FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-07-2003, 02:47 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 1,107
Wink The Treadmill Debate that Never Was

I always read on the treadmill at the gym, otherwise moss grows on my frontal lobes. So the other day, as is my wont, I set up a recent biography of Francis Bacon on my reading rack before firing up to a furious 3 mph. A young man next to me asked what I was reading. I told him a little of Bacon’s precarious life through the religious regime changes of his time, commenting that Tudor/Stewart history made a good case for separation of church and state.
My neighbor said he had read that there was no historic evidence for a wall of separation and proceeded to quote the opening sentence of the Mayflower Compact. His purported version included mention of Jesus. I had none of the compact committed to memory, but I knew for sure that although God and Christianity figure in the document, there is no mention of Jesus.* However, before I could question his source, my Christian soldiered onward into the ever-popular assertion that our forefather came here for religious freedom, etc., etc., etc.
I responded that religious freedom was not their intent as they established a theocracy. “They hanged Quakers,” I said, “banished Anne Hutchinson for heresy, ---”
He interrupted me in a truly astonished voice, “When did this happen, did you say? In the fifteen hundreds?”
(Was he not easy pickings, dear reader?)
“No,” I said, “in the 17th century. The Mayflower Compact was signed in 1620.”
“Ah,” he said, “I’ll have to read up on that. Well, I’ll let you get back to your reading.”
And so I did.
But I had many “I shudda said to him” thoughts afterward. Perhaps I should have engaged him in the Great Treadmill Debate of the YMCA.
What would you have done/said in my place?

* http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1601-1...uth/compac.htm

Oresta is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 11:36 PM   #2
Beloved Deceased
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: central Florida
Posts: 3,546
Default

http://www.lilesnet.com/thanksgiving/about/pilgrams.htm

http://www.plimoth.org/Library/compact.htm

(Everyone should read and memorize the basic content of the "Commentary" at the above URL.)

http://www.neta.com/~1stbooks/chron6.htm

(These were the hated Catholics who could not possibly be given credit for anything in a Protestant controlled 13 colonies until approximately 300 years later.)

Buffman is offline  
Old 02-09-2003, 06:11 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 1,107
Default

From the second URL cited above:
Quote:
Samuel Elliot Morison let Governor Bradford himself speak for the meaning of the document, in his very perceptive The Pilgrim Fathers, Their Significance in History: "...the unpleasant tribe of professional historians refuses to find in the Compact anything more than what Bradford says it was, 'a combination made by them before they came ashore...occasioned partly by the discontented and mutinous speeches that some of the strangers amongst them had let fall...That when they came a shore they would use their owne libertie; for none had power to command them, the patente they had being for Virginia, and not for Newengland, which belonged to an other Government, with which the Virginia Company had nothing to doe.'"2 The agreement signed on board the Mayflower on November 11, 1620, made but a small impact on history, but as the "Mayflower Compact", it became a vital element in the Pilgrim Story and served as the symbol of all of the democratic institutions that would evolve in the United States in the future.
Indeed, the motives of the framers of this document should be understood for what they really were: an effort to prevent anarchy.

It is interesting to also note that John Q. Adams was among those spin meisters responsible for the misconceptions of the Mayflower Compact that continue to go ringing down through the corriders of time.

Quote:
http://www.neta.com/~1stbooks/chron6.htm

(These were the hated Catholics who could not possibly be given credit for anything in a Protestant controlled 13 colonies until approximately 300 years later.)
More textbook spin on the European settlement of the New World: Back in the seventh grade, having dutifully memorized those founding dates of Roanoke, Jamestown and Plymouth, I was astonished to find the Spanish well established in the west later in the course! Where did they come from?

{edited by Toto to fix tags}
Oresta is offline  
Old 02-09-2003, 03:30 PM   #4
Beloved Deceased
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: central Florida
Posts: 3,546
Default

"Church and State in America" by Edwin S. Gaustad, Oxford University Press, New York-Oxford, 1999, Chap. 5, 'The Eastablishment Clause:Public Schools', pg 84.

(Extracts)
Pupils sang Protestant hymns, read from a Protestant Bible (King James Version), offered Protestant prayers, and read their history with a strongly Protestant (that is to say, anti-Catholic) slant. Indeed, Archbishop John Hughes in New York City thought the public schools of the 1840s were so clearly Protestant that public monies should be granted to Roman Catholic schools as well. When he failed to win that argument, he turned to what seemed the only alternative: a parochial school system for Catholic boys and girls.

As early as 1869, parents sued the public schools of Cincinnati, Ohio, in an effort to purge them of their Protestant religious exercises. The Superior Court of that city, more or less in the spirit of Horace Mann, found nothing objectionable in these "non-dogmatic," yet clearly Protestant, observances. One dissenter, however, Judge Alphonso Taft (father of future President William Howard Taft) noted that these daily rituals were clearly "Protestant worship" and, as such, inescapably "offensive to Catholics and Jews." A year later, the Ohio Supreme Court agreed with Taft's dissenting opinion and ruled such activity illegal.
(End extracts)

Yet here we are in 2003, still under the conditioning and indoctrinating influences of Protestantism...though seeing Catholicism making rapid inroads into the highest court in the land. Is it any wonder that evangelical Methodist, GWB Jr., is by-passing Congress and funneling taxpayer monies directly into the religious coffers of the chosen religious denominations via the Faith Based Initiative? Republicans have historically been representative of the Protestant faith beliefs, whereas Democrats have historically represented the Catholics and other national minority beliefs. However, in the recent "under God"/IGWT/10 Commandment issues, there have been no Republicans or Democrats...only believers in the supernatural superiority of Christianity.

For the moment, Protestants and Catholics have been conveniently drawn together to face a growing menace to their mutual Christian religious faith belief...Islam. Woe be to our secular Constitution and all non-believers in a world where the reigns of power are contested between supernatural faith beliefs.

Here are two excellent URLs to use when discussing religious population statistics/views:

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

http://pewforum.org/publications/reports/poll2002.pdf
Buffman is offline  
Old 02-10-2003, 06:35 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 1,107
Default

What is particularly distressing is that this coalition of Christians draws upon a bogus historical account of "religious freedom" to legitimize its campaign against the First Amendment. And the itony is that while J. Q. Adams was corrupting history, as exerpted here from your URL, Jefferson was writing his "Notes on the State of Virginia" (1781-1782) wherein he does an excellent job of debunking the "freedom of religion" account of the colonial foundings. (See second link and excerpt below.)

http://www.plimoth.org/Library/compact.htm
Quote:
A popular conception that originated in the early nineteenth century was that the agreement signed on board the Mayflower in 1620, (which received its modern name of the "Mayflower Compact" in 17931, was the beginning of constitutional government in this country. In 1802, John Quincy Adams had invoked contemporary ideas on social order to invest the 1620 agreement with an importance it did not have for its originators: "This is perhaps the only instance in human history of that positive, original [Rousseaunian] social compact which speculative philosophers have imagined as the only legitimate source of government. Here was a unanimous and personal assent by all the [male] individuals of the community to the association, by which they become a nation." It was common thereafter to see the Compact not as a temporary measure but as a proto-Constitution, prefiguring the one that had been adopted by the new nation.
...and here's Jefferson's take on religious "freedom" in the colonies of both Virginia and New England.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jevifram.htm

Quote:
QUERY XVII


_The different religions received into that state?_

Religion

The first settlers in this country were emigrants from England, of the English church, just at a point of time when it was flushed with complete victory over the religious of all other persuasions. Possessed, as they became, of the powers of making, administering, and executing the laws, they shewed equal intolerance in this country with their Presbyterian brethren, who had emigrated to the northern government. The poor Quakers were flying from persecution in England. They cast their eyes on these new countries as asylums of civil and religious freedom; but they found them free only for the reigning sect. Several acts of the Virginia assembly of 1659, 1662, and 1693, had made it penal in parents to refuse to have their children baptized; had prohibited the unlawful assembling of Quakers; had made it penal for any master of a vessel to bring a Quaker into the state; had ordered those already here, and such as should come thereafter, to be imprisoned till they should abjure the country; provided a milder punishment for their first and second return, but death for their third; had inhibited all persons from suffering their meetings in or near their houses, entertaining them individually, or disposing of books which supported their tenets. If no capital execution took place here, as did in New-England, it was not owing to the moderation of the church, or spirit of the legislature, as may be inferred from the law itself; but to historical circumstances which have not been handed down to us. The Anglicans retained full possession of the country about a century. Other opinions began then to creep in, and the great care of the government to support their own church, having begotten an equal degree of indolence in its clergy, two-thirds of the people had become dissenters at the commencement of the present revolution. The laws indeed were still oppressive on them, but the spirit of the one party had subsided into moderation, and of the other had risen to a degree of determination which commanded respect.
Oresta is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:35 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.