FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-24-2003, 04:38 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Missouri
Posts: 571
Default

I have a book with most of Jefferson's writings. He was extremely critical of Christianity as a religion....called Christ a person of questionable parentage who eventually wound up thinking he really was the son of God... and his divine conception and birth by a virgin would be someday believed to be a fable. He admired Christianity as a philosophy, which is why he separated out what he thought were the actual words of Jesus from the Bible, of which he was equally critical.

George Washington wrote a letter to Jewish leaders stating that this new nation would give no quarter to bigotry. (There were 50 Jewish officers in the Revolution, or thereabouts.) Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance mentions Christianity but also says America should be a beacon to the opressed of all beliefs. (I'm paraphrasing, you should read the original to make sure I am not missing a point.)

The Treaty of Tripoli is in the official records of the US, and its text was published in the newspapers with no major outcry by the public. There are a lot of discussions about it now, people trying to say it was a lie, not valid, whatever. It was signed by all the Senate (I believe)...and I can't believe ALL of them would lie. The authorship of the sentence you mentioned is only speculative.

It is true that we are a nation of mostly Christians, but not that we are a Christian nation. Christians, not surprisingly, can't tell the difference. Government, as is painfully obvious, has no morality...so how can it be a good thing if it is Christian???? If I were a believer, I would be embarassed to claim ANY of them as being on my side.
Zora is offline  
Old 05-24-2003, 05:36 PM   #32
Beloved Deceased
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: central Florida
Posts: 3,546
Default

(A small consideration for those discussing "founders" and "framers.")

What is the definition of a "founder?"

There were 56 names on the D of I. There were 39 names on the U.S. Constitution. There were 65 men chosen to attend the Constitutional Convention. Ten never attended and 16 attended but chose not to sign it.

The D of I is only considered to be the "founding" document by those who are desperate to find some correlation between an America of secular laws and an America governed by biblical laws...their biblical laws.

The D of I founded our "nation." The Constitution founded our form of "government." IMHO, Thomas Paine was every bit as much a "founding father" as any of those who signed either document. However, I do not consider him one of the "framing fathers" because he was not part of the group who actually debated and drafted our government's constitution.

There are a goodly number of men, and some women, who could be called founding fathers...and mothers...of our nation. I have found it necessary (when in discussions with supernaturalists) to force the issue of "founders" and "framers" in order to differentiate between the D of I and the U.S.Constitution.

Those individuals who are most concerned with the religious faith beliefs of either the founders or framers are attempting to give one religious faith belief sect the ultimate say in the ethics and morality of elected representatives. Personally I have uncovered no verifiable evidence that anyone during those formative years declared themselves a non-supernaturalist. They all believed in some form of Sky Pixie because the evidence to support the Theory of Evolution was still more than half-a-century in the future as an explanation for human existence on this planet. (That is one reason why certain radical supernaturalists will go to almost any length to undermine the teaching of "Evilution."
Buffman is offline  
Old 05-25-2003, 04:54 PM   #33
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Folding@Home in upstate NY
Posts: 14,394
Arrow

Quote:
Originally posted by Muffinstuffer
You DO realize I'm being sarcastic and not the least bit serious when I correct myself, right?
Oh yeah, of course. But I just had to make sure that others don't get the wrong idea.

Actually, just a few days ago, I saw that term, "Framers" in the newspaper (editorials, IIRC), and it just irked me to see it in mainstream media.
Shake is offline  
Old 05-25-2003, 07:45 PM   #34
Beloved Deceased
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: central Florida
Posts: 3,546
Default

Shake

Go ahead, say it. It's OK. They were all men! That much we are sure of, so don't give in to the PC "Framers" bullshit. FF is quite accurate and shouldn't be changed.

Actually, just a few days ago, I saw that term, "Framers" in the newspaper (editorials, IIRC), and it just irked me to see it in mainstream media.


Do you mind amplifying why you believe that "framing fathers" has anything to do with being PC? Personally I think it is HA (Historically Accurate.) Besides, FF stands for either founding or framing.
Buffman is offline  
Old 05-25-2003, 08:53 PM   #35
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Tampa Bay area
Posts: 3,471
Default

Just curious---

When did the term "Founding Fathers" come into common usage. I am certain that the "founding fathers" did not call themselves that.

19th century thing? 20th century thing?

What is the history of this term? During what period of American history did the term begin ---and under what immediate circumstances?

Anybody know?

Bringing this up because there are so many things that are just "accepted" by the average person as having ALWAYS existed in American history and were not that way at all.

Pledge of Allegiance is one. Pledge of Allegiance with "under God" in it another. "In God We Trust" on our folding money for another.

So many things are in reality relatively very recent.----------but so many people think they have been around for like forever.
Rational BAC is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 04:34 AM   #36
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 1,107
Default

When did the term "Founding Fathers" come into common usage. I am certain that the "founding fathers" did not call themselves that.

Interesting question. Lincoln used the term "forefathers," as in
"Four score and twenty years ago, our forefathers..." Would this suggest "founding fathers" was not yet in use at the time of the Civil War; or did Lincoln use "forefathers" for its literary merit?

Edited for pronoun clarity.
Oresta is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 10:01 AM   #37
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern Maine, USA
Posts: 220
Default

Rational BAC,

Quote:
Originally posted by Rational BAC
Pledge of Allegiance is one. Pledge of Allegiance with "under God" in it another. "In God We Trust" on our folding money for another.

So many things are in reality relatively very recent.----------but so many people think they have been around for like forever.
Very true. Most of the american population is actually completely oblivious to the history of this country, making them seceptable to whatever BS the Religious Reich will throw at them. Most people are shocked to hear that the origional motto of our nation was E Pluribus Unum (Of Many, One) and that "In God we Trust" wasn't added until 1956 during the McCarthy hysteria. Or that the words "under God" were not put into the pledge of allegiance by out founders, in fact, our founders never created a pledge in the first place. People really should devote more time to understanding their nations heritage and history.
Jet Grind is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 09:20 PM   #38
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Puget Sound, WA, US
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Jet Grind
People really should devote more time to understanding their nations heritage and history.
Yeah, if they are going to be 'Patriotic', perhaps they should know their own damn country's history. Ignorance may be bliss, but it is also far too dangerous for the worlds future.

RD
RawData is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 05:14 AM   #39
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 1,107
Default

Yeah, if they are going to be 'Patriotic', perhaps they should know their own damn country's history. Ignorance may be bliss, but it is also far too dangerous for the worlds future.

Put down those Bibles and pick up the American history books, I say.

BTW I see I wrote "four score and twenty" instead of "and ten"

Also, Jet Grind, "In God we Trust" went on U.S. currency during the Civil War. It was a minister's idea, but then, so was the PoA. How ironic.
Oresta is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 09:57 AM   #40
Beloved Deceased
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: central Florida
Posts: 3,546
Default

Tiny quibble. It went on the "coinage" during the Civil War. It did got go on the "currency" until 1957.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fac...-we-trust.html
Buffman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:17 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.