Toto

I'd rather let the thread die a natural death instead of closing it and allowing RadOrth to claim he was muzzled.

Still waiting for Rad to post all this information he has.

Still not sure why Rad can't figure out who Deists were, and why they might prefer the relatively modern Protestants over the realtively medieval Protestants, just as most atheists today prefer Buddhists over theocratic Fundamentalists.

Radorth

I've been too readily and falsely accused of being against "separation," wanting my religion taught in schools at govt expense, and misrepresenting the founders, but ironically Madison and I agree on many points.

Neither of us would support "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," for the reasons he gave in his A Memorial and Remonstrance against the bill. (Extracts)

1.It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Notice he does not say "Religion or lack thereof is wholly exempt" nor does he mean such, for he says they must be subject to the "Governor of the universe" to be called a member of civil society.

2. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?

In other words, if you try to exclude all other religions, you will inevitably repress a useful or righteous sect of Christianity, for you cannot determine the difference. He seems little worried that the irreligious, especially given the following:

4. Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered.

Gee, I guess he thought God was awake and would demand an account of how one sect gained superiority over another. But yes, we must allow those choosing to remain in darkness to give their money to II if they wish.

6. Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

Guess he sees no need for Christian leaders to rob caravans or depend on anybody but the congregation for a paycheck. Neither did Jesus of course. Christianity will flourish with or without he says. Note that, if we did pay a tax directly to ministers, Madison thinks it would weaken a pious confidence in the power of the Gospel. I'll keep that in mind.

7. Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.

Not to worry here, although worried separatists claim the Mormons, Catholics, Moonies and David Barton have got together and hatched a plot to take over the government.

Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.

More evidence the founders were worried about one sect dominating another and "rulers" getting cozy with them. Kennedy apparently passed on the opportunity, but maybe Ashcroft and his sect are about to overhtrow Bush and his sect, eh?

11.At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed "that Christian forbearance, love and charity," which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jeolousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?

And the best comes last

12. Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error.

No mention of the "light of Truth" propagated by European "free-thinkers." No mention or even allusion to the "light" of science or deism or "rational thinking" of Voltaire or Ingersoll.

Rad

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Radorth

And as it turned out, Madison tells us, the most "zealous" Christians were against the bill. Now surely you infidels out there do at least consider me zealous.

The irony kills me.

Rad

Fred Flintstonensis

Radork:

You are acting like an ass and you know it. Your 'palm reading' comments and AAA thing is patently absurd. I have inferred (not divined) the fact that you have a need to believe Washington was a Christian. You have spent far too much energy and time in these last few weeks trying to convince us that he was to now convince me that you don't know or care or that you aren't sure. What you are doing now is called 'backpeddling'. I can look and find the post in which you said that your own research has revealed that Washington was a Christian, but what's the use? You said it and you know you said it.

Ironically, calling me an astrologer and a palm reader makes you look like a jackass, not me. Everyone here logically inferred the same thing I did about your views on Washington. No clairvoyance was involved. I did not guess it, I logically deduced it based on your previous posts. This whole thing is just a feable and transparent attempt to make it seem as if I am the one at a disadvantage.

You also said that
This is also a disingenuous statement on your part. Read my posts and you will see that I actually said that I didn't know if he was a Christian or not but that if he was a Christian, he certainly was a very strange one. I also said that in the debate between you and the people who actually knew him, you are losing badly.

You then repeat (again) what I admitted was a misstatement as if I made no such admission (about "all these people"). That also is dishonesty, glaring dishonesty, on your part. Since you cannot argue with my modified statement on the matter, you chose to ignore it. Clever.

As far as the "redefinition" of 'deism', there has been no such thing on this thread. What has actually happened is that you have finally started to realize what deism is. I notice how you ignored my reiteration that I was referring to the primary definition given. Ignoring the fact that I only provided the primary definition (and said so twice) enabled you to attempt to lock me into that definition which then precluded Washington and Franklin as deists. This is rampant and obvious dishonesty.

To be picky, I will say that Ingersoll was not alive when Madison wrote those words, but on that subject, I am far too busy to carefully read your (admittedly excellent) post on Madison above, much less independently verified it's authenticity, but at first brush, I have several comments:

1. You prior dishonesty has made it necessary that before we accept that those are even Madison's words, we must verify it. In fact, if you told me that the sky was blue, I would first verify that as well before accepting it. I thought that lies made Baby Jesus cry.

2. Since the above post is likely to be authentic Madison, I must say that considering that many of the founders anticipated Marx in that they thought that religion was the opiate of the masses, these words seem to me to be in line with a deist or Unitarian in a position of power, writing about the relationship between religion and public policy.

3. Also, the 'one sect over the other' thing was a major reason for the separation. Jefferson's writings are far more explicit and detailed than anything Madison ever wrote on the subject. We knew this. We did not need you to tell us. In fact, I am surprised that you knew this. That argument stands today and I consider it everytime I see Falwell on TV talking about getting Jesus elected president.

4. I am frankly shocked that a hate-filled, dishonest, intolerant, arrogant, spastic chucklehead like you would have a hill of beans in common with Madison, or any of the founders. The irony is that, what you have done is not to prove to us that you have a lot in common with Madison on the subject of seperation, but to prove to us that you have more in common with us than any of us previously thought... except we are honest... and nice. Then again, since you have been shown to be dishonest, you might be pretending to--ah nevermind, it's not worth it.

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Fred Flintstonensis ]</p>

Radorth

I never said I didn't care. I said I don't need him to be anything to make MY case. And I never gave anything but my opinion and said so. No skeptic said the evidence was slim or that Washington was "enigmatic." You are misrepresenting both sides. That's dishonest, and you are simply trying to justify it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

You'd be thrown out of the Intelligent Design skeptic's site in 3 minutes. You made my day though.

Oh we have much in common indeed, my fellow human hypocrite.

Rad

Radorth

Oh my.

Rad

Radorth

Fred then


Fred now
Ah, sure Fred. I must have missed where you said you did not know. Care to point it out to the true skeptics here?

Rad

Oops, I did mean skeptics plural. heh heh.

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Radorth

Speaking of disingenuous, note the little dots in Toto's tortured reconstruction of what I said.

When he does bother to read my posts, he simply cuts out what doesn't fit his hasty judgements.

You guys are a laugh a minute, but I post here hoping a lot of real and honest skeptics do read this stuff. I suppose if we all realized how hypocritical we are, the world would have some hope. And that is NOT a log in my eye.

It's a 2 x 4.

Rad

Radorth

So anyway, leaving the rather predictable, gratuitous ad hom and claims of personal righteousness behind, if Madison said

The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind.

was he more likely a deist, or a Christian in his heart?

Sounds like he was helping Jesus with the "Great Commission" to me.

Rad

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Yellum Notnef

You can stop anytime now.
Nobody gives a flying fuck about what you`re babbling on and on and on about.

For the love of your god! Give it a rest already Radorth.

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: Fenton Mulley ]</p>