Alonzo Fyfe

I would like to interject a few points of logic into this discussion.


(1) Evidence that X is/was a Christian does not imply that X is/was against the separation of church and state.

Even today, there are many theists who hold that the bible is the source of all truth and God the source of all morality, who hold that atheists are the scum of the earth, who still hold that these are matters strictly left to private conscience and rigerously defend separation of church and state.

They do so because they fear that for the government to get involved in these issues would set a dangerous precident, starting us down a slippery slope that will inevitably lead to religious factions taking arms against each other as we still see happening in North Ireland, the Balkans, the Middle East, India/Pakistan, and in countless other places around the world.

Thus, none (zero, zip, nill, nada) of the founding father quotes that profess merely a personal belief in God or of Christian virtue are relevant to church/state separation for this reason.


(2a) Evidence that a founding father believed in X and rejected Y does not imply that X is good and Y is bad.

How far would this implication take us if it were valid? Most of the founding fathers endorsed, and others were willing to tolerate, slavery. They strongly supported the idea that women were politically inferior to men. Indian land was theirs for the taking.

It would not at all be difficult to find quotes on these matters that we find objectionable. But we would also find it objectionable if anybody ever tried to argue something like, "The founding fathers accepted slavery, therefore slavery should not have been outlawed."


(2b) "Don't do as I do, do as I say."

Though not exactly a principle of logic, humans also quite commonly act against their better principles. Our founding fathers, for example, wrote that "all men are created equal" and then enslaved blacks. And when they said "men", they meant "men", even though the philosophical arguments for equality applied as strongly to women as to men.

When we notice a contradiction between their principles and their actions, we have a choice. We can repeat the actions and abandon the principles, or we can hold truer to those principles and abandon those inconsistent actions.

With respect to the rights of blacks and women, we travelled the latter road -- holding truer to the principles than our founding fathers did, and abandoning their inconsistent actions.

However, anti-separation quote-warriors want us to take the first road when it comes to separation of church and state, arguing that we should endorse and embrace the inconsistent actions and abandon the principle.

We must be ready and willing to ask these anti-separation quote-mongers, even where they may be successful in finding quotes inconsistent with this principle, we should this time abandon the principle, where as in other cases we abandoned the inconsistent behavior.


(3) From a contradiction, any conclusion can be "proved."

"Proved" is in quotes because it applies to logical validity, not logical soundness (a sound argument contains no contradication). But it is a fundamental law of logical validity.

The founding fathers almost certainly changed their views on some issues over time -- sometimes without even knowing it. We all do the same thing. If somebody had recorded the words that I spoke several years ago, they would find me defending things I no longer believe. And I do not expect that I will have entirely the same beliefs a decade or two from now that I do today. At least, I hope not. I hope that I am able to learn at least one thing between now and then, and to toss out at least one error.

Furthermore, they were politicians -- and they were successful politicians -- matching their words to the circumstances and to the audience in such a way to preserve their political power and social standing. This is not to say that they were Machiavellian about the whole process, only that they were not idiots themselves when it came to promoting their ends and principles.

And, so, it would not at all be surprising to find quotes that were not entirely consistent with each other. From this inconsistent set of quotes, it will always be possible to "prove" whatever conclusion one wants to "prove".


Final Note

Nothing above implies that the discussion of quotes is irrelevant or unimportant. It certainly is important to expose the lies being used to defend policies and philosophies of hatred and discrimination.

I simply think that the rhetoric -- the logical fallacies and mistaken implications -- are an equal part of that deception that should also be exposed.

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

fromtheright

Buffman,

You seem to be unaware that the above quote (Patrick Henry) is cobbled together of lines from three of the five original paragraphs, and that two complete sentences shown in the quote above are missing 12 words in one, and 9 in another, to be accurate and complete. I can arrive at no other conclusion than it was knowingly done to deceive the reader. Obviously it has deceived quite a few folks.

No, I wasn't aware of the cobbling of sentences. I will go back and read the speech. Obviously, the author of the article who did that succeeded with me as he apparently intended with his general audience in having me accept it. I'm embarrassed for not going back and reading the speech in its entirety (I have before but didn't catch this). Thank you.

Edited: I've gone back and read both the quote and the speech. I don't believe the quote was out of context though it is certainly inaccurate. The editor also left out, by the way, "The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty..." (emphasis and smilie added )


Then to argue that the context of Henry's words has been erased from textbooks is a galling display of hypocrisy for anyone claiming to be a moral/ethical Christian. It is a common ploy used by all propagandists. Using extracts out of context to make a person's words/thoughts other than what they really were or what they might accurately mean.

You're right, of course, and again I am embarrassed and apologize for falling for it myself.


Then why are others so extremist in their efforts to clasp our Founding/Framing Fathers to their Christian bosom? For what reason? To what end?

You'll have to ask "others". I believe Christian conservatives are afraid that those on your side of this question are anxious not simply to keep church and state separate but also to divorce religion from government completely to the point of not allowing any Christian influence in politics. Most of the movement on these issues is pushing Christians back, so that Christians are in a defensive position seeking to hold onto their place in culture and polity. Much of the wailing on your side of the questions seems to be over Christians being involved in any way in politics as though they have no place in it, that one's religious views and even one's morality should have no bearing on issues in the public square. I do also believe, however, that many on your side are anxious to sever any ties of the Founders to Christianity. Both sides in the issue of Church-State Separation are arguing deep Constitutional questions and seek to legitimate their viewpoints by appeals to history. I agree with you that this should be done as honestly and accurately as possible. I also believe it should be done without animus--from either side.


Oh, I fully understand. My point was do you understand what that URL was all about? Citing it to support facts about George Washington is much like asking Bill Clinton to write an article citing the facts about the Monica Lewinsky Affair. Were the statements about Washington accurate? Were original source document cites provided? I most certainly do believe that they are part and parcel of an objective analysis of that sites contentions and purposes. More propaganda. "Wild-eyed" is hardly an objective description of Roger Williams. Do you disagree? Why would anyone accept their comments about GW unless they did so on blind faith? Did You? I certainly hope not. Yet you used their URL as a reference. What am I to conclude?

Point well taken. I agree with you about Roger Williams and such descriptions certainly don't lead to any honest conclusions in the debate. I do disagree with the Clinton/Lewinsky analogy, though; it breaks down on lots of levels. I am disappointed, as you, though, that cites were not given, but they weren't given in the atheist articles as I recall either.


Should I attempt to get into a discussion on this, it would be better in a different forum. Perhaps you might wish to find out exactly what a Deist is versus a Christian.

Buffman, my point wasn't differences between the two, it was simply that Protestants, or at least many of them, also hold to that belief "that faith is primarily a matter between the individual and his Maker", regardless of what Deists may believe.


And when did the atheists sites begin doing that? (Which came first? The chicken or the egg?) Who initiated the quote game? The Atheists or the fundamentalist Christians? Why would either group toss quotes at each other? To what end/goal? Why did David Barton manufacture quotes? To what end/goal? You don't seem to have any problem pointing to potential errors/misinterpretations in my statements, nor do I with yours. How many atheists published books back then? How many atheists were there back then? There were plenty of Reverends publishing biographies of the founders/framers. Would they disparage their religious faith beliefs? Did they often claim that Jefferson was an atheist? Why would they do that to someone of his patriotic background? For what reason? Agenda?---Well, when I started reading and seeing historical errors appearing on almost every single radical right, fundamentalist Christian web site, and heard them insisting that creationism should be taught in the public school science classrooms, and that the Ten Commandments should be posted in the public schools , and that the Judeo-Christian Bible was inerrant...I started paying very close attention to these self-proclaimed "Family Values" crusaders. What I began to see was very anti-Constitutional, intolerant and disturbing. It has gotten far more alarming since Bush was appointed President and he brought his right wing radical religionists with him.

I really don't know or care who started the quote war. Yes, Jefferson had political enemies who tried to label him an atheist. I believe there are agendas on both sides of the debate. In my view, what each side should strive for is to be as honest, accurate, and civil in the discussion as possible in an effort to reach the truth or to convince the other side, though I don't think either side will be convinced. Actually, I guess the target audience for both sides is the general public.


Try asking [David Barton] where he got his academic credentials.

It sounds like an excellent question. I think I will.
I haven't gotten the URL list yet (did you e-mail it?) but look forward to it.


Thanks for hanging in there with me.

As I said before, and I mean it, I appreciate your integrity in this debate.


I do believe that I understand your Christian Cinservative positions even though at times it may not seem so.

I think you understand the positions quite well though it does seem you subscribe to the secular demonization of this side of the issue, and there is certainly more than enough of that from those on my side as well. Granted that in the case of some, such as Barton, you're given plenty of excuse for doing so.


I just wish that you and others could find a more honest and qualified messenger than David Barton.

Roger that. But I'm sure you know that there are others out there, who are more honest and qualified.

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>

fromtheright

Alonzo,

(1) Evidence that X is/was a Christian does not imply that X is/was against the separation of church and state.

Agreed, but it is also true that just because X is/was a Deist does not imply that X is/was for what Christian conservatives consider too strict a version of separation.


Most of the founding fathers endorsed, and others were willing to tolerate, slavery.

Practiced it yes, but I don't believe that most, if any, endorsed it. In fact, many of those who practiced it made statements against it. Inconsistent? Yes.


However, anti-separation quote-warriors want us to take the first road when it comes to separation of church and state, arguing that we should endorse and embrace the inconsistent actions and abandon the principle.

No, I think that most of those on my side (OK, for now I'll lump us all in with the quote warriors) would argue that the actions and debates/writings of those stating the principle is one of the chief ways to flesh out the principle itself rather than relying on what seems to be modern secularism seeking to purge religion from the public square.


Furthermore, they were politicians -- and they were successful politicians -- matching their words to the circumstances and to the audience in such a way to preserve their political power and social standing. This is not to say that they were Machiavellian about the whole process, only that they were not idiots themselves when it came to promoting their ends and principles.

You're right, and it is indeed a point that is all too often forgotten by those on my side. I think many of my friends would be surprised to learn that James Madison served liquor at his H of R campaign speeches, when he was advised this would help him get votes.

ybnormal

Try asking [David Barton] him where he got his academic credentials.

The only relevant 'education' paragraph... lots of words and lots of awards for a guy with only a BA from Oral Roberts... is anyone surprised?

http://www.wallbuilders.com/aboutus/bio/index.htm

ybnormal

No, I think that most of those on my side (OK, for now I'll lump us all in with the quote warriors) would argue that the actions and debates/writings of those stating the principle is one of the chief ways to flesh out the principle itself...

Actually, it's all smoke and mirrors from "your side" in a attempt to pump more Christianity out of the Constitution than the generic word "Creator" that ya'll are stuck with. All of this quotes debate is totally meaningless for any purpose other than Biblical America's PR machine.

It matters NOT if it were discovered that half the Founding Fathers were the legitimate Sons of ?God Himself. The ONLY thing that matters here is the agreed upon, exact wording of The Constitution of the United States that those Sons of ?God Himself recorded. And we DO have the original document to go by... until another David Barton comes along and convinces half the population that it is a fake.


...rather than relying on what seems to be modern secularism seeking to purge religion from the public square.

I'm surprised that I can even admit that I can see where some folks could see it that way... will wonders ever cease? In return, are you unable to see that by their own words, many very powerful Christians are working 24/7/365 to install their personal beliefs in virtually every facet of the US government and the lives of every American citizen, if not every human on earth?

Peace!

Buffman

(I just knew I would fall behind. Curses! Lots of wonderful thoughts flowing back and forth while I struggle to find some easily accessible accurate supporting data for your questions. I'm huffing and puffing a little, but I'll try to catch up.)

fromtheright

(G. Washington "Daily Sacrifices" phoney prayer journal)

In the current Church-State Separation Propaganda War, the following information can be found at almost any fundamentalist Internet URL that claims George Washington was a Christian. They quote William J. Johnson's book "George Washington, The Christian," published in 1919. almost as though it were Gospel.

http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/george.html

However, they never publish the following information and continue to promote these forgeries as 'Truth." WHY?

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henrique...15/steiner.htm

(Extract)
Washington must have been "powerful in prayer" if we are to believe two other stories told of his attempts to reach the "throne of grace." Some 30 years ago it was proclaimed that in his youth he composed a prayer book for his own use, containing a prayer for five days, beginning with Sunday and ending with Thursday. The manuscript of this prayer book was said to have been found among the contents of an old trunk. It was printed and facsimiles published. Clergymen read it from the altar, one of them saying it contained so much "spirituality" that he had to stop, as he could not control his emotions while reading it.

Yet, while this prayer book was vociferously proclaimed to have been written by Washington, there was not an iota of evidence that he ever had anything to do with it, or that it even ever belonged to him. A little investigation soon pricked the bubble. Worthington C. Ford, who had handled more of Washington's manuscripts than any other man except Washington himself, declared that the penmanship was not that of Washington. Rupert Hughes (Washington, vol. 1, p. 658) gives facsimile specimens of the handwriting in the prayer book side by side with known specimens of Washington's penmanship at the time the prayer book was supposed to have been written. A glance proves that they are not by the same hand.

Then in the prayer book manuscript all of the words are spelled correctly, while Washington was a notoriously poor speller. But the greatest blow it received was when the Smithsonian Institute refused to accept it as a genuine Washington relic. That Washington did not compose it was proved by Dr. W.A. Croffutt, a newspaper correspondent of the Capital, who traced the source of some of the prayers to an old prayer brook in the Congressional Library printed, in the reign of James the First.
Even the Rev. W. Herbert Burk, rector of the Episcopal Church of Valley Forge, although a firm believer in Washington's religiosity, thus speaks of these prayers: "At present, the question is an open one, and its settlement will depend on the discovery of the originals, or upon the demonstration that they are the work of Washington."

While the "Washington Prayer Book" was thoroughly discredited, there is another prayer yarn told of him that will not die so easily.
(End extract

joedad

Let me do a little quote mining myself and use Emerson, "Every violation of truth is a stab at the health of human society."

Fromtheright, personally, I still do not see what being "Christian" has to do with the discussion. Saying that these men were White carries just as much or as little weight. Do you disagree? Would you be as willing to make political gain out of racial inheritance as you seem tempted to make out of religious inheritance? Is the basis of your position that there is something fundamentally inferior about anything that does not bear the christian label, or conversely for others, the secular label? Is that it in a nutshell, and is that what drives the present debate, or is it just another power struggle? Can you tell me what the long range and short range goals are for the Christian Rightists? What's the motivation? Personal power? Is that it and is that all? That would be depressing indeed. Is there a Christian political mission statement somewhere that I have not read, that somehow goes beyond the Constitution, or am I just naive as hell?

Like you, I've learned quite a bit from Buffman, most notably when it comes to the Bush Sr. quote about 'atheists should not be citizens.' Were it not for the Buffer, I would still be spouting this questionable anecdotal blather.

Sincerely, I would like your response to this question, "Why is the christian label important to you?

Your response will determine whether or not I respond to a poster on another board who told me: See his position? It's akin to a prejudice, as if the label itself is at all meaningful. I mean, these "christian" Founders owned slaves. Shouldn't the juxtaposition of their christianity and their slave ownership in the context of discussing "freedom" raise some red flags? What is the motivation? Is it triumphalism? Bigotry? Prejudice? Ignorance? Fear? Power? Hate? Loyalty? Patriotism? Zeal? Religion? Where do the blinders come from?

Help me out here. I'm on the outside looking in. You say, "I agree with you that this should be done as honestly and accurately as possible. I also believe it should be done without animus--from either side." Please explain this - what appears to me to be blinding - motivation for labeling something "christian."

joe

Buffman

fromtheright

No, I wasn't aware of the cobbling of sentences. I will go back and read the speech. Obviously, the author of the article who did that succeeded with me as he apparently intended with his general audience in having me accept it. I'm embarrassed for not going back and reading the speech in its entirety (I have before but didn't catch this). Thank you.
Edited: I've gone back and read both the quote and the speech. I don't believe the quote was out of context though it is certainly inaccurate.The editor also left out, by the way, "The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty..."

Is your "not out of context" opinion based on the actual words/meanings that appear before and after those extracted lines and omissions in the primary text? Or simply because they all support a devout Christian conditioned viewpoint...like "holy?" I believe that the primary portion of my concern was based on the quote being in error and the hypocrisy of the text book complaint.

You're right, of course, and again I am embarrassed and apologize for falling for it myself.

You are in very good company. You should see all the propaganda (errors/omissions/slanted facts) that were just placed into the public record by our stellar members of Congress when they affixed their names to the recent "under God" Resolution. (Though I have no current proof, the 16 historical items in that Resolution look like more of Barton's work. BARF!)

Buffman: Then why are others so extremist in their efforts to clasp our Founding/Framing Fathers to their Christian bosom? For what reason? To what end?

You'll have to ask "others". I believe Christian conservatives are afraid that those on your side of this question are anxious not simply to keep church and state separate but also to divorce religion from government completely to the point of not allowing any Christian influence in politics.

Please consider that thought in a little greater depth. It is more propaganda. How, exactly, would the non-believers accomplish this when the majority of eligible voters in this country are Christians? Are they inferring that the Christians that they have been sending to Congress and the Presidency since the formation of local, state and federal governments are all "closet" secularists? However, I agree with you. The lay Christian has been deceived into believing exactly what you claim...by people like David Barton and the electronic ministries.

Most of the movement on these issues is pushing Christians back, so that Christians are in a defensive position seeking to hold onto their place in culture and polity.

Is it possible that the Protestant power structure that has "ruled" this country from day one is becoming alarmed by the increasing plurality of the citizenry? Is it possible that they feel as though their their financial, political, and religious empires are being threatened? If so, they can't blame the problem on other fellow Christians and expect to get the kind of public support they need to hold on to their power. They will need to join forces with their old historical enemy...the Catholics...in order that together they can hold back the "evil" forces of Humanism, Secularism, Freethinking, Rationalism, Atheism and all those other misguided religionists who practice beliefs in alien supernatural spirits/Gods.

Much of the wailing on your side of the questions seems to be over Christians being involved in any way in politics as though they have no place in it, that one's religious views and even one's morality should have no bearing on issues in the public square.

Sorry! That is not my view. I can not speak for others.

I do also believe, however, that many on your side are anxious to sever any ties of the Founders to Christianity.

I'm an American. Is that the side to which you allude?--- I believe that I have already discussed the "chicken-egg" automatic responses to fabrications syndrome.

Both sides in the issue of Church-State Separation are arguing deep Constitutional questions and seek to legitimate their viewpoints by appeals to history. I agree with you that this should be done as honestly and accurately as possible. I also believe it should be done without animus--from either side.

Obviously I wholeheartedly agree. (I think that Alnzo Fyfe's post on this issue is superb.)

Buffman: What am I to conclude?

Point well taken. I agree with you about Roger Williams and such descriptions certainly don't lead to any honest conclusions in the debate. I do disagree with the Clinton/Lewinsky analogy, though; it breaks down on lots of levels.

Sheesh! I was getting tired. Since you observed that it breaks down on many levels, at least it was a success in having you consider those levels.

I am disappointed, as you, though, that cites were not given, but they weren't given in the atheist articles as I recall either.

Two wrongs do not make a right...except in propaganda. I suspect that I have not endeared myself to some of the folks who post to these forums with my attempts to provide them with more accurate information than they may have initially presented. However. I can find no excuse for those claiming to be more rational, because of their liberation from religious mental enslavement, not to do all the necessary homework to best support their liberated positions on the issues. I am intentionally harder on them than those who are still prisoners in their own minds. Education and experience are vital ingredients. However, accurate knowledge is essential for human survival as well as positive and productive progress for all of humanity. (That's one of my beliefs.)

Buffman, my point wasn't differences between the two, it was simply that Protestants, or at least many of them, also hold to that belief "that faith is primarily a matter between the individual and his Maker", regardless of what Deists may believe.

Ah, yes! However, Christians deify the Holy Bible. Deists don't require a sacred text to believe in a Divine Providence that was the Master Architect of all that there is. You might almost, and I said almost with tongue in cheek, be able to compare Deists with today's Intelligent Design advocates...if they weren't all Christians...and two-faced Creationists.

I really don't know or care who started the quote war.

I do!

Yes, Jefferson had political enemies who tried to label him an atheist. I believe there are agendas on both sides of the debate.

My only agenda is to get religionists off my back and allow me exactly the same constitutional rights that they enjoy regardless of my specific expression of individual religious, or non-religious, conscience...while according me the same respect that they accord to their fellow believers in the supernatural.

In my view, what each side should strive for is to be as honest, accurate, and civil in the discussion as possible in an effort to reach the truth or to convince the other side, though I don't think either side will be convinced. Actually, I guess the target audience for both sides is the general public.

I agree, but watch out for that word "truth." And yes, the target is the general public in a democratic, pluralistic, federal republic. Since democracy and pluralism are difficult to unseat from the human mind, then the federal republic is the point of attack. Weaken, circumvent, ignore or change that Constitution to favor only one set of religious beliefs and you arrive at a Christian Taliban America. (Remember, they are all Muslims in Afghanistan. So what happened? Why do they war against each other? Why did Iraq war against Iran? Kuwait. They are all Muslims. Why did the American Protestants war with the English Protestants? Why did the English Christians war with the French Christians? Someone isn't telling the "truth.")

It sounds like an excellent question. I think I will.

(We need to thank 'ybnormal' for the timely input.)

I haven't gotten the URL list yet (did you e-mail it?) but look forward to it.

I just retransmitted. It didn't bounce the first time...nor this time. It's going somewhere!

As I said before, and I mean it, I appreciate your integrity in this debate.

Again, thank you. I make my fair number of mistakes just like everyone else. When that occurs, I do try to acknowledge them and learn from them.

I think you understand the positions quite well though it does seem you subscribe to the secular demonization of this side of the issue, and there is certainly more than enough of that from those on my side as well. Granted that in the case of some, such as Barton, you're given plenty of excuse for doing so.

Perhaps this will help explain my position/attitude. Christian One is not Christian Two. I don't believe in demons. I do believe on calling a liar a liar when I can determine that it is obviously a premeditated lie and simply not a statement made from being ill-informed or an addiction to an external influence.

Roger that. But I'm sure you know that there are others out there, who are more honest and qualified.

Oh my yes! I just wish that they would be more vocal and activist than they have been up to this dangerous period in our history.

(Something went crazy when I posted. Beats me what it was. Trying again.)

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Alonzo Fyfe

No, all that can be fleshed out is what they may have thought of the principle, not what the principle should be in fact.

The founding fathers did not intend for the principle "all men are created equal" to apply to blacks, and certainly did not intend it to apply to women.

Consequently, if we were to look instead at quotes and actions of the founding fathers to "flesh out" this principle, we an obnoxious principle that says that only white males are "men" and all others are "not men" and, thus, not equal.

But we do not use this method of quotes and actions of the founding fathers to flesh out these principles. We use the principle of consistency.

We note that the very same arguments that are applicable in showing that all white males are created equal, are just as valid when we talk about black males and to women. So, we extend the principle to them as well -- even though the founding fathers were too blind to see this.

We do not hold the words and actions of the founding fathers over principle, but hold principle above the words and actions of the founding fathers.

The same procedure that we use to "flesh out" the concept of political equality yields quite similar results when we use it to "flseh out" the concept of religious equality, or church/state separation, or whatever you may want to call it.

That method says that every argument you can come up with saying that the government should not support one Christian sect over another (e.g., catholics over protestants; puritans over quakers) is just as applicable to questions of government support of Christianity over non-Christian religions, monotheism over non-monotheistic religions, and religion generally over atheism.

And any quotes found and attributable to the founding fathers are just as irrelevant in defeating church/state separation and religious equality, as quotes about the political inferiority of blacks and women are in weaking the principle of political equality.

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

Buffman

ybnormal

Thank you for the David Barton academic info. In the past, it was difficult to obtain...obviously for good reason.