Thor Q. Mada

The Other Michael

Well Michael, I guess the Germans didn't know better!!

gravitybow

Ron:

I am in complete agreement with Buffman. Those were fantastic letters, eloquent, diplomatic, full of conviction, and very firm. You have touched the mind and the heart of this infidel. Having written numerous Ten Commandments letters myself, I bow to your superior prose. And I implore everyone to pick up a pen to write your councilman or newspaper editor whenever these issues arise in your area.

You have raised the bar high and set a shining example, Ron. Thank you. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

(p.s. Can I steal some of your stuff?)

The Other Michael

Yes, isn't it amazing how wrong people on the losing side can be?

cheers,
Michael

Ron Garrett

Very kind comments from you and everyone. Thanks.

On your questions:

My general experience is that a minority of Christians of the modern fundmantalist stripe spend endless hours in "Bible Study" which in fact is largely rote memorization of texts out of context and used for absolute dictums and argumentation. The vast majority could not even tell you where any version of the decalogue can be found in the book. most believers of any stripe make an emotional commitment to the culture and community they are embracing with no understanding whatever of the doctrine they are affirming sight unseen.

MK 10:18-19 is of course a short summary of Exodus and Deuteronomy passages that skips graven images, the Sabbath and adultery, having other gods, though one could broadly infer "defraud" as covering adultery, though without much in the way of textual support. Jesus was a Sabbath-breaker, so seems natural he'd lave that out. ROM 13 is viewed as a self-evident summary, not an exhaustive listing.

On they often don't seem to notice is Micah 6:8,
"He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

It always seemed to me that perfect conduct is summed up in this teaching. Be just and love mercy. Live your life with humility. Justice, mercy and humility in modern fundamentalism are rarely considered with the weight they deserve. I've always thought if someone could ebrace these principles nothing more need be said.

Buffman

Thank you!

ex-preacher

Excellent letter, Ron!

A couple minor points:

From what I've been able to track down, James Madison technically was an Episcopalian, although he had Deist tendencies. As with other smart and skeptical politicians, he was very guarded in his statements about his own beliefs.

John Adams was not a Deist, but a Unitarian, as was his son, John Quincy Adams. Unitarians back then were quite a bit more orthodox in their religious beliefs (other than denying Jesus' divinity) than were contemporary Deists or today's Unitarian Universalists.

Buffman

Matt 7:16

"Ye shall know them by their fruits..."

Ye shall not know them by the claims of the vested interests...whether theist or non-theist.

According to the Library of Congress "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic Exhibit" authors, in two places John Adams is a leading Deists, while in four other places, more suitable to their agenda, he suddenly becomes "a church going animal." These revisionist historians opine that in April 1817, when corresponding with Jefferson, he was probably more Unitarian.

<a href="http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html" target="_blank">http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html</a>

I suspect that "technically" means that no one really knows what many of these men really thought/believed about religious faith. Our only clues are the fruits of their actions and what clues can be found in their personal writings and correspondence...not their parental conditioning or their appearances at religious services. However, the revisionists nearly have an orgasm if they can find anything that indicates that one of these men was exposed to Christianity in any manner. That is all the proof they need to claim the individual for their Christian Crusade.

The point is that no Atheist could hold public office before the ratification of the Constitution. It seems that the minimum prerequisite was being a Deist. However, few campaigned as such. These men were practical, clever, intellectual politians/statesmen. Many were also men of the "Enlightenment." It is their "fruits" by which their beliefs should be labeled, not their religious denominations. I suspect that is what Ron was claiming. However, I feel sure that he can present his views better than I can.

You are the professional historian, ex-preacher. I agree with you when you place James Madison within the denomination that you do. However, does that mean he wasn't a Deist in the practical application of his Enlightment beliefs?

<a href="http://www.netcolony.com/news/presidents/religion.html" target="_blank">http://www.netcolony.com/news/presidents/religion.html</a>

ex-preacher

I agree that both Madison and Adams (along with Washington, Jefferson, Franklin) were very much in sympathy with Deism, even if it is hard to pin them down as card-carrying Deists. All of these men acted very much in accord with Deistic views and none ever repudiated Deism. At the same time, all were very smart politicians and refrained from making a clear statement of their own religious views. Franklin probably comes the closest to revealing his personal views, and even he hedges somewhat.

Unfortunately, their ambiguity means that fundies can take certain statements and use them to paint the FF (that's founding fathers, not fastfalcon) as devout Christians.

My main concern here is that we be scrupulously careful and objective so that no one can accuse us of twisting the evidence. One of the most effective tactics in debate is to pre-empt your opponent by conceding the problems in your own evidence.

I love Ron's letters - both the spirit and the content. I was just suggesting a slight tweaking to eliminate any possibility of the fundies jumping on a misstatement.

Ron Garrett

Keep in mind that many of the founding fathers were born into governments with "non-conformity laws" in place. You were either Episcopal, i.e, Anglican, or you were a criminal. When the non-conformity laws were abandoned some flirted with the unitarians, Jefferson for one, some avowed outright agnosticism and deism. I have been a member of the United Methodists, Southern Baptists, Missouri Synod Lutherans, Episcopal Church USA, Anglican Catholics and Calvary Chapel. Someone could certainly produce a taped sermon of mine from a mere five years ago as evidence that I was a devout fundamentalist, or they produce something I've written since avowing myself foolish and mistaken. All historical perspective is selective.

One should, I believe, look to the private correspondence of these men among their close friends to know their true beliefs. Ronald reagan talked a lot of God but seldom darkened the door of the church. Politics is politics in a country acculturated to religious posturing and conformity.

[ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: Ron Garrett ]</p>

Buffman

Oh my, YES! I agree wholeheartedly. IMHO, that is one of the biggest errors non-theists make. They underestimate the accuracy of many claims made by theists. Many claims by the fundamentalists are not without considerable merit concerning historical analysis. That is the identical point I was attempting to make in my first response to Ron's original letter. "Do not leave the religious propagandist an opening to cast aspersions and sow doubt concerning one's own remarks."

(FastFalcon...chortle!)

I don't know if you have had the opportunity/time to sit down and read "American Aurora" by Richard N. Rosenfeld, St. Martin's Griffin, New York, 1997, but I know that Oresta and I agree that it provides some wonderful insights into the life and times of these world famous men...and women.(Especially Abigail Adams) If we think that politics gets dirty today, boy, could those FF's teach us a trick or two. I discovered things about George Washington and John Adams that I never learned in school or via any biography. What became exciting for me is how this new information helped to explain and harmonize many of the niggling little inconsistencies in the previous explanations/interpretations of the events during those times and the roles of the primary players. Suddenly things started making good common sense. Then with some research into the specific lives (testable facts)of these individual players, and placing them in the social/culture/political contexts of the day, things began to make perfect sense...at least to me.