Yellum Notnef

After reading dozens of posts I`ve come to the conclusion that talking to Radorth is a lot like talking to a slightly more imformed Archie Bunker.

Radorth

Gosh, well this post and another I scraped up below are more or less related to the points I made. Even if you think their thoughts on Jesus don't matter much, their thoughts on morals certainly do. What founder would object to Jefferson's Bible being used in an ethics class for high schoolers? What is wrong with that?

If you want to temporarily limit the discussion to Washington's enjoinders in his Farewell Adress, it would be better than listenig to Chicken Little shouting

THE MOONIES ARE COMING! THE WALL IS BREAKING!
THE CHRISTIANS DON'T BELIEVE IN MAJORITY RULE! AMEN BROTHER!

Am I to understand that most skeptics here don't care what the founders thought and would rather just pontificate? (They cared yesterday, when it was convenient to their argument) If that is so, how do we even know how the wall was supposed to work?


Re Toto:

No I don't see how it works and few or none of the founders did either because they allowed non-sectarian church services in public buildings, didn't complain about hiring PROTESTANT chaplains to pray for them. They well knew God had helped them "build the house" and they well knew only God could keep it.

Specifically, is it violating your freedom of conscience if a President, by long tradition, calls for a day of thanksgiving and prayer? Is it violating your freedom of conscience if Ashcroft holds prayer meetings in public buildings with voluntary attendence? Was it violating anybody's freedom of conscience when the Congress imported thousands of Bibles after the Rev war, or had 9000 copies of Jefferson's Bibles printed up? Is it violating your freedom of conscience to tell your kids that 90% of the founders worried about a religion-free, God-free society? That's what I'm talking about. What are you talking about?

It isn't about making people do or believe anything religious. It's about what happens when they don't. As I've often said, I hope the radical secular activists definition of "the wall" prevails, and everybody tries to get their ideals from thin air. I want to die laughing.

As far as I'm concerned you tried that already and are still trying it, and it was/is a disaster.
(Although there is an argument to be made for authoritarian control in such a populous place as China)


Rad

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Radorth

And BTW Toto your claim that the Jefferson was somehow afraid to publish his Bible is nonsense. He wasn't afraid to say he didn't believe in the miracles. There were other reasons he did not publish it. Also I'd like to see a link which proves he was doing anything but separating out moral statements from non-moral statements. Atheists are apparently just guessing about whether he thought the miracles were all bogus.

In fact he has Jesus saying it is OK to heal on the Sabbath. Why didn't he remove that?


Rad

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Radorth

And you would indoctrinate them with some vague system of subjective morals called "humanism" but more probably nothing at all. Thats the problem.

And why don't you tell us exactly what Barton is writing into these textbooks so I and the other CChristians can have a say instead of just making off-the=wall assumptions.

Rad

Buffman

Also I'd like to see a link which proves he was doing anything but separating out moral statements from non-moral statements.

<a href="http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/" target="_blank">http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/</a>

(Extract)
Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative.[/b]
(End extract)



What confuses you about "...he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels?"

(Added as a second reference source)

<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/jefferson.html" target="_blank">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/jefferson.html</a>

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Butters

There are no objective morals. You just want eveyone to observe the subjective morals of Christianity, although you won't define what, in your opinion they are, or tell us how the government should implement them.
I know your having fun convincing yourself that the founding fathers were Christians, but you realize that everyone here understands that the majority of them were.
So WTF do you want.

Toto

Jefferson did not compile his Bible until well after the founding, and did not publish it during his lifetime. The other founders would have no reason to know about it.

As I pointed out to you, Jefferson's Bible is based on a non-divine Jesus. Christians everywhere would be up in arms if the public schools taught that Jesus was a mortal and not a god.

That's clear
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

They allowed the use of public buildings by religious groups, as we still do today.

I don't think that the founders were as obtuse as you claim. Your claim about what they knew about God is not born out by any part of the constitution.

So it comes down to your feeling that life will spin out of control if young gangbangers don't have the Bible drilled into them, and your feeling that the Bible is the only possible source of morality.

Hogwash.

You can go argue the matter in the Moral Foundations and Principles Forum, but I see no evidence that religion is necessary for morality, or that Christianity has a better source of morals than any other religion.

I can appreciate that, living in LA, you feel that society needs more order. (Although I have heard differing reports on LA schools.) I just don't see any evidence that the Bible is the way.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Radorth

A widespread belief at II, to be certain, and it rather shows.

Famous last words.

Heh! Well there it is. The Constitution nullifies a thousand warnings from the Founders themselves.

Only the preaching of the cross has the slightest effect on them. But you may have a point. They would probably not be much affected by the mere teachings of Jesus.

Would it be OK to preach across the street from a school, say in a park? Or would that be a violation of the wall? Just curious.

Rad

Toto

If you can find a soapbox in an open area, you can preach to your heart's content, and the kids will probably laugh at you. The First Amendment gives you all that right.

Radorth

I'm also curious about these:

1.If the building Franklin erected mainly for Whitefield to preach in was donated to the state, would Franklin still think it was OK for Whitefield to preach there?

2. How is it a "Christian" church divided, as skeptics say, into a zillion sects, would suddenly take over the country if enough Federation Judges get elected? The Moonies, Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, Charismatics and LDS will miraculously gang together, stop majority rule (somehow), the minute five more of the wrong judges get elected, the wall will tumble down and all vestages of democracy will diappear off the earth.

This is rational thinking? Or simple paranoia?

No, I will never worry about that. I admit it.

Rad