Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Elaborate · 12-10-2002, 05:54 PM

But, Radorth, our government is not based on the Declaration of Independence, any more than it is based on the Articles of Confederation. The Declaration was a statement of the reasons that America was revolting, not an essay on how our government should work.

Radorth · 12-10-2002, 06:18 PM

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:

The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only principles on which that assembly of young men could unite.. and what were those General principles? I answer the general principles of Christianity in which all these sects were united: and the general principles of English and American Liberty.... Now I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature, and our terrestrial mundane system.

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

If they are, TOO BAD. I'd say Dr. Rick should get out more, maybe visit a library off the Skeptics.org campus.

Rad

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

Radorth · 12-10-2002, 06:29 PM

Quote:

But, Radorth, our government is not based on the Declaration of Independence, any more than it is based on the Articles of Confederation. The Declaration was a statement of the reasons that America was revolting, not an essay on how our government should work.

There are principles in both which are Christian in origin. The DOI is a founding document and should rightly be discussed here. In fact any document which sheds light on the founders' philosophy, motives, beliefs, vision for the future of America, etc should be discussed here. Any other rules are chicken-&^%$ and doubtless intended to avoid the issues which were raised elsewhere.

Rad

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

beejay · 12-10-2002, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daggah:
It is sad that many states STILL have laws in the books forbidding atheists from holding office.

US Supreme Court, Torcaso v Watkins (1961) is a case in Maryland requiring a belief in God to be a Notary Public.

Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States.

<a href="http://members.aol.com/TestOath/Torcaso.htm" target="_blank">Text of Supreme Court decision and a discussion</a>

Doesn't this indicate that no such restriction in any state's constitution can have any validity.

Radorth · 12-10-2002, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Every single one of your "Christian democracies" got the idea from the Greeks. They did NOT get the idea from Christianity!

Unfortunately the Greek one didn't work too good, apparently because there weren't any Christians to ru it.

OK let me rephrase: There are virtually no non-Christian democracies anybody would want to live in.

Why would that be do you think?

Rad

Toto · 12-10-2002, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:


You don't get out much do you?

Jefferson also exalted Jesus' own teachings, as did all the framers except 3 that I know of. So he either contradicted himself, or he simply made distinctions which real free-thinkers have no trouble making. Even Paine did not speak of Jesus himself as you have done.

It is as logically ridiculous to blame Jesus or his teachings for abuses by dumb Christians as it is to blame Marx and atheists for Communist abuses.

I said the teachings of Christ, not Christianity. You will doubtless refuse to stop blurring the distinction, because you would have no argument of course.

I also said "God" and we note that nobody is talking about the Declaration of Independence anymore, for obvious reasons.

Rad

Radorth: Jefferson was a certified Deist. He took a pair of scissors to the New Testament and cut out all of the supernatural stuff, and claimed to admire the "real Jesus", who was a human sage or wisdom teacher. (These sayings were not, as it turns out, unique to the Jesus character in the New Testament, and can be found among other Greek philosphers of that era.) This doesn't make him a Christian or a follower of Christ. Being a Christian has to require some belief in the supernatural nature of Christ and his necessity for salvation.

Similarly, not all references to God are references to a Christian or a Judeo-Christian God. The Deists also believed in a "God", which they referred to as "Nature's God".

You seem to think that every reference to religion or Jesus is Christian, but this is absurd. Many of the moral principles you are calling Christian predated Jesus.

Radorth · 12-10-2002, 07:01 PM

Buffman to Emerson:

Quote:

Radcliffe Emerson

George Washington was an atheist.

Please read these carefully before you make that claim again.

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html#1" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html#1</a>

<a href="http://exchristian.net/xtains/washington.html" target="_blank">http://exchristian.net/xtains/washington.html</a>

In all his letters, there is not ONE mention of Jesus anywhere, not ONE.

SPEECH TO THE DELAWARE CHIEFS

(Extracts)
Brothers: I am glad you have brought three of the Children of your principal Chiefs to be educated with us. I am sure Congress will open the Arms of love to them, and will look upon them as their own Children, and will have them educated accordingly. This is a great mark of your confidence and of your desire to preserve the friendship between the Two Nations to the end of time, and to become One people with your Brethen of the United States. My ears hear with pleasure the other matters you mention. Congress will be glad to hear them too. You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast.

Apparently the skeptics selective memory precludes them from recalling the vociferous ad hom which flowed from their lips when I made a smaller error than Emerson did here, when he is obviously simply parroting an atheist website he read.

What I want to know is, where the hell is Daggah?

Criminy. The double standard of debate was never more obvious.

Rad

MrDarwin · 12-10-2002, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:


There are principles in both which are Christian in origin.

So what are those principles??? We keep raising specifics, whereas you keep replying with generalities. You're going to have to do a bit better than that, if you hope to be at all persuasive.

ybnormal · 12-10-2002, 07:17 PM

You're going to have to do a bit better than that, if you hope to be at all persuasive.

He does not hope to be persuasive... his ONLY intention is to bring about a perceived draw, which makes him Buffman's and other folk's equal. Which is all Barton accomplished... a perceiced draw to real historians, but a hero to his own kind, who were his ONLY audience in the first place.

theyeti · 12-10-2002, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:


OK let me rephrase: There are virtually no non-Christian democracies anybody would want to live in.

Why would that be do you think?

Rad

There are no Christian democracies. There are only democracies in which Christians are the majority. And then there are those in which Christians are not the majority.

Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan? Yeah, what hell holes.

BTW, why is it that 1700 hundred years of Christianity did NOT ONNE DAMN THING to advance the cause of Democracy? Then we get the Age of Enlightenment, in which the supernaturalism and authoritarianism that characterizes Christianity were called into question, and then suddenly Democracy starts springing up?

theyeti

12-10-2002, 06:18 PM	#62
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	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: The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only principles on which that assembly of young men could unite.. and what were those General principles? I answer the general principles of Christianity in which all these sects were united: and the general principles of English and American Liberty.... Now I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature, and our terrestrial mundane system. Sorry I coudn't locate the whole letter online, but those statements sound pretty stand-alone to me. If they are, TOO BAD. I'd say Dr. Rick should get out more, maybe visit a library off the Skeptics.org campus. Rad [ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

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

12-10-2002, 05:54 PM	#61
Elaborate Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 26	But, Radorth, our government is not based on the Declaration of Independence, any more than it is based on the Articles of Confederation. The Declaration was a statement of the reasons that America was revolting, not an essay on how our government should work.

12-10-2002, 07:17 PM	#69
ybnormal Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 430	You're going to have to do a bit better than that, if you hope to be at all persuasive. He does not hope to be persuasive... his ONLY intention is to bring about a perceived draw, which makes him Buffman's and other folk's equal. Which is all Barton accomplished... a perceiced draw to real historians, but a hero to his own kind, who were his ONLY audience in the first place.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.