today until 9:00 PM...so thanks :)
My apologizes, but I'll not snip anything. Heck, if I'm going to take this
as my birthday present, I have a right to just enjoy posting it again, right
;)
cheers, scott
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
Scott D. Erb
"Richard A. Schulman" wrote:
> Modern science begins AFTER the Reformation with such figures as
> Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, although there are certainly important
> developments in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance. Also, you are
> making the mistake of confusing Christianity with the Catholic Church
> hierarchy and Catholicism with Protestantism.
No, modern science began much earlier, starting with the rediscovery of Roman and Greek knowledge during the
reformation, and borrowing concepts from Islam, who didn't have the lapse in knowledge creation at the turn
of the millennium that the Christian world had. Also, it is very dubious to try to argue that Christianity
or the reformation is the reason scientific development began; many early scientists were skeptical of
religion. BUT the reformation played a role mainly by breaking the grip of the church on society, and
making it easier for the non-religious and non-dogmatic types to question things that had been taken as true
just because they were in the Bible.
I doubt you can causally link scientific development to protestantism, though the reformation in so far as
it broke the hold of dogma and orthodoxy did play a role in helping expand freedom of thought and science.
Be careful of turning a sociological change (breaking the power of the church, new ideas certainly linked to
protestant culture) to claims about the power of a religious dogma. Anything that broke the power of the
church and focused people on individual freedom and scientific inquiry would have led to modern science.
The reformation was a part of it, as it was part of the culture. And, as religion has become more minor in
the role it plays, science has progressed even faster. Thats not because religion is more minor, but
because people are free to question EVERYTHING, and dogma is much less powerful than before.
Rest snipped because Jeff already so ably dealt with the Weber issue.
cheers, scott
Richard A. Schulman
do not understand Max Weber's thesis in "The Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism."
My challenge to Mr. Erb was
>>> 1) to disprove the Weber-Landes thesis (joined by hundreds of other
>>> scholars) that Christianity, especially its Protestantist variant, led
>>> to modern science, capitalist industrial development, and
>>>democratic republics;
Mr. Sinclair writes:
>I have also read Weber's _Protestantism and The Captitalist Ethic_.
>Weber's argument had more to do with the work ethic that came along with
>a basic ascetic/this-worldly orientation (especially in its emphasis on
>delayed gratification) of cultural Protestantism and how it justified
>the development of the capitalist class in late 19th century western
>society. What's more, Weber also argues that Protestant affiliation of
>those who were wealthy may have been a _result_ rather than a _cause_ of
>wealth.
Mr. Sinclair clearly wants to minimize the role that Protestantism
played as a causal agent in the development of modern science,
industrial capitalism, and democratic republic. I claim that his
so-called refutation fails on several counts: first, because his
discussion of Weber's essay is characterized by selective quotation
taken out of context; second, because he only addresses the Weber side
of what I put forward as the Weber-Landes thesis; third, because he
obviously hasn't read the Weber essay carefully, for it certainly does
not emphasize delayed gratification. To the contrary, the ascetic
Calvinist-Puritan worldview that is Weber's focus is against
gratification altogether. Nor is the notion that Protestantism
"justified the development of the capitalist class in late 19th
century western society" a significant theme in the Weber essay, which
is principally concerned with the influence of Calvinism on the
formative period of modern capitalism during the 17th and 18th
centuries.
Let's examine the Weber study first, beginning with two scholarly
opinions regarding that study.
"Challenged by the Marxist theory of economic determinism, Weber
combined his interest in economics with sociology in an attempt to
establish, through historical study, that historical causation was not
influenced merely by economic considerations. In one of his best-known
works, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904-1905;
trans. 1930), he tried to prove that ethical and religious ideas were
strong influences on the development of capitalism." ("Max Weber,"
Encarta 99)
"Probably the most provocative explanation [of the origin of modern
capitalism] is the one offered by the German social scientist Max
Weber, who...published in 1904-05 one of the most influential and
provocative essays ever written: <<The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit
of Capitalism.>> His thesis: that Protestantism -- more specifically,
its Calvinist branches -- promoted the rise of modern
capitalism...Protestantism did this...by defining and sanctioning an
ethic of everyday behavior that conducted to business success....[O]n
the empirical level...records show that Protestant merchants and
manufacturers played a leading role in trade, banking, and industry.
In manufacturing centers (fabriques) in France and western Germany,
Protestants were typically the employers, Catholics the employed. In
Switzerland, the Protestant cantons were the centers of export
manufacturing industry (watches, machinery, textiles); the Catholic
ones were primarily agricultural. In England, which by the end of the
sixteenth century was overwhelmingly Protestant, the Dissenters (read
Calvinists) were disproportionately active and influential in the
factories and forges of the nascent Industrial Revolution....The heart
of the matter lay indeed in the making of a new kind of man --
rational, ordered, diligent, productive. These virtues, while not new,
were hardly commonplace. Protestantism generalized them among its
adherents, who judged one another by conformity to these standards."
(David S. Landes, _The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So
Rich and Some So Poor_ (NY: W.W. Norton, 1999), pp. 174-177.
Note that both Encarta and Professor Landes stress Weber's view that
Protestanism was a causal factor in the development of modern
capitalism, whereas Mr. Sinclair tries to present Weber as regarding
Protestanism as an effect.
Mr. Sinclair writes:
>...[N]owhere does Weber address the development of science, nor for
>that matter does he address participatory democracy....
To the contrary, Weber does address the development of science:
"It is not, however, true that the ideals of Puritanism implied a
solemn, narrow-minded contempt of culture. Quite the contrary is the
case at least for science..." (op. cit., ch. 5)
And he also addresses the development of democratic republics:
"Montesquieu says (Esprit des Lois, Book XX, chap. 7) of the English
that they "had progressed the farthest of all peoples of the world in
three important things: in piety, in commerce, and in freedom". Is it
not possible that their commercial superiority and their adaptation to
free political institutions are connected in someway with that record
of piety which Montesquieu ascribes to them?" (op. cit., ch. 1)
Weber's main focus is on Protestantism's relation to the development
of capitalism, however, and that is why I made a point of speaking of
a Weber-Landes thesis rather than merely a Weber thesis.
Here is a quote from Landes on science:
"The same kind of controversy [that met Weber's thesis] has swirled
around the derivative thesis of the sociologist Robert K. Merton, who
argued that there was a direct link between Protestantism and the rise
of modern science. He was not the first to make this point. In the
nineteenth century Alphonse de Candolle, from a Huguenot family of
Geneva, counted that of ninety-two foreign members elected to the
French Academie des Sciences in the period 1666-1866, some seventy-one
were Protestant, sixteen Catholic, and the remaining five Jewish or of
indeterminate religious affiliation -- this frm a population pool
outside of France of 107 million Catholics, 68 million Protestants. A
similar count of foreign fellows of the Royal in Lonon in 1829 and
1869 showed equal numbers of Catholics and Protestants out of a pool
in which Catholics outnumbered Protestants by more than three to one."
(Landes, op. cit., pp. 176-177)
And another:
"The Protestant Reformation...changed the rules. It gave a big boost
to literacy, spawned dissents and heresies, and promoted the
skepticism and refusal of authority that is at the heart of the
scientific endoeavor." (Landes, op. cit., p. 179)
Here is Landes on developments contributory to the later establishment
of democratic republics:
"The Church succeeded in asserting itself politically in some
countries, notably those of southern Europe, not in others; so that
there developed within Europe areas of potentially free thought. This
freedom found expression later in the Protestant Reformation."
(Landes, op. cit., p. 38)
"In the decades that followed [1517, when Martin Luther nailed his
<<Ninety-five Theses>> to the church door in Wittenberg] Protestants
in several countries...translated the Bible into the vernacular.
People read and started thinking for themselves, and laymen joined
divines in rebellion." (Landes, op. cit. p. 139)
Sinclair:
>The [Weber] thesis is primarily about how the capitalist
>ethic more or less captured aspects of Puritan thought in order to
>justify both the amassing of vast wealth through the work ethic and the
>superior "moral position" of the capitalist for doing so.
To the contrary, Weber's *main* emphasis is that Calvinism created the
hard-working, "calling"-oriented entrepreneurs and employees that were
essential to initiating modern capitalist development.
Sinclair:
>And the reason for that was elaborated in the first chapter showing that
>capitalism and the wealth that came with it came largely prior to
>Calvinist thought. Calvinism, especially as it was "re-worked" in
>service of capitalism, was used not so much to drive capitalism (except
>to the extent that the capitalist class expected everyone else to work
>as hard as they did in order to make money for them), but to justify the
>accumulation of wealth as a result of it.
Once again, the same exaggerated emphasis on "justification." You've
also confused Weber's important and careful distinction between
pre-modern and modern capitalism. One example of this distinction:
".Similarly, the early history of the North American Colonies is
dominated by the sharp contrast of the adventurers, who wanted to set
up plantations with the labour of indentured servants, and live as
feudal lords, and the specifically middle-class outlook of the
Puritans." (Weber, op. cit., ch. 5)
I sense you are coming from a Marxist background. You consistently
seem to regard religious ideas as mere effect, "superstructure." No
wonder you misconstrue Weber, who was diametrically opposed to such an
approach:
"To speak here of a reflection of material conditions in the ideal
superstructure would be patent nonsense. What was the background of
ideas which could account for the sort of activity apparently directed
toward profit alone as a calling toward which the individual feels
himself to have an ethical obligation? " (Weber, op. cit., ch. 2)
Richard A. Schulman
>> Modern science begins AFTER the Reformation with such figures as
>> Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, although there are certainly important
>> developments in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance. Also, you are
>> making the mistake of confusing Christianity with the Catholic Church
>> hierarchy and Catholicism with Protestantism.
Scott Erb:
>No, modern science began much earlier, starting with the rediscovery of Roman and Greek knowledge during the
>reformation,
What Roman and Greek knowledge are you imagining wasn't rediscovered
until the Reformation? Probably you're confusing the Reformation with
the Renaissance. Most historians of science date the beginnings of
modern science -- rigorous, quantitative, experimental -- to Gallileo.
>BUT the reformation played a role mainly by breaking the grip of the church on society, and
>making it easier for the non-religious and non-dogmatic types to question things that had been taken as true
>just because they were in the Bible.
Agreed.
>I doubt you can causally link scientific development to protestantism, though the reformation in so far as
>it broke the hold of dogma and orthodoxy did play a role in helping expand freedom of thought and science.
I rest my case. But there's also the issue of consistency and
rationality, as derived from early Calvinism and discussed by Max
Weber. Consistency and rationality are as important to science as they
are to capitalist development.
Scott Erb
Richard A. Schulman wrote:
> Jeff Sinclair believes that he has vindicated Scott Erb's claim that I
> do not understand Max Weber's thesis in "The Protestant Ethic and the
> Spirit of Capitalism."
You don't understand Weber if you think that his theory supports a claim that
somehow protestant teachings are the cause for science or capitalist
development. Rather he was describing how protestantism and its traditions
corresponded with other sociological trends to create conditions which were
conducive to capitalist development. Your error is that, apparently driven by
a religious motivation, you try to twist Weber's theory into a claim that
somehow the protestant teaching itself (the essence of the religion) caused
success. Rather, protestantism was a particular sociological development that
mixed with other changes to create a certain type of European capitalism. In
my opinion this can't be completely separated from Marxian developments
either, or from the breakdowns in capitalism in especially the early 20th
century.
Bluntly: you're treating a sociological argument as if it were about
religion. I'm posted (and perhaps tomorrow will repost if I see no reply) a
long restatement of why your approach is contrary to social science in that
you don't deal well with questions of causality and how evidence is
considered. The main issues I'm concerned with are listed there. For now
suffice it to say that in my opinion Jeff has the much stronger argument.
Your arguments don't touch Sinclair's response, and you seem to be trolling,
especially with your bizarre claim that Jeff is being like a Marxist.