Freethought & Rationalism Archive

queue · 12-13-2002, 07:33 AM

Here is a reposting of Radorth's 5 principles which are from the 1st page of this thread.

Quote:

We have every reason to believe Constitution could not have been created without the inspiration of God and IMO Christ, to wit:
1. There are virtually no important democracies, except that in Greece, originally created by anybody except Christians and absolutely none, EVER where there was complete freedom of worship. If you want to give 4 founders the majority of the credit, go ahead, but 55 signed the Constitution and made it work. I believe Washington to have been most instrumental and to have been a Christian based on some recent discoveries of my own, but there is absolutely no doubt of the beliefs and contributions of John Jay and Samuel Adams, whom we NEVER hear skeptics talk about.

2. Without the support of Christian clergy, there would be no Constitution. The right to worship freely without interference from the state was the primary reason they accepted it, but there were other reasons. They realized that there was absolutely no alternative to allowing every person to worship mountain goats if they so wished, if they were to maintain their freedom of religious thought and expression. They also surely realized that for the first time in history, the Gospel could be preached without hindrance.

3. Jefferson deserves great credit for his contributions, but he held office at the will of a Christian majority, I believe in large part because of the eloquence of the Declaration of Independence. Skeptics will disagree vehemently I suppose, but where did Locke, Bacon, and Hooker get their ideas about the importance and sacredness of each human life? That we are all equal in the eyes of God and endowed with the same rights? Jefferson may have put it most eloquently into words, but these men saw it long before him, and were "fundamentalists" by any modern definition. Skeptics act like they were closet deists or something and Christians could not possibly have seen these ideals in the Bible. Jesus dying with and taking a common thief to heaven? Jesus saying "the meek will inherit the earth"? Paul saying "the things that are nothing will bring to nothing the things that are." Jesus exalting the generosity of a poor widow nobody else noticed but he? These are not a prophecy of things to come, first in the spiritual, but then in the natural?

4. The vast majority of the soldiers and officers of the Continental Army, whom I consider the real founders of the country, were raised on Protestant Christianity and I see no reason to think they would accepted suffering as they did without supernatural inspiration. Skeptics like to give Paine credit for inspiring them of course, but "as a man believes, so is he."

5. Then there's the little matter of Thomas Hooker, 17th century clergyman and one of the Puritans forced to flee to Holland, then America was instrumental in the formation of representative government way before any deists jumped on the wagon.

The folowing is taken from this site <a href="http://www.ctheritage.org/encyclopedia/ctto17" target="_blank">http://www.ctheritage.org/encyclopedia/ctto17</a>
"On October 11, 1633, Thomas Hooker was ordained pastor of the congregation in Newtown, now Cambridge. He quickly became one of the religious and intellectual leaders of Massachusetts Bay and was given the responsibility for defending Puritan orthodoxy against the heresies propounded by Roger Williams at his trial in 1635.
The Newtown people were not happy in Massachusetts Bay due to a lack of arable land and because of religious and political differences with the rulers of the colony. Therefore, in June 1636 with the reluctant approbation of Massachusetts Bay, Hooker led about one hundred persons from Newtown to the site of Hartford. The Newtown group, preceded by a Dorchester group which settled at Windsor and some thirty Watertown families which migrated to Wethersfield, formed the nucleus of the colony of Connecticut. The three towns acknowledged the overlordship of Massachusetts Bay for one year and then in 1637 established a rudimentary representative government. By 1638 some more regularized governmental structure was required. Hooker gave direction in a famous May 31, 1638, sermon in which he forcefully asserted that the choice of public magistrates belongs to the people, that the privilege of election belongs to the people, and that those who have the power to appoint officers of government have the right to limit the power they hold. This sermon provided the impetus for the Fundamental Orders adopted in January 1639, the frame of government for the colony until 1662."

On a wall near the cathedral in Chelmsford, Essex is a plaque, which states, "Thomas Hooker, 1586- 1647, Founder of the State of Connecticut, Father of American Democracy."

From the site <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/ff/chap07.htm" target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/ff/chap07.htm</a>

"Thomas Hooker is considered by many to have played the role of John the Baptist for Thomas Jefferson in the sense that he laid the foundation for American republican democracy. Again, though, Hooker's primary concern was not politics, but the establishment of assemblies of worship resembling the churches found in the Book of Acts. Indeed, this was the consistent pattern behind the settlement of New England, with each colony attempting to create a more pristine Christian society, and each founder, usually a minister, trying to "out-Protestantize" everyone else. Hooker, for example, apparently felt that Winthrop's efforts in Massachusetts Bay had fallen short of the mark. According to Cotton Mather, "The very spirit of his [Hooker's] ministry lay in the points of the most practical religion, and the grand concern of a sinner's preparation for, and implantation in, and salvation by, the glorious Lord Jesus Christ."
By May 1637, the inhabitants of Connecticut were holding their own General Court. Hooker, unlike Bradford and Winthrop, did not keep a journal. So the facts of his Hartford ministry are fragmentary, derived from letters and notes taken by those who heard him. His most famous sermon, delivered before the Connecticut General Court on May 31, 1638, inspired the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, which was the first written constitution in America, and very much resembles our own Federal Constitution. Direct quotes are impossible to reconstruct exactly, as they exist in a barely decipherable journal, written by 28-year-old Henry Wolcott. But the essence of Hooker's Election Day sermon was as follows:

The choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God's own allowance.

The election must be conducted by the people, but votes should not be cast "in accord with their humors, but according to the will and law of God."

Those who "have the power to appoint officers and magistrates also have the power to set bounds and limitations on their power" so that "the foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people," because "by a free choice the hearts of the people will be more inclined to the love of the persons chosen, and more ready to yieldobedience."

On January 14, 1639, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut were adopted. The deliberations of the assembly have perished, but, as Marion Starkey points out in her book, The Congregational Way, the principles are a mirror of the mind of Thomas Hooker. The Fundamental Orders included many provisions essential to free and open government. Each town was to have proportional representation, and each was to send its elected representatives to the government in Hartford. In the event that the governor failed to call a meeting of the General Court, or attempted to govern contrary to established laws, the freemen were entitled to "meet together and choose to themselves a moderator,"

The logic is this: No Jesus, no John Locke, no Bacon, no Hooker, no preaching on liberty of conscience, no appreciation for freedom, no Constitution, no America

I trust any skeptics who manage to think up something new or who spearheaded a movement would get all the credit in this forum, but the Christians will get none, as usual. But of course extraordinary ignorance and belittling of Christian contributions to our ideals we see here is simply proof of my assertions.

Rad

Radorth · 12-13-2002, 07:52 AM

Re: some Butters comments I missed while prosecuting a gratuitous slander case:

Quote:

As for a secular society, I'm sure they all had their one ideas about that, but it is immaterial.
The only hope that any religion has of being left alone, is to be under a secular government, THIS is the truth of what the founding fathers realized.

That is what I said, no? The Christians realized they had a dilemma- accept a legally secular government or have the government messing with them and effectively preventing them from worshiping God "in spirit and in truth."

Quote:

I'm wondering. Exactly in what way would you like to see our Government be more "Christian". As I see it. Almost every elected offical we have is a Christian,(with a smattering of Jews). Every offical is sworn in by swearing to God on the Bible. My tax money goes to a preacher to open and close their sessions.
So exactly what do you want.

You know, one of the things that is so frustrating here is to see skeptics themselves cherry-pick the founders statements, then demand that longstanding traditions instituted by the founders just be removed. You can't have it both ways, and you can't even prove the doubtful Jefferson disapproved of half the stuff you disapprove of. It's a marvel of unique logic you employ there.

Quote:

What laws would you want to see changed to refelct "Christian values". Just curious.

Unlike most Christians, I think laws are almost useless. It is the spirit, moral teaching and morale of a country which holds it together. The founders almost to a person, were aware of this, and said the Constitution itself wouldn't mean much in an immoral society.

I sympathize with pro-choicers in one way, that having kids go underground to get abortions is wrong, but I suppose I wish the government would do more to foster adoption and advise people of all their options.

FYI, although I would not support removing the status of churches as non-profit organizations with their tax breaks, I would support court action to force clubs like the Boy Scouts to give up government support. The difference is that as soon as our new government was formed, it was helping spread the Gospel. The Boy Scouts started out with no government blessing of any kind, and apparently weaseled into receiving government help beyond NP tax breaks, although I'm not clear on the details.

Rad

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

hezekiah jones · 12-13-2002, 07:53 AM

Some "homework":

Radorth December 10, 2002 07:18 PM:
"[John] Adams must have changed his mind as well, for in an 1813 he wrote the following to Jefferson, something Dr Rick forgot to mention[.]"

June 28, 1813:

[I'm going to break up the quotation in order to count the "Christian principles," and I'm going to be generous.]

The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only principles on which that assembly of young men could unite ...

Here they come.

... and what were those General principles?

We asked you first (actually we asked Radorth, but you'll do).

I answer ...

*Mops sweat from brow*

... the general principles of Christianity in which all these sects were united:

Okay, that's one.

and the general principles of English and American Liberty ...

Two.

Now I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal ...

Three.

... and immutable ...

Four.

... as the existence ...

Five.

and attributes of God ...

Six.

... and those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature, and our terrestrial mundane system.

Uh ... okay. Thanks.

Radorth:
Sorry I coudn't locate the whole letter online, but those statements sound pretty stand-alone to me.

[Radorth's baseless insult deleted]

To sum up, the "Christian principles" on which the United States Constitution is based:

The general principles of Christianity
The general principles of English and American liberty
The general principles of Christianity are eternal
The general principles of Christianity are immutable
God exists
God has attributes

Ta da!

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiah jones ]

Radorth · 12-13-2002, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Here is a reposting of Radorth's 5 principles which are from the 1st page of this thread.

(Sigh) Only 2 or 3 are contained therein. That is not what I meant.

Rad

Radorth · 12-13-2002, 08:03 AM

Quote:

2106
posted December 13, 2002 08:53 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some "homework":
Radorth December 10, 2002 07:18 PM:
"[John Quincy] Adams must have changed his mind as well, for in an 1813 he wrote the following to Jefferson, something Dr Rick forgot to mention[.]"

You ADDED "John Quincy" to my quote! I wasn't referring to J.Q.s letters. What the hell are you doing?

Oh wait. You have no idea obviously.

Sheesh.

Rad

hezekiah jones · 12-13-2002, 08:14 AM

Radorth:
"You ADDED 'John Quincy' to my quote!"

My mistake. I'll edit the post.

MrDarwin · 12-13-2002, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by queue:
Here is a reposting of Radorth's 5 principles which are from the 1st page of this thread.

D'oh! Thank you. It looks like I deserved to be belittled for being lazy (although it wouldn't have killed Radorth to do exactly what you just did, or at least tell me to look at page 1).

but edited to add...

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:


(Sigh) Only 2 or 3 are contained therein. That is not what I meant.

Rad

Looks like I was too quick to accept Radorth's insult as deserved.

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]

mfaber · 12-13-2002, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gravitybow:

Bill's post bears repeating while there's still a chance to get this thread back on topic. I'm sure many others would also like to see the topic question answered in a reasonable, civil fashion. There must be someone out there who is familiar with and willing to state the particulars on which Constitutional principles are Biblically based. Bill's A and B above would be a great way to get back on track, but any discussion of the original topic is preferable to the never-ending tangents.

How is the US Constitution a result of "Christian principles"?

Actually this has been answered what we are still waiting for is something concrete from Radorth. Let's go over it again, using this website that collected Bible verses to show Constitutional principles (A) that were or were not supported by the Bible (B-->listed the verses). Radorth failed to rebut any of it but retreated into an ad hominem attack, characterizing any who posted such things as "atheist automatons", "parrots" and "cynics".

Editing the original quote with:

A = Constitutional principle
B = What the Bible says on the subject

FROM <a href="http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/usa.htm" target="_blank">Christian Bible Foundations of the U.S.A</a>

Quote:

Sometimes now we hear that the United States is "founded on biblical principles", as a slightly softened version of the "Christian nation" idea. People making that claim don't give specifics on what foundations of the U.S. and what parts of the Bible they mean.

Of the many foundations of our country, I was able to find two which are supported in the Bible, and several which run contradictory to the Bible.

(A)FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I don't find in the Bible any defense of freedom of speech.(B) On the contrary: "he that doubteth is damned" (Romans 14:23); "there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers...whose mouths must be stopped.." (Titus, 1:10-11); and "These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: ......and he that soweth discord among brethren." (Proverbs 6:16-19). The last passage could be construed as being against democracy, since anyone who runs for office against an existing administration is sowing discord.

(A)RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE. This is embraced in both the original Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 3) and in the First Amendment. Yet in the Bible we have:
(B) "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3); "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18); "He that sacrifice unto any god save the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed" (Exodus 22:20); "He who is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23); "he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him" (Leviticus 24:16). [Such stoning was actually carried out, in 1 Kings 21:13] Anyone proselytizing for another religion is to be put to death, and if that person is a member of your family, you are to strike the first blow to kill him or her (Deuteronomy 13:5-10). "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27). The practice of "shunning" someone who disagrees with you on religious matters is advised in 2 Thessalonians 3:14.

(A)A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Our Constitution demands this (Article IV, Section 4). But I find nothing in the Bible to support it.

(B) On the contrary, Romans 13:1-7 tells people to obey authority because it is instituted by God. NOTE: For an interesting view of this go <a href="http://libertariannation.org/a/f23l2.html" target="_blank">HERE (libertarian)</a>

(A)"CORRUPTION OF THE BLOOD" is forbidden by the Constitution (Article III, Section 3, paragraph 2). In the Bible, though:

(B) "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers (Isaiah 14:21). [However, the Bible does contradict itself on this: "... neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers" (Deut 24:16)]. Also: "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" (Exodus 20:5, 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deut. 5:9); "His blood be on us, and on our children" (Matthew 27:25). Bastards may not enter the temple, nor their descendants (Deut. 23:2). God even killed a baby because of a sin by its father (2 Samuel 12:14). Ahab escaped punishment for murder by making an elaborate apology, and his descendants were punished instead (I Kings 21:29). The doctrine of original sin is also against this part of the Constitution.

(A)SLAVERY. This was an important social and economic foundation of our country both before and after independence. It was an institution condoned by the founders and recognized and defended by the original Constitution (Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3; Article I, Section 9; Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3). NOTE: This is the infamous<a href="http://www.aaregistry.com/detail.php3?id=552" target="_blank">"Three-fifths Compromise"</a>

(B)Slavery is also condoned in both the Old and New Testaments, but it is never condemned. On the contrary, it is codified, and made an inherited condition:

Exodus 21:4ff gives rules for keeping slaves. Leviticus 25:44-46 says that heathen may be purchased as slaves, that their children become slaves, and that they are inherited as property by the owner's children for ever. Other places that indicate that slavery is a hereditary condition are: Genesis 9:25, Exodus 21:4, Corinthians 7:20. Deuteronomy 20:10-14 says that when you conquer a city, if it surrenders then all people inside it become your slaves; but if it doesn't surrender, then all males are to be killed and all women and children "take unto thyself". Luke 12:47-8 shows that Jesus approves of slavery, for he describes the conditions under which one should give a severe beating to a slave. 1 Timothy 6:1-2 tells slaves to honor their masters.

In the book of Philemon, Paul sends a runaway slave, Onesimus, back to his former master. But this conflicts with the admonition in Deuteronomy 23:15 "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which has escaped..." So the Bible is on both sides of the 1857 Dred Scott case!

(A)TREATMENT OF THE INDIAN PEOPLE. Here is another place where one of the foundations of our country is justified by the Bible. NOTE: No Constitutional protection for the original inhabitants of this country................

(B)"Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy....And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein.." (Numbers 33:52-53). This biblical injunction was obeyed many times by Americans.

(A) WOMEN'S RIGHTS Not mentioned by the author of the previous website is women's rights which are ignored by the Constitution......

(B)The Bible is very clear on their inferior status as can be seen from these articles:
<a href="http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/FirBlast.htm" target="_blank">The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, by John Knox (1558)</a>

<a href="http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/GovtWome.htm" target="_blank">A 1993 DEFENSE of the Knox Hatred of Women</a>

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/medicine.html" target="_blank">Women Condemned to Suffer the Pain of Childbirth by the Bible</a>

<a href="http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/women.html" target="_blank">Why Women Need Freedom From Religion</a>

Looks like the Christian (not the only religious group with adherents guilty of promoting the following) contributions of slavery and discrimination against women and minorities did indeed get into the Constitution....

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:
I did supply at least 5 Christian principles which drove the founders, and made the Constitution possible, which nobody can find anywhere because they are too lazy to look.

MrDarwin then asked Radorth:
Radorth, for those of us who are denser than a lump of granite, could you please list those 5 principles? No need to discuss them at length, just a simple enumeration to pull them together in one place.

Radorth responding to MrDarwin's request:
Not in your insincere case, no. You have to do all your own homework anyway.

(New rule)

Rad

Notice how Radorth tries to weasel out of complying with a simple request for just a list of what he would consider 5 Constitutional principles supported by the Bible. He retreats into another unsupported claim (as well as an ad hominem attack), that of "insincerity" on the part of McDarwin, as an "excuse" for not answering the simplest question.

This is not "new rule" on your part, Radorth, but a very old refuge you and Vanderzyden have used on a number of occassions. I can see why you don't want to state a position precisely. Then you would have to defend a stated position that you can't "move the goalposts" on when you can't come up one (a defense)

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: mfaber ]

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: mfaber ]

Radorth · 12-13-2002, 08:55 AM

Well I've wasted another hour chasing gooses on a site Buffman claimed would answer "all" my questions. It didn't tell me why Article 11 was removed, nor did it negate Federer's assertions that the U.S was kissing butt to secure the safety of their ships. Buffman's site does say we bought them off, lending credence to the explanation that Article 11 was put in for purely politcal reasons.

I did find this, and which should be of great historical interest to all:

Quote:

The translation first printed is that of Barlow as written in the original treaty book, including not only the twelve articles of the treaty proper, but also the receipt and the note mentioned, according to the Barlow translation, in Article 10. The signature of Barlow is copied as it occurs, but not his initials, which are on every page of the fourteen which is not signed. The Humphreys approval or confirmation follows the translation; but the other writings, in English and Spanish, in the original treaty book, are not printed with the translation but only in these notes.

It is to be remembered that the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18-19) and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.

As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring.

Note especially the following.

Quote:

Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point

Oh great. So we don't know why Barlow removed it either, when he had reason to leave it in. Maybe he thought it was total B.S.

Quote:

A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic. Its text was not only formally proclaimed as such but has been continuously printed and reprinted as such; and yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts; for in the handwriting of James Leander Cathcart is the statement quoted above that the Barlow translation is "extremely erroneous"; and while the Italian translation of the Arabic text on which that endorsement appears, presents its own linguistic difficulties, largely owing to its literal rendering and its consequent non-literary character as Italian, it is none the less in essence a reasonable equivalent of the Arabic. Indeed, allowing for the crudeness of the original Arabic and the changes which always result from a retranslation, it may be said that a rendering of the Italian translation into English gives a result which is in general not dissimilar from the English translation of Doctor Snouck Hurgronje of 1930; and of course the most cursory examination of the Italian translation would show (assuming the Italian to be even an approximation of the Arabic), that the Barlow translation, as Cathcart wrote, was "extremely erroneous"; but nothing indicating that the Italian translation was even consulted has been found, and it does not appear that it was ever before 1930 put into English. Some account of the Italian translation as a document is given above.

Well OK, Barlow's Arabic translation was bad, but this simpply confuses the issue more because we still don't know what happened to Article 11. Yeah I'll say there's some questions. Criminy.

Rad

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

Radorth · 12-13-2002, 09:02 AM

I must be missing something. How is it the Barlow translation was the one submitted to the Senate if it did not contain Article 11 as so oft asserted here?

Yeah I know, "figure it out yourself blah blah blah." We don't know and we don't care. We're more interested in pedantic whining about your failure to do something which you've already admitted you cannot do to our satisfaction.

Just answering some assertions made by SKEPTICS who apparently didn't do any homework either.

Rad

12-13-2002, 07:53 AM	#213
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Some "homework": Radorth December 10, 2002 07:18 PM: "[John] Adams must have changed his mind as well, for in an 1813 he wrote the following to Jefferson, something Dr Rick forgot to mention[.]" June 28, 1813: [I'm going to break up the quotation in order to count the "Christian principles," and I'm going to be generous.] The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only principles on which that assembly of young men could unite ... Here they come. ... and what were those General principles? We asked you first (actually we asked Radorth, but you'll do). I answer ... Mops sweat from brow ... the general principles of Christianity in which all these sects were united: Okay, that's one. and the general principles of English and American Liberty ... Two. Now I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal ... Three. ... and immutable ... Four. ... as the existence ... Five. and attributes of God ... Six. ... and those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature, and our terrestrial mundane system. Uh ... okay. Thanks. Radorth: Sorry I coudn't locate the whole letter online, but those statements sound pretty stand-alone to me. [Radorth's baseless insult deleted] To sum up, the "Christian principles" on which the United States Constitution is based: The general principles of Christianity The general principles of English and American liberty The general principles of Christianity are eternal The general principles of Christianity are immutable God exists God has attributes Ta da! [ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiah jones ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-13-2002, 08:14 AM	#216
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Radorth: "You ADDED 'John Quincy' to my quote!" My mistake. I'll edit the post.

12-13-2002, 09:02 AM	#220
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	I must be missing something. How is it the Barlow translation was the one submitted to the Senate if it did not contain Article 11 as so oft asserted here? Yeah I know, "figure it out yourself blah blah blah." We don't know and we don't care. We're more interested in pedantic whining about your failure to do something which you've already admitted you cannot do to our satisfaction. Just answering some assertions made by SKEPTICS who apparently didn't do any homework either. Rad

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.