Fred Flintstonensis

I read every single word of the other thread (How is the US Constitution a result of "Christian principles"?). Am I the only one who noticed that Radorth never answered the question?

Yellum Notnef

Radorth,
I don`t hate you or anyone else for that matter (OK maybe I do hate those two guys on TV who claim to talk to peoples dead relatives )

I actually share your dislike of many of the social problems you`ve brought up here (fatherless babies,gang kids etc..),but I strongly diagree with you on your solution.
I don`t know what the solution is,but I do know that it`s not possible to role back the clock to a time when everyone behaved themsleves due to fear of the bible and punishment from god.

The mythology you`re trying so hard to live by is grossly outdated in todays world and says nothing to most modern people about their lives. And because of thisYou`ll NEVER see your dream forfilled regardless of how loudly conservative groups yell or how many fundies are in govt.

hezekiah jones

Radorth quotes the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion ..."

An establishment of religion, not the establishment of a religion.

Christ, why can't you at least read the damn thing before lecturing us from your moral high horse.

dangin

I'd like to suggest that raddorth limit his use of quotes from the founding father's to those where they mention jesus, and only those. Mentioning almighty providence, the creator, or any other stuff like that can be equally used by jews, deists, or in fact any monotheistic religion (which xianity isn't or is depending on which verse you read). Please let's hear about ben franklin, thomas jefferson, george washington, and abraham licoln's passion for the messiah, and not some nondescript deity of convenience.

Radorth

Guess you don't know, but then you probably do all your homework in the skeptics.org library. If he said something quite contrary to what you think, that would be what? A personal anecdote?

Yes, there's so much new B.S. to try. But belief in the vacuuous teachings of secular humanism, the "power of science," contradictory theories of evolution do speak to their lives? Go read the philosophy thread and feel the joy of being a "fre-thinker".

If that were my dream, I would never have voted for Clinton. It is you who votes only the party line, and you who dreams of replacing all the Christians in government. We hear all the time here how wonderful a pristinely secular government would be. (Never any facts or history to back it up) I'm merely pointing out the foolishness of your dream. Having read the history of it, I have no great hope for this world, you see. That's your delusion, and it is the measure of humanist self-righteousness that each generation thinks they are more righteous and strong than the last.

Wisdom never grows old. Only "modern thinking" gets outdated, which is why wise men like the Founders looked to God and Christ more and more with age.

Rad

Radorth

My, the list grows shorter by the minute. I can well recall atheists beginning these discussions with mindless nonsense like "They were all deists."

The statements change as follows:

Well, OK, they were mostly deists.

Well OK, the great ones were deists, but Washington never mentioned Jesus.

Well OK he did, but only 2 or 3 times for political reasons, and he signed stuff he never read.

Anyway Franklin was definitely a deist.

Huh? He believed in an afterlife and final judgement? Well OK, maybe he wasn't a classical deist.

Paine was definitely a classical deist and he should be counted a founder.

Well OK, a lot of them were Christians but you couldn't hold office if you weren't. (Except the Presidency apparently)

OK, so they were 90% Christian. What's your point anyway? I don't give a fig about their personal anecdotes, why they wanted the Gospel spread around so bad.

Criminy. Yes Lord, do spare the world from ignorant reactionaries.

Rad

Jamie_L

We're falling into the same trap that the other founders-Constitution-separation thread ran into: we are arguing over the religious beliefs of the founders when that really isn't the question.

The question was - what were the Framers' definitions of "Separation"?

Clearly, on can be a devout Christian and be a strict separatist. Barry Lynn of Americans United comes to mind. Even if Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and the whole lot were all die-hard, God-fearing Christians (which I don't necessarily concede), that doesn't really say anything about their views on separation.

Another side comment is that all these men were undertaking the difficult task of trying to start a nation. Ideals and pragmatic actions did not always coincide. So, again, a man could value the ideal of a strict separation but allow some infractions to slide because there was a greater good to be considered: cobbling together a government and keeping it from collapsing under the weight of too much in-fighting.

Just some comments.

Jamie

dangin

All of which nicely sidesteps the point. George W. Bush said Jebus was the most influential philospher in his life. Jimmy Carter has had plenty to say about Jesus. I would hazard a guess that Woodrow Wilson had a comment or two about the messiah.

If someone is a "christian" and they feel that jesus is important to them, they should mention it once or twice shouldn't they?

I mean god said something somewhere about those who speak up for me, I will speak up for them on judgement day.

So seriously, show me the lip service these guys specifically paid to jesus. It should be easy since you are so certain of their christian "leanings".

Every quote that does not specify which "creator, providence, or almighty", could just as easily be said by Osama bin Laden as by a founding father. Let's hear about the love these guys had for the prince of peace, the son of god, the one and only, water walking, jesus christ superstar.

dangin

I think the constitutional separation and establishment clause stuff is well established.

The constitution does not mention god. The first amendment (which is all about personal freedom) deals with setting up a church state barrier for everyone's protection. It is important to note that it is the first amendment (read, foremost on the founder's minds).

The virginia statute for religious freedom, Jefferson's writings (including the Danbury letter) and the change from mason's govermental "toleration" of religion to outright "freedom" of religion makes it clear to all but the most obtuse or politically motivated that state and church are entirely separate in this country.

The founder's knew theocracy well, they had experienced it their entire lives until they declared their freedom. They knew "establishment" well and the injustice it creates. They thought they had settled the issue.

Shortsighted fools, who believe the divinely created, most powerful being in the universe needs legislated protection on one continent on one planet may argue the nuances for eternity. But the matter is settled for anyone who is reasonable.

The real problem is that our current administration sees it as uninportant and is using the weakening of the "Wall" as a chip to payoff it's most loyal contingent of whack job supporters, and we may suffer a massive change from the founder's specific intents because of it. But Bush acting against the founding of this nation, does not change how and why the nation was founded.

He's simply further weakening what in many ways is the most beautiful form of government yet seen on this planet. And certainly a better form than has ever been forced upon humanity by other humans appointed by the "divine".

Yellum Notnef

As opposed to your bible that brilliantly tells us that men come from dust and woman from a rib and that a cosmic supernatural superman slapped the world and everything on it together in a 6 day work week?
Do these primitive and childish answers satisfy your curiosity more than "contradictory theories of evolution"? Or do you have no curiosity about these questions?

There are things we just don`t have answers for,but if we were to just throw our hands in the air and run back to your bible you wouldn`t be able to hassle us since there would most likely be no computers or internet right now.

So what if you voted for Clinton. What does this have to do with anything? When did Clinton say he was an atheist or opposed to the bible and Jesus?

And who sais anything about MY dream? I certainly didn`t.
I don`t give a flying crap how many Christians are in govt as long as they keep their religious beliefs to themselves and not use their power to impose them on everyone else.
If you could just get this simple concept through your thick head we could all have put a lid on these ridiculous threads a long time ago.
This IS what the founding fathers intended REGARDLESS of what religious beliefs some of them had and REGARDLESS of who is religious NOW.

And the wisdom found in your bible was around for A VERY LONG TIME before it became a cornerstones of your religion.
The problem is that giving credit for thousands of years of human development and creativity to a relatively recent supernatural hero IS "modern thinking" that became outdated almost 2000 years ago.


You don`t make any sense Radorth. Your whole campain here is to prove to us that the Christian founding fathers wanted a Christian nation built on Christian principles.
You claim that our society is going down the toilet because we`re moving away from the bible and Christian values and you have no hope for this world unless we all turn to god and Jesus.
This is clearly what you want since you`ve repeated these sentiments many times,BUT then you claim it`s NOT what you want and offer your vote for Clinton as proof.

WTF Radorth??? What the hell DO you want???

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Fenton Mulley ]</p>