Stephen Maturin

LOL. I couldn't agree more!

ybnormal

I do wish skeptics here would argue that a secular society is really better, and why it is, rather than arguing the founders ever intended such. The evidence is to the contrary

You've said this twice now. It's very telling that you want silence, while you continue to make your case.

Yes, you've made up your mind, so everyone else should just drop it, accept it and move on. Nice try!

This thread is not about whether a secular society is really better

There's little difference in what you are doing, and in what FTR is doing, wanting to put behind us, Barton's earlier book full of outright lies, and move on to Original Intent, where Barton cleaned up his act.

And it's also very telling, IMO, when FTR calls Barton's outright lies, "misquotations." One or two minor errors could be a "misquote." For Barton to be forced to write a whole new book to cover his ass says it all. The man is a liar, but it's OK with most xians, because he is own their side and he's doing ?God's work.


Hopefully some readers will discount Barton's agenda, without discounting the preponderance of evidence, which well exposes your agenda.

You are clearly calling Buffman a liar. He has repeatedly explained his position, which IMO was totally unnecessary for him to do, as it is clear to almost everyone that he works with research and facts and doesn't have to be asked for sources.

This is just another instance where xians want it both ways... they want to allow folks like Barton to be free to lie for ?God, but then shout down anyone who exposes his lies.

You're kinda reminding me of the xian need to distance himself from the embarrassment of someone like Falwell's words, all the while, repeating and fostering Falwell's exact disinformation. Here, you are distancing yourself from Barton, after he's been caught, all the while, repeating and fostering Barton's disinformation campaign.

And please, what preponderance of evidence?

The ONLY "evidence" available to you, Barton and Buffman, is the Constitution itself, and it's early amendments. There is NO other "evidence". This distraction is exactly what Barton and his ilk intended and expected. He has already pulled this thing off.

You and Barton gain nothing by quoting any single member of the Federal Convention. Any one of those men would have written a totally different document. Such a document would reflect the experience, the views and the beliefs of only one man, under whose words we would still be governed.

Which is why it was a geographically representative collective of men who, accepted it, signed it and swore to live by. It matters not who contributed more words to the document than another. Every bill that passes Congress is "written" by one or two legislators, but only when the majority signs on, does it pass and become accepted law.

Your belief that, ... the founders desired that the nation operate on nascent Christian principles has nothing to do with this argument.

Your quotes from any individual FF only proves that that particular FF had obviously set aside his personal beliefs, which were obviously of lesser importance than something like, the number of congressional representatives each State would have. The Convention did in fact write that down. They did not write down their personal beliefs for us to follow.

In other words, if the collective body of men who wrote the Constitution had actually "desired" that America be a "Christian Nation", that body had every opportunity to write it down, sign it and live by it.

They did not!

You can not change that fact. Folks like you and Barton can certainly change the minds of millions of trusting school children, but you can never change the facts.

Like I've said here before, even if every Founding Father was a literal Son of God, as an organized body, they wrote only what they wrote. The document is what it is. The Constitution is what it is.

Just two years later, in 1789, the Nation had every opportunity to write down "Christian Nation" again with the Bill of Rights.

They did not!

Whatever evidence you and Barton come up with now, or in the future, matters not...

About the only arrow you folks have in your quiver is the word "Creator", which is why you have to make stuff up when rewriting our history. It matters not what the word "Creator" meant in 1787, anymore than it matters what the word "religion" meant in 1787. Both meanings have changed.

A "Creator" today, to many people, is an Asteroid with a virus impregnating Earth. If that isn't fair, then we would have to also debate whether today, the term "religion" should mean only what it meant in 1787. I doubt that our Founding Fathers "desired" religion to include Korean preachers buying political news-publishing companies in our nation's Capital, or that the FF "desired" religions to be organizing Federal political campaigns.

Point being, all of this and that are merely distractions and diversions, meant to keep folks talking about it, while convincing even more xian lambs that a fine xian like Barton would not lie, and all the while, Barton goes about rewriting textbooks all over this country.

Barton has moved on... he remains unscathed... the truth does not matter to most of the country, because most of the country is xian. They suck this crap up like an orgasmic sponge. Barton has moved on, into the realm of legitimate and respected historian.

Which is why one must wonder, why it's so important to both Radorth and FTR, that Buffman should move on as well.

Buffman

Radorth

And since they later employed chaplains from other faiths, did doubts increase with time?

Specifically....on what date did Congress (the House/Senate) "employ" chaplains from religious faiths other than Protestant Christianity? For that matter, when did either "employ" a chaplain of the Roman Catholic Christian faith? (I know when other Sects were invited to speak before Congress. I am asking you about employment. Clerics who receive taxpayer monies by official acts of government.)

This is a straw man. If anything, Protestant beliefs are accepted less and less as the only way to God.

And why might that be the case? But is that true for Christian beliefs in this country? What has happened here is that the Catholics have been able to build a big enough following in the last 150 years to challenge the Protestant leadership. (That's why your Congressional Chaplins statement is worthy of accurate research. It is also interesting that it would be this recent Congress that broke with the traditions of the previous Congresses. Why?)

You can question it all you want,...

I attempt to expose liars...propagandists, misinformation, disinformation, bias, prejudice, bigotry, intolerance, ...and blind faith ignorance whether religious or secular. What do you attempt to do?

...and complain we use Barton's "tactics" of removing quotes from context which as it turns out, changes their meaning very little.

That, sir, is either an intentional lie on your part, or an indication of how seriously deficient you are concerning accurate American history and psychological manipulation techniques.

[In any case, tell us, what is the context of these statements by Jefferson which changes their meaning at all?
In a letter to Adams, 1813
"In extracting the pure principles which Jesus taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they are muffled... there will be found the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man." (Writings, Vol XIII) ...and
"the Christian religion, when divested of the rags with which the clergy has enveloped it and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion above all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

<a href="http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl222.htm" target="_blank">http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl222.htm</a>

(Extracts)
"In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to them."

" We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the Amphibologisms into which they have been led by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging, the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill."
(End extracts)

<a href="http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl138.htm" target="_blank">http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl138.htm</a>

(Extract)
"But I am in hopes their good sense will dictate to them, that since the mountain will not come to them, they had better go to the mountain: that they will find their interest in acquiescing in the liberty and science of their country, and that the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

I sincerely wish with you, we could see our government so secured as to depend less on the character of the person in whose hands it is trusted. Bad men will sometimes get in, and with such an immense patronage, may make great progress in corrupting the public mind and principles. This is a subject with which wisdom and patriotism should be occupied.
(End extract)

By first identifying the original sources of your cobbled together quotes (one an Oct. 12, 1813 letter to John Adams and the other a Mar. 23, 1801 letter to Moses Robinson), and then placing them back in their proper place in the entire context of the letter, it becomes patently obvious to the unbiased and objective reader that Jefferson had little use for organized Christianity which, for centuries, had mounted the propaganda campaign to make Jesus the divine son of his Deistic god. Jefferson, similar to the non-theists here, was concerned about the ethical/moral values which should guide humankind to higher levels of mutually beneficial treatment, achievement and harmony. He found the specific moral teachings of Jesus to be the finest to date...as long as they were stripped of the intervening Christian embellishments and interpretations. Embellishments like miracles and supernatural divinity. However, from my studies, I have found very little of original ethical/moral thought within the so-called words of Jesus. These values existed, were known and expressed by many others before Jesus. The Gospel writers (and their translators) merely rephrased and dressed them in a more modern and sellable fashion for the masses. Additionally, not all the supposed teachings of Jesus are without conflict. (But discussions concerning those allegations belong in a different forum.)

Now do some additional homework and learn something useful from the wisdom of these giants.

<a href="http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006656.jpg" target="_blank">http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006656.jpg</a>

<a href="http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006657.jpg" target="_blank">http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006657.jpg</a>

<a href="http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006658.jpg" target="_blank">http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006658.jpg</a>

<a href="http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006646.jpg" target="_blank">http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006646.jpg</a>

<a href="http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl218.htm" target="_blank">http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl218.htm</a>

<a href="http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1990/ch1_p3.htm" target="_blank">http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1990/ch1_p3.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/relandpo.htm" target="_blank">http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/relandpo.htm</a>

Which is precisely what I think, and which you deny;

I attempt to report accurate information. It is that information that exposes your faulty beliefs and lies. Not me. That's why people like you and Barton are so anxious to rewrite accurate history...and you are exposing the validity of that allegation with your every new post. Thank you.

...and all your questioning of the founder's real beliefs and motives are starting to look like so much intellectual tap dancing. You keep asking us if our minds are open, but I wonder if yours is. And since I started out believing the great founders were all simple deists who did not think much of Jesus, and changed my mind later, I wonder the more.

I am sorry that you grew up so ill-informed. However, are you now attempting to claim that the Enlightenment and Deism played no role on the minds and actions of our "great" founders....whomever you might think they may be. You appear to be making the same childhood mistake again based on poor knowledge. You are identifying the moral teachings of Jesus only with the organized institutional enterprise of Christianity. THE MORAL TEACHINGS STAND BY THEMSELVES. No religious, or non-religious, group can claim them as their sole possession. IMHO, only the most arrogant of religious believer would attempt to lay claim to that position.

I don't need them to be anything, and if Barton says they were Christians per se, I disagree. I merely assert they believed Jesus' teachings were unsurpassed in maintaining moral turpitude.

I agree...except with your use of the word "turpitude," and where it is placed as a modifier in your sentence. (Maintaining moral "baseness/depravity?" I doubt that's what you meant.)

Again, why don't you argue that a strictly secular society is really better, and why, rather than arguing that is what the founders intended. By now it is plain Jefferson would have been thrilled if every politician believed his version of the Gospels.

I must admire your persistence in attempting to sell that eternal life insurance policy. The only use Jefferson had for the Gospels was the moral teachings of Jesus. That's why he cut all the other Christian crap away from them.

I fear that you are unwilling or incapable of approaching these issues in an accurately informed and objective manner. Additionally I have little time or desire to keep exposing the same lies and propaganda over and over again. I wish you well in the mystical world you have chosen for yourself.

PS: I recommend that you read ybnormal's post very carefully and try to honestly digest the full significance of the content.

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Radorth

Amen.

It is also patently obvious that you were forced to take De Toqueville so far out of context as to render your own preaching null and void. If we limit the argument to the issue that matters, i.e, who the founders thought the greatest source of moral values, you guys have taken quite a beating.

Jefferson did cherry-pick the Bible, (a tactic you often complain about in our case) but that leaves at least 50 founders who did not, or did it much less so. If I can show I think more like the doubtful Jefferson than you ever will, my point stands all the better.

Yb's argument that if they thought so much of Christ, they would have written his name in the Constitution is an old and simplistic argument. They clearly did not want any infringement on freedom of conscience, but it seems quite clear they thought Christ would stand the test anyway. In any case NONE of them hoped Christ's example would not be around today.

Rad

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Radorth

Re Buffman

"I fear that you are unwilling or incapable of approaching these issues in an accurately informed and objective manner. Additionally I have little time or desire to keep exposing the same lies and propaganda over and over again."

(Rad) Read "the world is full of morons who can't think for themselves, but (SIGH) I did my best to expose those who have the temerity to disagree with such a learned person as myself."

Criminy. Why set yourself up? Just answer or don't answer. Lot's of people have threatened to stop answering me, but their continued participation means that either I have a point or they think this site is frequented by agnostic idiots.

Re Yb

"In other words, if the collective body of men who wrote the Constitution had actually "desired" that America be a "Christian Nation", that body had every opportunity to write it down, sign it and live by it.

They did not!"


(Rad) Are you seriously asserting they didn't live by it? Even Adams called the Sermon on the Mount his religion. So we know what everybody else lived by, don't we? This is the thoughtless statement of a strict separation reactionary.

" You can not change that fact. Folks like you and Barton can certainly change the minds of millions of trusting school children, but you can never change the facts."


(Rad) I see no need to mention Jesus to school children, other than telling then the vast majority of the founders thought his teachings unsurpassed, and personally lived by them. But while I would be willing to allow a very short and specific (2 minute) teaching of that truth, you would deny it. The little morons might get the wrong idea, right? Be honest.

" Like I've said here before, even if every Founding Father was a literal Son of God, as an organized body, they wrote only what they wrote. The document is what it is. The Constitution is what it is."


(Rad) How ironic that no document insures the nascent Gospel can be freely spread like that one.

Guess we're all perfectly happy with it.

Rad

This is not the least cumbersome reply software available is it? Even a dumb ME like me would make it easy to highlight and enclose in quotes discreet paragraphs and then type answers. That's how Clemson's software works. Or am I using it wrong?

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

gravitybow

I was following this thread pretty good until now. I thought I missed something, so I reread the previous posts...

...Sorry, not patently obvious. The only thing obvious is that Buffman used one translation and fromtheright used another, and that is the cause for the difference, not deception. On the other hand...

I'm failing to see how cobbled and fabricated quotes proves your case. If you consider "being truthful" a moral value, then you are doing considerable damage to your cause with the "quotes" you've presented so far, or at the very least, using them uncritically. Are you intellectually handicapped in some fashion that prevents you from discovering this for yourself, or are you content to let Buffman show you how these quotes have been manufactured? How about using some real (read that "truthful") quotes?

If you believe you are delivering a beating with one hand tied behind your back, I suggest you free it rather quickly.

So is Jefferson damaged goods, now? You won't be quoting from him any more?

I fear the TRUTH from those who are so cavalier with it.

(edited for spelling)

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: gravitybow ]</p>

Radorth

Yak yak yak. I didn't manufacture anything and did nothing else Buffman didn't do. But now we are asked to believe a single "mistranslated" quote from De Toqueville, with elipses surrounding it, somehow wipes out 50 other assertions. Oh wait! I forgot. He was a Catholic, so he must have had all kinds of ulterior motives as well, discernable only to the enlightened.

And the founders were actually just being insincere. Buffman says so, though there is not one scrap of evidence to prove they believed one thing and said another just to get votes. Everybody knew what they thought and voted for them anyway in spite of front page newspaper assertions by radical fundies that they were dirtbags.

Gosh I guess all those Christian voters were pretty fair-minded and smart, eh?

Rad

gravitybow

Hmmmm. Obviously having difficulty quoting me as well.

I never claimed you were the source of the quotes. What Buffman has done, which you have not, is provided the context for quotes.

And you know it is "mistranslated" because...? Any assertion that is advanced without evidence should rightfully be wiped out.

How do putting altered words in their mouths demonstrate sincerity? How about putting forth accurate material, with citations, that demonstrates whatever you're calling "sincere"? Did you read any of the links Buffman provided? Where are you getting this stuff?

Buffman

gravitybow

What saddens me the most about some of these recent posts is the lack of any comment about them by other, less rabid and seemingly more honest and knowledgeable, theists. The silence is deafening and rather indicative of the moral crisis faced by so many Christians in today's America. "Do they allow a handful of their religious brethren to 'bear false witness' on their behalf simply because those propagandists claim to be doing it for Jesus?" And many of these same folks are the ones clamoring for the Ten Commandments to be posted in the public schools in order to provide moral guidance to the students. What hypocrisy!

It would seem that too many so-called sincere Christians are willing to sacrifice the moral high ground to the non-believers like us. That's fine with me. I say this because I am just as quick, if not quicker, to provide accurate information to a non-believer as I am to a believer.

What a shame that more of our Christian members fail to follow a similar a course of action after claiming to only be seekers of the truth. If they are unable to see the truth about the printed word, how likely are they to see the truth about the intent of the printed words in the Constitution?

theyeti

Why would anyone in his right mind think that this is the issue that matters? Shouldn't the founders' thoughts on church/state separation be slightly more relevant?

The number of irrelevant issues brought up in this debate just boggles the mind. IMO, here's what I see as relevant in the order from most to least:

• Is church/state separation more respectful of people's beliefs than government support for one or more religions? (In other words, does it promote the most freedom of expression?)
• Is church/state separation a good idea from a practical standpoint, given our knowledge of history?
• Do Constitutional principles support church/state separation?

Here's a few things that are just plain irrelevant, yet we hear them brought up all the time:

• The founding fathers were themselves religious (or not).
• The founding fathers thought morality (religious or otherwise) was important for the citizenry.
• Founding father X once said something nice about Christianity.
• The "original intent'' of the founding fathers, which we will decide for ourselves through selective quotation, trumps 200 years of judicial rulings.

The anti-separationists almost never deal with the first list. I don't think I've ever heard a coherent argument about why church/state separation is a bad thing, other than the fact that in inhibits their pushing the One True Religion on everyone whether they like it or not. What we get instead is smatterings of the second list, pretty much all of which are beside the point, even when (or if) true.

theyeti