Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ybnormal · 12-12-2002, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:
Did you even bother reading the other threads or trying to ascertain the facts?

Thanks for the response, Rad. But do you mean like Buffman's <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000739&p=" target="_blank"> David Barton Automations </a> thread, where the following pleas were made on a single thread over 6 days? And this is just from the Moderator.

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
Rad - there are so many phony quotes out there, and so many quotes taken out of context, that you must give citations if you quote any founding father.

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
Rad - you have evidently not bothered to read the meticulous research backing up the claim that Barton makes up quotes and/or takes them out of context.

If you won't do your homework, there's no sense trying to carry on a conversation with you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
Rad - I gather it is hopeless to expect you to learn how to read simple English without imagining a pro-Christian meaning to it, but could you at least learn how to give citations?

Do you know how to cut and paste URL's?

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
Rad - ...
Actually, give me any coherent argument. I'm tired of these little hints that there is something out there.

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
Rad : as an example of your "lies", you did not give a source for Franklin's low opinion of atheists. You gave a reference to a source that I had to track down that said nothing of the sort. I then quoted Franklin's autobiography in which he notes that others accused him of atheism.

I don't think you're a deliberate liar on this point, I think you're worse. You are so blinded by your own ideology that you can't even interpret the words in front of you on the page (or the screen.)

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
Radorth - this is so like trying to nail jello to the wall.

I looked up the quote that you gave... But you left off most of the first sentence.

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
At this point, I'm not sure what you are arguing. I am pretty sure that your fantasy of Franklin above libels him. If you cannot support it in some way, please retract it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
Besides, I'm tired of Radorth wasting bandwidth with his slipping and sliding around the issues.

Mageth · 12-12-2002, 09:20 AM

I said:

This is especially ironic in that the percentage of Americans who would classify themselves as "christians" is without doubt lower today than it was in 1789. Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam are increasing in percentage in the U.S. while xianity's percentage is shrinking.

Radorth replied:

Totally beside the point.

I was responding to your post:

The other great irony is that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether the Constitution is entirely based on Christian principles or not, if God is merely using it as a means to insure the purity of the Gospel, and its spread.

which was, well, "beside the point." Ironic, no?

Gee, you mean without all that help from Congress spreading the Word, there might be no Christians at all?

No, I mean that if god is really "using it as a means to insure the purity of the Gospel, and its spread", his plan seems to have gone a bit awry. The first amendment has allowed the emergence and success of various sects/cults/etc. that you possibly consider "impure" (Mormonism, Christian Science, Scientology, etc.), the arrival and spread of other competing religions (Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism), and even the spread of, gasp, atheism (which also is enjoying a higher growth rate than xiainity). God's plan seems to have backfired.

You talk like if God was behind something, people would go for it, but that is not the history of the church or the world at all.

Yeah, I know, god's not as successful as he'd like to be.

If god was "using it as a means to insure the purity of the Gospel, and its spread", and if god is omniscient, I would think he could see that a government allowing freedom of religion would have an undesirable effect counter to his plan, permitting "impure" gospels to arise and prosper and other religions (and non-religion) to spread.

And one could argue that, since our constitution has allowed other religions to spread, that one could just as easily argue that some other deity than the xian god might actually be the one behind the first amendment.

Buffman · 12-12-2002, 09:32 AM

Radorth

Oh my. This site does produce grins, in spite of the gratuitous slander you have to endure. Hopefully it won't self-destruct as a number of other atheist sites have. I hope it doesn't, but that's entirely up to the moderators I suppose.

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/infidels/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/infidels/index.shtml</a>

It's a matter of fairness and truth to me, but you are so determined to make me a Barton supporter in spite of my comments about him, that you can't see that. I also said the Boy Scouts should get absolutely no help from the government, but that was on another thread you may have missed.

I didn't miss this one. And when you use Barton quotes, you earn the label of a Barton supporter. I repeat! I hope you noted that Barton did not provide any source reference for his claims on that Ankerberg site. Neither did you.

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=001279&p=3" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=001279&p=3</a>

Buffman · 12-12-2002, 09:52 AM

Radorth

So why was it removed in 1806,(if it was)and why did you fail to make note of that?

Why don't you do some homework and find out for yourself instead of hoping that others will do your work for you? No one failed to make note of all the other Treaties that didn't contain those words. They were different treaties. The point we are considering is why they weren't taken out of the Treaty at issue, and why they were unanimously ageed to by the President and Senate...and the American public who read them in their local papers.

<a href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/barmenu.htm" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/barmenu.htm</a>

BTW is someone who doesn't tell the whole story out of ignorance still classified a liar here?

Good question! Now, can we get an answer from you about the original topic for this string instead of you sailing off into yet another irrelevant issue/diatribe?

Toto · 12-12-2002, 10:07 AM

It appears that the best that Radorth can come up with is that some Christians were motivated to write the US Constitution because of their experience of mistreatment by other Christians, and the principles that they derived from that experience.

Otherwise I just see a wall, some nails, some jello on the floor. . .

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Daggah · 12-12-2002, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:
<strong>Well Daggah I read Buffman's URL for the Treaty, (where he belatedly told me to find it while making condescending remarks) and it specifically does NOT answer Federer's assertion that the subject phrase was removed in 1806. In fact it totally glosses over the question by simply quoting a new artical 14 which basically says the U.S is neutral on religious matters.

So why was it removed in 1806,(if it was)and why did you fail to make note of that? BTW is someone who doesn't tell the whole story out of ignorance still classified a liar here?

Rad</strong>

It doesn't matter. The point I was making using the treaty was that, in 1797, the U.S. Senate had absolutely no problem whatsoever with the statement declaring the USA to NOT be a Christian nation. It was there when the Senate gave it their vote of support.

The point I was making was that the U.S. Senate obviously agreed with such a statement.

Radcliffe Emerson · 12-12-2002, 10:38 AM

I actually misquoted. The information I read said in the 1790s, only 5 to 10 % of the population in this country were church members.
I don't know that the Xtian faith specifically requires church membership, but most Xtians seem to believe you have to be a member somewhere.
My point is, until WWII most of the population of the US, whether they considered themselves Christian or not, didn't think enough of the faith to actually attend services regarding it.

Mageth · 12-12-2002, 11:20 AM

Hmm. Interesting. I did find <a href="http://www.losingmyreligion.com/articlesf/churchattendance.html" target="_blank">this site</a> from which I got:

Church Membership in America:

1776......17% 1906......51% 1995......65%
1850......34% 1916......53%
1860......37% 1926......56%
1870......35% 1952......59%
1890......45% 1980......62%

This generally backs your point, but differs from your numbers. But the numbers you're referring to are apparently for church attendance while these are for church membership, which might explain the difference. These estimates would put the percentage a bit higher than 5-10% in 1790, and show a general steady increase rather than a sudden jump at WWII.

dangin · 12-12-2002, 12:10 PM

I would imagine that attendence went way up during WWII, and during WWI, and during the civil war, and during the korean war, and right after 9/11. But as a long term trend, it seems a steady rise. Times of upheaval being bubbles of spiritual seeking.

Radcliffe Emerson · 12-12-2002, 12:19 PM

It still doesn't look so much like a Christian nation at the beginning though, does it?

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

12-12-2002, 09:20 AM	#182
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I said: This is especially ironic in that the percentage of Americans who would classify themselves as "christians" is without doubt lower today than it was in 1789. Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam are increasing in percentage in the U.S. while xianity's percentage is shrinking. Radorth replied: Totally beside the point. I was responding to your post: The other great irony is that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether the Constitution is entirely based on Christian principles or not, if God is merely using it as a means to insure the purity of the Gospel, and its spread. which was, well, "beside the point." Ironic, no? Gee, you mean without all that help from Congress spreading the Word, there might be no Christians at all? No, I mean that if god is really "using it as a means to insure the purity of the Gospel, and its spread", his plan seems to have gone a bit awry. The first amendment has allowed the emergence and success of various sects/cults/etc. that you possibly consider "impure" (Mormonism, Christian Science, Scientology, etc.), the arrival and spread of other competing religions (Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism), and even the spread of, gasp, atheism (which also is enjoying a higher growth rate than xiainity). God's plan seems to have backfired. You talk like if God was behind something, people would go for it, but that is not the history of the church or the world at all. Yeah, I know, god's not as successful as he'd like to be. If god was "using it as a means to insure the purity of the Gospel, and its spread", and if god is omniscient, I would think he could see that a government allowing freedom of religion would have an undesirable effect counter to his plan, permitting "impure" gospels to arise and prosper and other religions (and non-religion) to spread. And one could argue that, since our constitution has allowed other religions to spread, that one could just as easily argue that some other deity than the xian god might actually be the one behind the first amendment.

12-12-2002, 09:32 AM	#183
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Radorth Oh my. This site does produce grins, in spite of the gratuitous slander you have to endure. Hopefully it won't self-destruct as a number of other atheist sites have. I hope it doesn't, but that's entirely up to the moderators I suppose. <a href="http://www.infidels.org/infidels/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/infidels/index.shtml</a> It's a matter of fairness and truth to me, but you are so determined to make me a Barton supporter in spite of my comments about him, that you can't see that. I also said the Boy Scouts should get absolutely no help from the government, but that was on another thread you may have missed. I didn't miss this one. And when you use Barton quotes, you earn the label of a Barton supporter. I repeat! I hope you noted that Barton did not provide any source reference for his claims on that Ankerberg site. Neither did you. <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=001279&p=3" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=001279&p=3</a>

12-12-2002, 09:52 AM	#184
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Radorth So why was it removed in 1806,(if it was)and why did you fail to make note of that? Why don't you do some homework and find out for yourself instead of hoping that others will do your work for you? No one failed to make note of all the other Treaties that didn't contain those words. They were different treaties. The point we are considering is why they weren't taken out of the Treaty at issue, and why they were unanimously ageed to by the President and Senate...and the American public who read them in their local papers. <a href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/barmenu.htm" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/barmenu.htm</a> BTW is someone who doesn't tell the whole story out of ignorance still classified a liar here? Good question! Now, can we get an answer from you about the original topic for this string instead of you sailing off into yet another irrelevant issue/diatribe?

12-12-2002, 10:07 AM	#185
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	It appears that the best that Radorth can come up with is that some Christians were motivated to write the US Constitution because of their experience of mistreatment by other Christians, and the principles that they derived from that experience. Otherwise I just see a wall, some nails, some jello on the floor. . . [ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

12-12-2002, 10:38 AM	#187
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	I actually misquoted. The information I read said in the 1790s, only 5 to 10 % of the population in this country were church members. I don't know that the Xtian faith specifically requires church membership, but most Xtians seem to believe you have to be a member somewhere. My point is, until WWII most of the population of the US, whether they considered themselves Christian or not, didn't think enough of the faith to actually attend services regarding it.

12-12-2002, 11:20 AM	#188
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Hmm. Interesting. I did find <a href="http://www.losingmyreligion.com/articlesf/churchattendance.html" target="_blank">this site</a> from which I got: Church Membership in America: 1776......17% 1906......51% 1995......65% 1850......34% 1916......53% 1860......37% 1926......56% 1870......35% 1952......59% 1890......45% 1980......62% This generally backs your point, but differs from your numbers. But the numbers you're referring to are apparently for church attendance while these are for church membership, which might explain the difference. These estimates would put the percentage a bit higher than 5-10% in 1790, and show a general steady increase rather than a sudden jump at WWII.

12-12-2002, 12:10 PM	#189
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	I would imagine that attendence went way up during WWII, and during WWI, and during the civil war, and during the korean war, and right after 9/11. But as a long term trend, it seems a steady rise. Times of upheaval being bubbles of spiritual seeking.

12-12-2002, 12:19 PM	#190
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	It still doesn't look so much like a Christian nation at the beginning though, does it?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.