Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 12-23-2002, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:
Skeptics debate rule # 17:

Have the last word at all costs, even if you have to raise new issues, or post something completely off-topic.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Radorth had been the one to bring up the question of evolution, so he has no right to complain.

Quote:

(Radorth: with modern evidence Darwin said would be fatal to it,)
(LP: I'm waiting to see it)

You will, another day on an appropriate thread.

At this rate, it will happen at the Greek Kalends.

Radorth · 12-23-2002, 06:46 PM

Quote:

You still have yet to acknowledge that I immediately corrected myself on that point. You still dishonestly try to hold me to that erroneous statement.

I acknowledge you corrected yourself, but only because I pointed out how far you stretched the truth and turned one third hand account into "all those people who knew him." If I "misspoke" like that, you guys would fly into a never-ending tizzy. Criminy.

Well hey, it's better than having people insert elipses in your posts and make them look like real quotes, don't you think? Or quoting you as saying Washington was fundamentalist Christian, as Buffman did? I didn't hear you complaining about that or calling him a liar. You must have missed this from Toto:

Quote:

Do you really want to have goverment agents push their version of Christianity on juvenile delinquents in Los Angeles?

Huh? When did I say anything like that? In fact I just got done agreeing with Madison on how paid "Christian teachers" are a hindrance to the spread of truth. But I guess no one wants to discuss anything thread-related. It must be rather painful to hear Madison call the Gospel the "light of truth and a "precious gift" and indicate how it can be better promulgated.

Politics indeed.

Rad

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

Radorth · 12-23-2002, 07:25 PM

Quote:

All I get from Rad is a lot of hysterical gushing about how skeptics discount the number of Christians among the founders. But it is clear Rad does not understand what Deism was, and can't figure out why Christians would support strict separation.

I support virtually any kind of separation the Founders did. You don't. If you had a case you would stop your own hysterical gushing, but you don't.

The Congress had Bibles imported at public expense. Do you support that? No. The Congress hired Protestant chaplains, and only one founder even raised a question about it. Do you support that? No. Jefferson attended services in public buildings and encouraged all members of the army to attend "divine services." Do you support that? No. Do you agree with Madison that one must be subject to the "Governor of the universe" in order to be subject to civil laws? No. Did a single one of them complain about Bible reading or saying common prayers in school? No.

I don't agree with it actually, so what does that make me? More strict about separation than they were?

Sorry, I've come to agree with what David Barton said, in Buffman's cite:

"But many people attempt to anachronously impose today's definition [of deism]upon Franklin, Jefferson, and others, implying they had nothing whatsoever to do with religion. This is usually done to support a broad, separationist approach to religion and government, which is inconsistent with the words and deeds of those who created America's political system."

How ironic. Now we are using Barton's "facts" and research to prove both cases. Gee, maybe he isn't as bad as all that. I'd certainly like to know exactly what "revisionist history" he wants rammed down the throats of kids. Historical facts cited by Buffman maybe?

Rad

Toto · 12-23-2002, 08:50 PM

RadicalOrthodox Troll:

Here is the complete quote:

Quote:

I called Washington "enigmatic." It is only Atheist Automatons who could insist the reticent Washington was a deist. Your own definition above precludes him, since he saw the "invisible hand" at work all through the war. I only said that IN MY OPINION after considerable study, I decided he was a Christian who was simply too humble to take communion, but I'm not dogmatic about it. I don't need him to be one nearly as bad as you need him to be a "deist."

In what way am I mischaracterizing you by my ellipsis:

Quote:

. . . Washington . . . was a Christian who was simply too humble to take communion, but I'm not dogmatic about it.

since I only wished to comment on the "too humble to take communion" nonsense.

Explain your problem with this or drop the subject.

I take it you did not bother to read the essay I posted in a <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000909" target="_blank">separate thread</a>:

<a href="http://www.ibka.org/en/articles/ag02/kirkhart.html" target="_blank">Separation of Church and State in America - Jefferson to Bush</a>

Quote:

At the time of our Revolution, nine of our thirteen colonies had state-established churches, Congregational in the North and Anglican in the South. They overlapped, with no apparent understanding of the contradiction, with the eight new states who adopted Jefferson's clause, which he had proposed for his home Virginia, that granted freedom of religion, "according to the dictates of conscience." Jefferson's own Virginia did not embrace this language until ten years later. Freedom of religion was an emerging idea and even where the language of secularism took hold, the reality was more difficult.

All states had some religious restrictions. Even Pennsylvania, the state most Americans think of as the leader in religious liberty, required those in public office to swear that the Old and New Testaments were divinely inspired.

On reflection, none of this should surprise us. Many of our settlers had been religious fanatics England had sent away. Their descendants not only lacked modern travel and communication advances, about half lacked basic literacy. . . .

In spite of the revisionist thorn in our side, there is little doubt that Jefferson's wall was intended, as metaphorical walls must be, to be an impenetrable fortress against the use of the power of government to support a belief. If his vision was less pure than we atheists would like-his idea that these rights came from a Creator, with a capital C-it was as sturdy as any could wish, not allowing a presidential proclamation of a fast day, for example. Jefferson is often referred to as a Deist. Many nonbelievers take this to mean that he shared the proto-atheist philosophy of Thomas Paine, whose Deism was definitely that of a pre-Darwinian atheist who simply thought that a god was the logical explanation for our coming into being, but not for anything since that time. But Jefferson also called himself a Christian, though he was adamant that he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus; there is little doubt that he believed in a creator god.

The record is clear his notion of separation had some political viability. It was an issue in the election of 1800. The Rev. William Linn said, "The election of any man avowing the principles of Mr. Jefferson" would "destroy religion, introduce immorality, and loosen the bonds of society." And incumbent John Adams, who once called the idea of a divine Jesus "a conventional cover for absurdity" put aside his own feelings to oppose Jefferson's separation in a vain attempt to hold onto the presidency.

In other words, separation of church and state was an ideal. It applied only to the federal government (so school prayer was not an issue until the 14th amendment was held to incorporate it.) The founders occasionally ignored it in favor of political expediency or ancient customs (the congressional chaplains predate the First Amendment.) But the early American government was not perfect. We interpret the laws as written and as intended, not as occasionally violated.

I will ask one more time before I give up: What is your position? What specific action do you want the government to do, and how do you justify it?

Radorth · 12-23-2002, 09:24 PM

Quote:

In what way am I mischaracterizing you by my ellipsis:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . Washington . . . was a Christian who was simply too humble to take communion, but I'm not dogmatic about it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Someone puts IN MY OPINION in capital letters and you leave it out?

Just quote the whole of the paragraph and stop editing if you don't mind, and we won't waste anymore bandwidth. It is patently obvious why you would spend more time editing than just using the whole thing.

Quote:

The founders occasionally ignored it in favor of political expediency or ancient customs (the congressional chaplains predate the First Amendment.)

That's funny. I thought Buffman said they came later. My mistake.

Ah, so now you are finally taking my bandwidth saveing advice and saying the Founders were WRONG to allow such violations.

What a relief.

Rad

Toto · 12-23-2002, 09:34 PM

Okay Rad, why does it make any sense to say that Washington was a Christian but too humble to take communion - WHETHER OR NOT its YOUR OPINION? I didn't say you couldn't prove it - I said the idea had no foundation in Christian practice.

Radorth · 12-24-2002, 08:33 AM

"Whoever drinks unworthily drinks condemnation to himself."

I have refused communion per this verse, because taking communion "unworthily," or lightly, damages the conscience. I suspect a man of Washington's integrity felt unworthy to take it, (whether a Christian or not) and in those days Epicopalians, etc, poorly understood what Whitefield was talking about. Any honest Christian who reads the Sermon on the Mount knows s/he will never live up to it.

I suppose one could argue from the facts that he either knew he was not a Christian in heart, OR he simply did not understand how righteousness is imputed in exchange for faith.

Rad

Buffman · 12-24-2002, 10:13 AM

Radorth

It continues to be pointless to attempt to carry on any kind of adult conversation with you if you are unwilling to read the references that people have thoughtfully and sincerely provided you. Please read this and stop making references to things you think I have said without including the information provided at those reference sites.

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm</a>

Sorry, I've come to agree with what David Barton said, in Buffman's cite:
"But many people attempt to anachronously impose today's definition [of deism]upon Franklin, Jefferson, and others, implying they had nothing whatsoever to do with religion. This is usually done to support a broad, separationist approach to religion and government, which is inconsistent with the words and deeds of those who created America's political system."

I cited Barton's 2002 amplified article. His original articles (books/tapes) of 1988/89 did not contain this depth of accurate background. Federer is using an old Barton quote. So, when you say that you agree with this "newer" statement above, then I can only assume that you have never read Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" which is hardly anachronistic to the beliefs of Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Washington and most of those founders during that "specific" period in American history. I have no idea what David Barton means by "today's definition [of deism]." Do you? If so please enlighten me! Deism believed then, as it does today, in a supernatural God. Therefore Deism is a religious belief system. It is not a Christian belief system...then or now.

At the very beginning of the "Age of Reason" in Paine's "The Author's Profession of Faith," he writes, "...I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them." His very first items state the following:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

I know of no informed and thoughtful non-believer that denies the fact that our founders believed that only an ethical and moral people could hope to successfully maintain the kind of government being crafted at the Convention. However, Jefferson accurately pointed out that only an educated and accurately informed people could help to make the kinds of decisions that would be required to maintain ethical and moral behavior among those elected to govern them. The obvious fact that Christian "religious" indoctrination also contained many of the finest ethical and moral precepts of a civilized society and government helps to explain why Jefferson created the Bible that he did. Do you disagree? Do you agree that that is one reason why these Bibles, and not the Judeo-Christian Holy Bibles, were handed out to members of Congress?

So if you have come to believe exactly what Barton believes, exactly what is it that Barton believes about Deism...then and now? I see no inconsistencies in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution with the precepts of Deism. Do you? Are you incapable of arriving at your own beliefs based on the verifiable evidence; or must you count on others to think for you?

Daggah · 12-24-2002, 11:27 AM

Hey Buffman...you mentioned morals?

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences.... If it end in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others it will procure for you." - Thomas Jefferson

Thought it fitting.

Dark Jedi · 12-24-2002, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vibr8gKiwi:
I think the wall needs to break down a little for the blind Christians to appreciate that there is a wall. Bush has now allowed religious charities to get federal funding (well, religious charities always could get federal funding, but they had to fulfill certain requirements like not discriminating). Some Satanist group should now open a soup kitchen. Homeless can get free food from them, but would have to pray to Satan first (this is exactly what many Christian charity groups will now be doing with our tax money). Let the Christians realize they are funding Satanic prayers with their own tax money and that wall will be back up in nothing flat. Similar thing can be done with school led prayer, religious ethical teachings, classes and such. It's always ok with Christians when they are the ones doing the preaching, but not the other way around. I dunno why most Christians are so blind they cannot see the wall protects them as well as us.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]

They do not want that wall removed, only a special "Christians only" door installed in it.

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

12-23-2002, 09:34 PM	#156
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Okay Rad, why does it make any sense to say that Washington was a Christian but too humble to take communion - WHETHER OR NOT its YOUR OPINION? I didn't say you couldn't prove it - I said the idea had no foundation in Christian practice.

12-24-2002, 08:33 AM	#157
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	"Whoever drinks unworthily drinks condemnation to himself." I have refused communion per this verse, because taking communion "unworthily," or lightly, damages the conscience. I suspect a man of Washington's integrity felt unworthy to take it, (whether a Christian or not) and in those days Epicopalians, etc, poorly understood what Whitefield was talking about. Any honest Christian who reads the Sermon on the Mount knows s/he will never live up to it. I suppose one could argue from the facts that he either knew he was not a Christian in heart, OR he simply did not understand how righteousness is imputed in exchange for faith. Rad

12-24-2002, 10:13 AM	#158
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Radorth It continues to be pointless to attempt to carry on any kind of adult conversation with you if you are unwilling to read the references that people have thoughtfully and sincerely provided you. Please read this and stop making references to things you think I have said without including the information provided at those reference sites. <a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm</a> Sorry, I've come to agree with what David Barton said, in Buffman's cite: "But many people attempt to anachronously impose today's definition [of deism]upon Franklin, Jefferson, and others, implying they had nothing whatsoever to do with religion. This is usually done to support a broad, separationist approach to religion and government, which is inconsistent with the words and deeds of those who created America's political system." I cited Barton's 2002 amplified article. His original articles (books/tapes) of 1988/89 did not contain this depth of accurate background. Federer is using an old Barton quote. So, when you say that you agree with this "newer" statement above, then I can only assume that you have never read Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" which is hardly anachronistic to the beliefs of Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Washington and most of those founders during that "specific" period in American history. I have no idea what David Barton means by "today's definition [of deism]." Do you? If so please enlighten me! Deism believed then, as it does today, in a supernatural God. Therefore Deism is a religious belief system. It is not a Christian belief system...then or now. At the very beginning of the "Age of Reason" in Paine's "The Author's Profession of Faith," he writes, "...I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them." His very first items state the following: "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." I know of no informed and thoughtful non-believer that denies the fact that our founders believed that only an ethical and moral people could hope to successfully maintain the kind of government being crafted at the Convention. However, Jefferson accurately pointed out that only an educated and accurately informed people could help to make the kinds of decisions that would be required to maintain ethical and moral behavior among those elected to govern them. The obvious fact that Christian "religious" indoctrination also contained many of the finest ethical and moral precepts of a civilized society and government helps to explain why Jefferson created the Bible that he did. Do you disagree? Do you agree that that is one reason why these Bibles, and not the Judeo-Christian Holy Bibles, were handed out to members of Congress? So if you have come to believe exactly what Barton believes, exactly what is it that Barton believes about Deism...then and now? I see no inconsistencies in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution with the precepts of Deism. Do you? Are you incapable of arriving at your own beliefs based on the verifiable evidence; or must you count on others to think for you?

12-24-2002, 11:27 AM	#159
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	Hey Buffman...you mentioned morals? "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences.... If it end in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others it will procure for you." - Thomas Jefferson Thought it fitting.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.