fromtheright

Buffman,

Re the DoI wording, is that your response, that information contrary to your conclusions is evidence of the Founders' insincerity? If it doesn't fit, force it?

I remain curious, as I haven't seen an answer, regarding my October 7 questions regarding the chronology of Barton's realization that his misquotations were improper and whether anyone has found any misquotations in Original Intent. Yes, I know you suggested I read the book but your side (I'm still at a loss as to why that term troubles you, nothing sinister meant in it) has made much, quite properly (and for which honest advocates on "my side" should be grateful), of the misquotations in The Myth of Separation; I'm just curious if anyone has found any in the subsequent book.

I am also curious, quite sincerely, whether a Deist God would be concerned to give man rights? You may not be the right one to ask, but I thought you might have an answer.

Edited for clarification of the initial question.

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>

Radorth

Yes I have.

Gee, yeah, Creator of the universe and nothing. Nice try though.

This argument is often used, but no evidence has ever been given that they advertised themselves as Christians. One has to search very hard to find any pro-Jesus statements in their writings/speeches. And then you question the ones that we do find! Your logic here is certainly unique, I'll say that.

Rad

Buffman

fromtheright

Is that your response, that information contrary to your conclusions is evidence of the Founders' insincerity? If it doesn't fit, force it?

All that statement tells me is that you have paid very little attention to the full and complete discussion I had here about why the revolutionary fathers felt compelled to make an appeal to a power greater than that of King George who was then the Crown head of the colonies and the Defender of the Faith. I hope you don't think that every colonist supported these revolutionaries...at least not then. I have also posted information concerning the colonists that joined forces with their British brothers to fight against the Continental Army of revolutionaries. All the information is out there for anyone interested in searching out the accurate facts and able to immerse themselves in the social, cultural, economic, religious, and political environment of those times.

I remain curious, as I haven't seen an answer, regarding my October 7 questions regarding the chronology of Barton's realization that his misquotations were improper and whether anyone has found any misquotations in Original Intent.

No offense meant, but I would be very circumspect about exactly who hasn't answered who's questions. I honestly have no idea about the chronology of Barton's admissions of error and deception. All I see is that he is continuing to do exactly the same thing...if you will only go back and read these posts carefully.

Yes, I know you suggested I read the book but your side (I'm still at a loss as to why that term troubles you, nothing sinister meant in it)...

"Because I don't have a side!" I have my opinions which may, or may not, be identical to those of others. I work very hard to make my opinions based on the most accurate information I can find. Then I attempt to share that hard work with others regardless of their personal beliefs. It is entirely up to them to decide if I have developed accurate conclusions based on the facts I have uncovered. If they disagree with my conclusions, I fully expect them to present the reasons why they do so in order that I might learn something new. I also expect them to have the courtesy to admit when they have been in error. You are one of the few religious conservatives to have done that. Please note that others have not been so even handed.

... has made much, quite properly (and for which honest advocates on "my side" should be grateful), of the misquotations in The Myth of Separation; I'm just curious if anyone has found any in the subsequent book.

I don't know.

I am also curious, quite sincerely, whether a Deist God would be concerned to give man rights? You may not be the right one to ask, but I thought you might have an answer.

(Chortle!) I would go with your first thought. I am most certainly not the right one to ask. Besides, you already know my answer. "What god?"

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

ADDED

On a lark, I could make a guess. The Deists might claim that their supernatural God had already programmed that into the "evolution" of humankind.

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

fromtheright

Buffman,

Having taken you up on your challenge to read Tocqueville's Vol. 2, Part 1, Chap. 5, I am rather amazed at your use of the first quotation,
"There are religions that are very false and very absurd..." as evidence that Tocqeville didn't support CSS. First of all, to place it back into the context you pulled it from,

Some religions are very false and very ridiculous. Nevertheless, one can say that all those religions which remain within the circle of influence which I have just defined and do not claim to go beyond it (as many religions have tried to do, restraining the free flight of the human mind on every side) impose a salutary control on the intellect, and one must recognizem whether or not they save men's souls in the next world, that they generally contribute to their happiness and dignity in this.

As to whether he believed in wall of separation you have in mind, I don't know, but further in the same chapter, Tocqueville says

I have pointed how in times of enlightenment and democracy the human spirit is loath to accept dogmatic beliefs and has no lively sense of the need for them except in the matter of religion. This shows that, at such times above all, religions should be most careful to confine themselves to their proper sphere, for if they wish to extend their power beyond spiritual matters they run the risk of not being believed at all. They should therefore be at pains to define the sphere in which they claim to control the human spirit,a nd outside that sphere it should be left completely free to follow its own devices.


I don't have a side!

Buffman, with all due and quite sincere respect, you are arguing and supporting quite well "the side" that is arguing for strict separation. You may not think you have a side but I guarantee you those who agree with you on that side are your cheerleaders and yelling, "Give 'em, especially that damned FTR, hell!"

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>

Buffman

Radorth

This argument is often used, but no evidence has ever been given that they advertised themselves as Christians.

Hmmmmm? Let's see now. They weren't Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.; but I seem to recall, but will not swear to it without checking my notes, that two were Christian "Papists." So what do you suspect the rest might have been? You have only one "guess." Why would they have to "advertise" themselves as Protestant Christians? They couldn't hold office in many colonies unless they were. Thus, perhaps there is a perfectly valid reason for using that argument.

One has to search very hard to find any pro-Jesus statements in their writings/speeches. And then you question the ones that we do find! Your logic here is certainly unique, I'll say that.

It isn't "my" logic. It is history's recordings...which can not always be assumed to be accurate. It case you forgot, all these men were some of the most educated and knowledgeable in the colonies. Many had to be, and were, major land owners. However, they were all exposed to, and extremely knowledgeable about, the Enlightenment. Most were well versed in the latest works and thinking from Europe. I suspect all had been exposed to the works of ancient history. This was a very select group of men. Though some were preachers/ministers by profession, they seldom attempted to proselytize other members on behalf of their specific faith beliefs. These men were politicians that sought alliances, accommodations and compromises in order to achieve their vested interest goals. They were also conditioned by the interests of the colonies they represented. (The prime reason why Jefferson's draft DoI paragraphs outlawing Slavery were deleted from the final product.) --- So "I" do not question that some may have expressed a love of Jesus at different stages of their lives and for a myriad of personal reasons. What "I" question is someone today using one or two paragraphs, instances or statements, that contain any reference whatsoever to Christianity or Jesus, as proof that the individual was advocating the superiority of Christianity over all other religions or ethical/moral values. That's Barton's game/technique. That's what caused him to be caught speeding when he put words in James Madison's mouth that that brilliant man had never uttered or written.---Thank you for the compliment about my logic.

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Buffman

fromtheright

Good show! Good for you!

Where our quoted wording differs would seem to indicate that you are using a Web translation of "Democracy in America." I am using the book "translated, edited, and with introduction by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop," the University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London, 2000.

If you agree that "When religion is destroyed in a people, doubt takes hold of the highest portions of the intellect and half paralyzes all the others," then I suspect that we have little more to discuss worth the time and effort already expended in this discussion.

Once again, as I did with Radorth, I can only urge you to learn all you can about de Tocqueville in order to better appreciate and understand why he believed and wrote the things he did. Some of his forcasts and insights about America were right on the money. Many of our most celebrated historians consider him to be a seer. Without any credentials whatsoever, I consider him in a different light.

As I recall, when he came to this country, he visited 19, of the then 27, states in just nine months. (There were no airplanes or cars.) I did not find much mention that he would not have been welcome or allowed to visit in many of the 13 original colonies because he was a Catholic. Or that if he had done so, he would have chanced bodily harm by his religious, Christian, brothers. Perhaps his rosy picture of American religious faith belief intentionally ignores certain realities here that were not as prevalent in an 1840 primarily Catholic France. Or perhaps he had a different religious agenda to help improve the lot of Catholics in America. These are very difficult issues to accurately uncover.

A few things do seem certain. He loved "greatness." The Editors' Introduction to my book is filled with wonderful insights into de Tocqueville, the man.

(I am making too many typo mistakes and attempting to pull too many unconfirmed facts out on my rusty, old, mental briefcase. Time to do something else. Later)

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

fromtheright

Buffman,

Where our quoted wording differs would seem to indicate that you are using a Web translation of "Democracy in America."

No, I'm using the George Lawrence translation, published by Doubleday-Anchor, 1969.


If you agree that "When religion is destroyed in a people, doubt takes hold of the highest portions of the intellect and half paralyzes all the others," then I suspect that we have little more to discuss worth the time and effort already expended in this discussion.

No, and I don't know why you would suspect that I do. I haven't once thought you were half-paralyzed. Half wrong maybe, but not half paralyzed.

I know next to nothing about Tocqueville and it's been years since I read Democracy in America.

Oresta

radorth: To come at this contention at another angle in this excellent discussion: (Buffman, take an Australian tag team break here.) Undoubtedly, some founders regarded their moral/ethical systems based on Christian principles and some did not; others we are not so sure of. What is clear is that those founders who drafted and led others to support and ratify the U. S. Constitution envisioned a republic based on a foundation of man-made laws. That is, a nation governed by secular laws.
It's irrelevant to quote which founders invoked "God" or "The Creator" or "Nature" and what those terms meant to the author in each instance. The issue is who or what holds sovereignty over us? Are we, the people, soverign over this nation or is there a higher, "natural law"? The hidden agenda in all those quotes and misquotes of founders dredged up to support the assertion that we are a nation based on "Christian principles" is to claim religious jurisdiction over secular territory, thereby legitimatizing morals based on sectarian doctrine.
Furthermore, I think it is a warrented assumption that those who argue for some higher natural law have a Christian God in mind. Here is Franklin, son of Billy, Graham's opening lines of his invocation at Bush's inauguration in 2001:
Is there any doubt who the "our God" is being addressed here? And whose soverignty under which Frank places this country?

Finally, a close reading of the the DoI - "Supreme Judge of the World" phrase notwithstanding - clearly establishes the people as soverign, not religious-based laws.

From theright:
Why would a bunch of Deists appeal to the Supreme Judge of the World in the DoI? And why would they place a "firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence"? I don't see the "sit back and have a smoke" God of Deism offering much protection.

Following the "Supreme Judge" line is the operative phrase: in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES;
Edited for the usual suspects. Okay, Buffman, come on back into the ring and carry on. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Oresta ]

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Oresta ]</p>

fromtheright

Wheeewwww! What a relief! For a minute there I was worried that Oresta might actually have an answer to my question.

Radorth

I don't know. Was there any doubt when the Congress employed Protestant Christian chaplains, virtually from day one? And since they later employed chaplains from other faiths, did doubts increase with time? This is a straw man. If anything, Protestant beliefs are accepted less and less as the only way to God.

You can question it all you want, and complain we use Barton's "tactics" of removing quotes from context which as it turns out, changes their meaning very little. Of course we now find you employ precisely the same tactic to promote your agenda, while you assert the insincerity of the founders, the hidden motives of DeToqueville and the inaccuracy of recorded history. You are now prefacing a considerable number of statements with "Is it possible..." in case you haven't noticed.

Hopefully some readers will discount Barton's agenda, without discounting the preponderance of evidence, which well exposes your agenda. You are sounding like anyone who disagrees with it is a Barton automotan. Personally I am astonished that Barton takes any liberties with the truth, as there is no need to.

In any case, tell us, what is the context of these statements by Jefferson which changes their meaning at all?

In a letter to Adams, 1813

"In extracting the pure principles which Jesus taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they are muffled... there will be found the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man." (Writings, Vol XIII)

and

"the Christian religion, when divested of the rags with which the clergy has enveloped it and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion above all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

Which is precisely what I think, and which you deny; and all your questioning of the founder's real beliefs and motives are starting to look like so much intellectual tap dancing. You keep asking us if our minds are open, but I wonder if yours is. And since I started out believing the great founders were all simple deists who did not think much of Jesus, and changed my mind later, I wonder the more. I don't need them to be anything, and if Barton says they were Christians per se, I disagree. I merely assert they believed Jesus' teachings were unsurpassed in maintaining moral turpitude.

Again, why don't you argue that a strictly secular society is really better, and why, rather than arguing that is what the founders intended. By now it is plain Jefferson would have been thrilled if every politician believed his version of the Gospels.

Rad

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>