PDA

View Full Version : Where Do Our Rights Come From?



road kill
03-16-2010, 05:56 PM
Do they come from God?

or

Do they come from the Government?





rk

Koolaid
03-16-2010, 06:04 PM
The one and only

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F1Lq1uFcAE

zeus3925
03-16-2010, 06:07 PM
"They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."- Declaration of Independence

YardleyLabs
03-16-2010, 06:11 PM
The one and only

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F1Lq1uFcAE
It's hard to improve on George Carlin's answer. Rights are given and taken away by governments. As citizens we hopefully seek to preserve the freedoms of "the people". However, even our forefathers never define what they meant by "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" beyond the specifics or the Bill of Rights, and that is subject to amendment at any time or, even to arbitrary and capricious abuse in times of perceived "crisis".

dnf777
03-16-2010, 07:08 PM
Do they come from God?

or

Do they come from the Government?





rk


When I'm in the middle of my property with my dog, I answer only to God, as he gives me my rights then. When I'm sitting in divorce court wanting to throttle the man-hating judge who just bent me over, I strictly adhere to the rights and limitations that the gov't, namely that particular bailiff standing next to me, grants unto me! All depends on circumstances. ;)

sandyg
03-16-2010, 08:58 PM
Rights come from God, privileges come from government.

Franco
03-16-2010, 09:08 PM
Where do our Rights come from?

Children get thier Rights from their parent(s).
As adults we get them from our spouse.;-)

But ultimatley, the come from the government whether one lives in the USA or China.

zeus3925
03-16-2010, 09:09 PM
The next questions--What are classified as rights? What are classified as privileges?

YardleyLabs
03-16-2010, 09:20 PM
As a matter of nature, there are no limits on our behavior except our own capability and whatever is thrown at us by the world around. The notion of rights and privileges only becomes relevant as we try to organize ways of living with others that are not simply based on might makes right. Effectively, therefore, it is incorrect to say that rights are given. The notion of rights only becomes relevant within the framework of rules for social interaction. Those rules may be defined through custom or through the laws of a government. In either case, the rules are not consistent across cultures and there cannot, therefore, be said to be any constant set of rights that transcend social mores.

dnf777
03-16-2010, 10:47 PM
If we could ask the 9-11 hijackers where they think they got their rights, what do you think they would say?

Just pointing out that when people feel their rights are derived from a just god, it can unleash some very un-godly behavior. If we are to live together in any hopes of civilized peace, then whatever "rights" we think we have, must be tempered by some societal convention...ie...government. Striking the correct balance is what I think the United States has come closer to accomplishing than any other country in history. Differences in population density will alter the balance point. Obviously, the closer your neighbor is, the less rights you will enjoy playing your music loudly without knocks at the door.

precisionlabradors
03-16-2010, 11:40 PM
they come from chris atkinson
________
Kids avandia (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/avandia/)

JDogger
03-17-2010, 01:29 AM
they come from chris atkinson

Good answer. Certainly the privilege to post here is granted by Chris and his mods.

To rk's question...I guess it depends on the particular god or government in question...it does seem to be made up as convenience dictates...ask 120,000 Japanese-Americans in 1942.

Stan, If you trully believe rights are god granted...which god?...and where do we find him?

JD

road kill
03-17-2010, 07:18 AM
Good answer. Certainly the privilege to post here is granted by Chris and his mods.

To rk's question...I guess it depends on the particular god or government in question...it does seem to be made up as convenience dictates...ask 120,000 Japanese-Americans in 1942.

Stan, If you trully believe rights are god granted...which god?...and where do we find him?

JD
I posed a question, I did not offer an answer.
I wanted to see the response, pretty kool really.

To me, you find God within.
I'll expand my definition if you really want to know.






rk

zeus3925
03-17-2010, 09:56 AM
Differences in population density will alter the balance point. Obviously, the closer your neighbor is, the less rights you will enjoy playing your music loudly without knocks at the door.

I heartily agree with this statement. The greatest threat to liberty is population density.

K.Bullock
03-17-2010, 02:43 PM
As a matter of nature, there are no limits on our behavior except our own capability and whatever is thrown at us by the world around. The notion of rights and privileges only becomes relevant as we try to organize ways of living with others that are not simply based on might makes right. Effectively, therefore, it is incorrect to say that rights are given. The notion of rights only becomes relevant within the framework of rules for social interaction. Those rules may be defined through custom or through the laws of a government. In either case, the rules are not consistent across cultures and there cannot, therefore, be said to be any constant set of rights that transcend social mores.
Which clearly illustrates the wisdom of our forefathers for looking to Our Creator for laws rather than across the table.

Franco
03-18-2010, 02:07 PM
Which clearly illustrates the wisdom of our forefathers for looking to Our Creator for laws rather than across the table.


The wisdom of our forefathers was to keep religion in check, remember they were Deist. That's why the word "god' will not be found in The Constitution. Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin, Paine etc believed in Nature's God and not the Christian one.

K.Bullock
03-18-2010, 03:40 PM
The wisdom of our forefathers was to keep religion in check, remember they were Deist. That's why the word "god' will not be found in The Constitution. Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin, Paine etc believed in Nature's God and not the Christian one.

Truthfully, historically ..that is ridiculous. Obviously the "Creator" our forefathers referred to is the Christian God, sorry that hurts modern ears but is is true and you can't dig them up out of their Christian graveyards and change their minds, you would have to do a ton of revisionist yoga to come to any other conclusion.

Freedom of religion, are you aware that as a nation we have that? Would you be comfortable saying that freedom of religion is not guaranteed? No, I didn't think so. So then it logically follows that your statement inferring that government is to "keep religion in check" makes absolutely no sense.

Religious freedom means the government cannot tell you what to do with your religion ...period. You can ask the pagans who now have a place to worship mother earth at the Air Force academy. It is not the other way around. You have been listening to atheist talking points for too long.

Any other position is just rhetoric and not historically accurate.

Franco
03-18-2010, 04:06 PM
Truthfully, historically ..that is ridiculous. Obviously the "Creator" our forefathers referred to is the Christian God, sorry that hurts modern ears but is is true and you can't dig them up out of their Christian graveyards and change their minds, you would have to do a ton of revisionist yoga to come to any other conclusion.

Freedom of religion, are you aware that as a nation we have that? Would you be comfortable saying that freedom of religion is not guaranteed? No, I didn't think so. So then it logically follows that your statement inferring that government is to "keep religion in check" makes absolutely no sense.

Religious freedom means the government cannot tell you what to do with your religion ...period. You can ask the pagans who now have a place to worship mother earth at the Air Force academy. It is not the other way around. You have been listening to atheist talking points for too long.

Any other position is just rhetoric and not historically accurate.

I suggest you read some American History. Especially about out founding fathers. It is an eye-opener for many! They were Deist and not Christians (Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Adams, Paine etc) They did not believe in Jesus' devinity. Sorry if the truth hurts.

YardleyLabs
03-18-2010, 04:23 PM
Truthfully, historically ..that is ridiculous. Obviously the "Creator" our forefathers referred to is the Christian God,....
I am not sure what you mean by a "Christian" God, but if you mean a God that incorporates a belief in the trinity you are absolutely wrong. Masons required belief in a higher being from their members. That may be belief in a supreme life force, belief in the Christian trinity, belief in the Allah of Islam, or any other belief in a higher being. That has long been true and many Masons never fit the Christian notion of a trinity. The same is true of our forefathers. The Library of Congress, based on its collection of correspondence, notes:

Campaigning for religious freedom in Virginia, Jefferson followed Locke, his idol, in demanding recognition of the religious rights of the "Mahamdan," the Jew and the "pagan." Supporting Jefferson was his old ally, Richard Henry Lee, who had made a motion in Congress on June 7, 1776, that the American colonies declare independence. "True freedom," Lee asserted, "embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion."

In his autobiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature "rejected by a great majority" an effort to limit the bill's scope "in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan." George Washington suggested a way for Muslims to "obtain proper relief" from a proposed Virginia bill, laying taxes to support Christian worship. On another occasion, the first president declared that he would welcome "Mohometans" to Mount Vernon if they were "good workmen" (see page 96). Officials in Massachusetts were equally insistent that their influential Constitution of 1780 afforded "the most ample liberty of conscience … to Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians," a point that Chief Justice Theophilus Parsons resoundingly affirmed in 1810.
[http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html]

There is no question that in using terms such as "Creator", our forefathers were being deliberately inclusive in an era when inclusiveness was highly valued.

road kill
03-18-2010, 05:04 PM
I am not sure what you mean by a "Christian" God, but if you mean a God that incorporates a belief in the trinity you are absolutely wrong. Masons required belief in a higher being from their members. That may be belief in a supreme life force, belief in the Christian trinity, belief in the Allah of Islam, or any other belief in a higher being. That has long been true and many Masons never fit the Christian notion of a trinity. The same is true of our forefathers. The Library of Congress, based on its collection of correspondence, notes:

Campaigning for religious freedom in Virginia, Jefferson followed Locke, his idol, in demanding recognition of the religious rights of the "Mahamdan," the Jew and the "pagan." Supporting Jefferson was his old ally, Richard Henry Lee, who had made a motion in Congress on June 7, 1776, that the American colonies declare independence. "True freedom," Lee asserted, "embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion."

In his autobiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature "rejected by a great majority" an effort to limit the bill's scope "in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan." George Washington suggested a way for Muslims to "obtain proper relief" from a proposed Virginia bill, laying taxes to support Christian worship. On another occasion, the first president declared that he would welcome "Mohometans" to Mount Vernon if they were "good workmen" (see page 96). Officials in Massachusetts were equally insistent that their influential Constitution of 1780 afforded "the most ample liberty of conscience … to Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians," a point that Chief Justice Theophilus Parsons resoundingly affirmed in 1810.
[http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html]

There is no question that in using terms such as "Creator", our forefathers were being deliberately inclusive in an era when inclusiveness was highly valued.

Masonry?

Were any of the founding Fathers Masons??







rk

YardleyLabs
03-18-2010, 05:08 PM
Masonry?

Were any of the founding Fathers Masons??

rk
One-third of the signers of the Constitution were Freemasons. 16% of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were. [http://www.bessel.org/foundmas.htm]

K.Bullock
03-18-2010, 05:22 PM
I suggest you read some American History. Especially about out founding fathers. It is an eye-opener for many! They were Deist and not Christians (Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Adams, Paine etc) They did not believe in Jesus' devinity. Sorry if the truth hurts.
Franco, if you can point me to a legitimate, academic,meaning factual source that can back up your claims. I would love to.

K.Bullock
03-18-2010, 05:35 PM
I am not sure what you mean by a "Christian" God, but if you mean a God that incorporates a belief in the trinity you are absolutely wrong. Masons required belief in a higher being from their members. That may be belief in a supreme life force, belief in the Christian trinity, belief in the Allah of Islam, or any other belief in a higher being. That has long been true and many Masons never fit the Christian notion of a trinity. The same is true of our forefathers. The Library of Congress, based on its collection of correspondence, notes:

Campaigning for religious freedom in Virginia, Jefferson followed Locke, his idol, in demanding recognition of the religious rights of the "Mahamdan," the Jew and the "pagan." Supporting Jefferson was his old ally, Richard Henry Lee, who had made a motion in Congress on June 7, 1776, that the American colonies declare independence. "True freedom," Lee asserted, "embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion."

In his autobiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature "rejected by a great majority" an effort to limit the bill's scope "in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan." George Washington suggested a way for Muslims to "obtain proper relief" from a proposed Virginia bill, laying taxes to support Christian worship. On another occasion, the first president declared that he would welcome "Mohometans" to Mount Vernon if they were "good workmen" (see page 96). Officials in Massachusetts were equally insistent that their influential Constitution of 1780 afforded "the most ample liberty of conscience … to Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians," a point that Chief Justice Theophilus Parsons resoundingly affirmed in 1810.
[http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html]

There is no question that in using terms such as "Creator", our forefathers were being deliberately inclusive in an era when inclusiveness was highly valued.

Jeff ...seriously? Why is Jefferson the only founding father atheists quote ...do i really need to dig out where he later recanted of his views that he held for a very short time.

Masons ...really Jeff? Masons? I am sure there was a flat earth society somewhere in the colonies as well, which would have about the same amount of relevance.

Franco
03-18-2010, 06:04 PM
Will the University of Virginia do?

http://guides.lib.virginia.edu/TJ

As you can read for yourself, Jefferson was a product of The Enlightenment. You can reaserch The Enlightment on your own.

YardleyLabs
03-18-2010, 06:05 PM
Franco, if you can point me to a legitimate, academic,meaning factual source that can back up your claims. I would love to.
For Jefferson, simply read The Jefferson Bible where he explains his reasons for rejecting all claims of miracles including those related to the resurrection.

For Franklin, read his autobiography:

"Before I enter upon my public appearance in business, it may be well to let you know the then state of my mind with regard to my principles and morals, that you may see how far those influenc’d the future events of my life. My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."
[http://www.historytools.org/sources/Franklin-religion.pdf]

For Washington, the evidence is less clear. He was a Freemason and strongly supported religious tolerance by which he included non-Christians (See my earlier post from the Library of Congress). However, he was raised as a Christian and was at least moderately active in religious activities.

John Adams was one of four Unitarian President (others were John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, and William Howard Taft) and, as such accepted the general principles of the Gospels (as understood at the time) but rejected the notion of Jesus as a manifestation of God. He converted to Unitarianism after being raised a Congregationalist. He and his wife Abigail were members of the First Parish Church in Qincy. Abigail discusses her rejection of the trinity in correspondence with their son, John Quincy, and Adams discusses his own views fairly frankly in correspondence with Jefferson in which he urged Jefferson to complete The Jefferson Bible. This is quoted extensively in the introduction to the Jefferson Bible (Note: by order of Congress, The Jefferson Bible was printed and distributed to new members during much of our nation's early history following Jefferson's death).

Thomas Paine: For information on Thomas Paine, you need look no further than his own treatise The Age of Reason which heavily influenced many of our forefathers. It is a deist pamphlet that begins with an extended challenge to the authenticity of the Bible as the word of God. A copy may be downloaded at http://manybooks.net/titles/painethoetext03twtp410.html] (http://manybooks.net/titles/painethoetext03twtp410.html)

dnf777
03-18-2010, 06:07 PM
Masonry?

Were any of the founding Fathers Masons??







rk

There is a famous painting of Washington laying the cornerstone of our nation's capitol, in full Mason regalia. Rather symbolic, eh?
http://i982.photobucket.com/albums/ae306/dnf777/B_007_LayCornerstone1.jpg

YardleyLabs
03-18-2010, 06:12 PM
Jeff ...seriously? Why is Jefferson the only founding father atheists quote ...do i really need to dig out where he later recanted of his views that he held for a very short time.

Masons ...really Jeff? Masons? I am sure there was a flat earth society somewhere in the colonies as well, which would have about the same amount of relevance.
Freemasonry was very relevant to our forefathers and had an influential role in our revolution. You challenged Franco's claims with respect to Washington, Jefferson, etc. and I replied above. Jefferson's rejection of normal definitions of Christianity was apparent throughout the Jefferson Bible -- which was a major focus of his work in later years - as well as in his correspondence with Adams and others. I am not aware of any point at which he changed his notions of religious freedom or suggested allegiance to any Christian denomination. It should be noted, however, that he made financial contributions to a number of churches of different denominations. In addition, at the same time that he issued his letter to the Danbury Baptists, he began to attend Congressional religious services. That ended when he left Washington. In correspondence he indicated his wish for a Unitarian minister to be appointed to form a congregation close enough to his home so that he could attend and expressed his hope that the day would come when all men were Unitarians.

K.Bullock
03-18-2010, 07:01 PM
Will the University of Virginia do?

http://guides.lib.virginia.edu/TJ

As you can read for yourself, Jefferson was a product of The Enlightenment. You can reaserch The Enlightment on your own.

Nicely thanks,

http://guides.lib.virginia.edu/content.php?pid=77323&sid=573588


Drafted by Jefferson in 1779 and enacted into law by the Virginia General Assembly in 1786, this Statute for Religious Freedom disestablished the Anglican Church in Virginia and asserted the legal right to complete freedom of worship. This bill proved a milestone on the road to the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing religious liberty, and was one of the three accomplishments which Jefferson wished to be inscribed as his epitaph---the others being the Declaration of Independence and the University of Virginia.

Draft of the Statute for Religious Freedom, 1780s, courtesy of the Library of Congress.

All this from a deist atheist unitarian.






http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28006

From the article : "Jefferson was a true friend of the Christian faith. But was he a true Christian? A nominal Christian – as demonstrated by his lifelong practice of attending worship services, reading the Bible, and following the moral principles of Christ – Jefferson was not, in my opinion, a genuine Christian. In 1813, after his public career was over, Jefferson rejected the deity of Christ. Like so many millions of church members today, he was outwardly religious, but never experienced the new birth that Jesus told Nicodemus was necessary to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

Nonetheless, Jefferson's presidential acts would, if done today, send the ACLU marching into court. He signed legislation that gave land to Indian missionaries, put chaplains on the government payroll, and provided for the punishment of irreverent soldiers. He also sent Congress an Indian treaty that set aside money for a priest's salary and for the construction of a church.

Most intriguing is the manner in which Jefferson dated an official document. Instead of "in the year of our Lord," Jefferson used the phrase "in the year of our Lord Christ." Christian historian David Barton has the proof – the original document signed by Jefferson on the "eighteenth day of October in the year of our Lord Christ, 1804."

The Supreme Court ruled in 1947 that Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state "must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." Judging from the record, it looks like the wall some say Tom built is, in fact, the wall Tom breached.

The real Thomas Jefferson, it turns out, is the ACLU's worst nightmare."

K.Bullock
03-18-2010, 07:18 PM
For Jefferson, simply read The Jefferson Bible where he explains his reasons for rejecting all claims of miracles including those related to the resurrection.

For Franklin, read his autobiography:

"Before I enter upon my public appearance in business, it may be well to let you know the then state of my mind with regard to my principles and morals, that you may see how far those influenc’d the future events of my life. My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."
[http://www.historytools.org/sources/Franklin-religion.pdf]

For Washington, the evidence is less clear. He was a Freemason and strongly supported religious tolerance by which he included non-Christians (See my earlier post from the Library of Congress). However, he was raised as a Christian and was at least moderately active in religious activities.

John Adams was one of four Unitarian President (others were John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, and William Howard Taft) and, as such accepted the general principles of the Gospels (as understood at the time) but rejected the notion of Jesus as a manifestation of God. He converted to Unitarianism after being raised a Congregationalist. He and his wife Abigail were members of the First Parish Church in Qincy. Abigail discusses her rejection of the trinity in correspondence with their son, John Quincy, and Adams discusses his own views fairly frankly in correspondence with Jefferson in which he urged Jefferson to complete The Jefferson Bible. This is quoted extensively in the introduction to the Jefferson Bible (Note: by order of Congress, The Jefferson Bible was printed and distributed to new members during much of our nation's early history following Jefferson's death).

Thomas Paine: For information on Thomas Paine, you need look no further than his own treatise The Age of Reason which heavily influenced many of our forefathers. It is a deist pamphlet that begins with an extended challenge to the authenticity of the Bible as the word of God. A copy may be downloaded at http://manybooks.net/titles/painethoetext03twtp410.html] (http://manybooks.net/titles/painethoetext03twtp410.html)

John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

John Quincy Adams:
• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

George Washington:
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]

Franco
03-18-2010, 08:31 PM
Nicely thanks,





All this from a deist atheist unitarian.



I never said he was an atheist!!!

I said that he did not believe that Jesus was devine or a god nor was he a Christian. Jefferson as well as other Deist believed in Nature's God. Deist were children of The Enlightenment and they sought reason and knowledge.

Franco
03-18-2010, 08:35 PM
orge Washington:
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]

Jefferson too thought the teachings of the Rabbi known as Jesus was worthy. But, like all Deist, they did not accept Jesus as the son of God.

P S No one on this thread has claimed John Quincy Adams to be a Deist.

YardleyLabs
03-18-2010, 08:48 PM
John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

John Quincy Adams:
• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

George Washington:
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]
The distinction becomes the definition of Christianity. If you accept that a person can be Christian if he/she believes in and follows the teachings of an extraordinary man, Jesus of Nazareth, while rejecting all claims that Jesus is divine, we have no argument. 18th century Unitarians, like their 4th century counterparts, did not reject the moral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. What they rejected was his divinity as proclaimed by the Trinitarians. Unitarians today continue to recognize Judeo-Christian traditions as a fundamental source of our beliefs. However, we do not associate those beliefs with any creedal notions of divinity. In 18th century America, and particularly in New England, the rejection of the trinity was actually quite common and was the source of the split between Unitarians and Congregationalists who wanted all ministers to sign statements of creedal belief. The Adams family -- father, mother, and son -- were firmly in the Unitarian camp in Massachusetts. Abigail's father was actually a Congregationalist minister and John was seeking to become a minister. However, the Calvinist traditions of predestination and the trinity were not taught in their church. When the split came, their congregation joined the Unitarians in rejecting the notion that Jesus was divine. As I noted, Jefferson first attended church the Sunday after publishing his letter to the Danbury Baptists where he articulated his belief that there must be a wall between church and state. From a political perspective, it was essential that he maintain the support of the New England Federalists who, he knew, would be upset by his letter. Attending Congressional church services was a symbolic way of indicating that he was not rejecting religion, simply maintaining an appropriate distance between religion and the government. He stopped attending services as soon as he left government.

Hew
03-19-2010, 08:27 AM
The only thing more funner than watching militant atheists and secularists contorting themselves denying the Christian roots of this this nation and its Founders is watching lefties try to claim that the Founding Fathers would approve of their progressive ideas. C'mon, somebody entertain us. Yardley, DNF, Buzz, Buehler,...anyone?

Pete
03-19-2010, 08:58 AM
Originally ,man had every right he could think of except one. It all went down hill from there.

Pete
03-19-2010, 09:00 AM
[QUOTE]The wisdom of our forefathers was to keep religion in check, remember they were Deist. That's why the word "god' will not be found in The Constitution. Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin, Paine etc believed in Nature's God and not the Christian one.
__/QUOTE]

I believe it was to keep government in check

YardleyLabs
03-19-2010, 09:14 AM
The only thing more funner than watching militant atheists and secularists contorting themselves denying the Christian roots of this this nation and its Founders is watching lefties try to claim that the Founding Fathers would approve of their progressive ideas. C'mon, somebody entertain us. Yardley, DNF, Buzz, Buehler,...anyone?
Actually, I thought the quotes in my post#19 were pretty conclusive on that point. Are you denying their authenticity, or is evidence once again irrelevant in the face of unfounded conviction?



The wisdom of our forefathers was to keep religion in check, remember they were Deist. That's why the word "god' will not be found in The Constitution. Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin, Paine etc believed in Nature's God and not the Christian one.


I believe it was to keep government in check
Actually, I think both you and Franco are right. Separating religion and government protects the people from religious interference by government and protects religions from the corruption that is inherent in theocracies.

Hew
03-19-2010, 09:47 AM
Actually, I thought the quotes in my post#19 were pretty conclusive on that point. Are you denying their authenticity, or is evidence once again irrelevant in the face of unfounded conviction?
Yeah, I thought that post was pretty conclusive in pointing out that this isn't a country just for Christians or that it favors one religion over another. I don't see where it refutes what I wrote one iota: "...the Christian roots of this this nation and its Founders..." I'm sure you see the distinction, right?

So far you've made a tepid case that Jefferson wasn't a raging Christian. You've got some work to do on the other 20 or so important playas. And I think you're going to have a hard time proving that our laws aren't not based upon Judeo-Christian tenets. A really hard time, actually.

YardleyLabs
03-19-2010, 10:16 AM
Yeah, I thought that post was pretty conclusive in pointing out that this isn't a country just for Christians or that it favors one religion over another. I don't see where it refutes what I wrote one iota: "...the Christian roots of this this nation and its Founders..." I'm sure you see the distinction, right?

So far you've made a tepid case that Jefferson wasn't a raging Christian. You've got some work to do on the other 20 or so important playas. And I think you're going to have a hard time proving that our laws aren't not based upon Judeo-Christian tenets. A really hard time, actually.
I actually believe that virtually all of our forefathers reflected the Judeo-Christians ethics of their time and that influenced their thinking tremendously. The same would be said of John Locke, Thomas Paine, and many others who influenced the thinking behind our revolution even while rejecting notions of the trinity. As I said in an earlier post, it depends on what you mean by "Christian". Among those asserting our "Christian" origins, the term is usually meant to mean a belief in the trinity and acceptance of Jesus as a personal savior. That view of Christianity was not accepted by a large proportion of our founding fathers. Those who assert our "Christian" origins also tend to interpret that as meaning that our forefathers intended for the country to be run as a "Christian" country. Once again, the facts do not support that position. The historical evidence suggests that our forefathers were knowledgeable, to some extent, about non-Christian religions, even discussed agnosticism and atheism openly, and explicitly sought to create a country that welcomed all as equals. Unfortunately, many today would like to see a Christian government that "tolerates" other religions but insists on preserving a fundamental Christian bias. While this has been proposed by many over the course of our history, I am happy that our forefathers rejected this notion in our Constitution and that our courts have upheld that rejection over time despite repeated challenges.

K.Bullock
03-19-2010, 11:43 AM
I actually believe that virtually all of our forefathers reflected the Judeo-Christians ethics of their time and that influenced their thinking tremendously. The same would be said of John Locke, Thomas Paine, and many others who influenced the thinking behind our revolution even while rejecting notions of the trinity. As I said in an earlier post, it depends on what you mean by "Christian". Among those asserting our "Christian" origins, the term is usually meant to mean a belief in the trinity and acceptance of Jesus as a personal savior. That view of Christianity was not accepted by a large proportion of our founding fathers. Those who assert our "Christian" origins also tend to interpret that as meaning that our forefathers intended for the country to be run as a "Christian" country. Once again, the facts do not support that position. The historical evidence suggests that our forefathers were knowledgeable, to some extent, about non-Christian religions, even discussed agnosticism and atheism openly, and explicitly sought to create a country that welcomed all as equals. Unfortunately, many today would like to see a Christian government that "tolerates" other religions but insists on preserving a fundamental Christian bias. While this has been proposed by many over the course of our history, I am happy that our forefathers rejected this notion in our Constitution and that our courts have upheld that rejection over time despite repeated challenges.

Jeff i think it is interesting that you are ignoring the context of our founders views of religious oppression. The COE or Church of England was the official church of all of England and if you were not on board you were at the very least badly persecuted.
That is why Jefferson was proud of his hand in abolishing a State religion for Virginia his baptist friends would have been on the outs. I am sure you know all of this, I am not sure why you are ignoring these facts.

Our founders were anglicans, non-conformists, puritans,baptists that clashed with the C of E. They were not going to reinstate a new State Church here. You can ignore that context if you like, it still doesn't change the facts.

Nate_C
03-19-2010, 12:11 PM
I think it is interesting, people talk about Judeo-Christian based political ideas found in the work of Locke, Paine, Jefferson....ect.. But I am sorry these where great thinkers but their ideas of democracy and religion it always appear to me to be separate. They were great promoters of individual liberty and democracy that happened to be Christian. Christianity, up until our recent history was never a driver of these ideas. Most of the early concepts of democracy came from the Greeks and Romans (pre-Christianity) and early societies like the Sumerians . We have just merged them recently. Though Israel did have some periods where judges played a large roll, they always had military or political monarchs. Early Christians even practiced what could be most closely compared to communism through the united order. People talk about god given rights. What are these rights and where are they documented being from God.
To me rights come from mutually agreed upon social standards that over the last 2-3000 years we have learned make our lives better. Only the strength of our social an communal bond maintains these rights.

YardleyLabs
03-19-2010, 12:15 PM
Jeff i think it is interesting that you are ignoring the context of our founders views of religious oppression. The COE or Church of England was the official church of all of England and if you were not on board you were at the very least badly persecuted.
That is why Jefferson was proud of his hand in abolishing a State religion for Virginia his baptist friends would have been on the outs. I am sure you know all of this, I am not sure why you are ignoring these facts.

Our founders were anglicans, non-conformists, puritans,baptists that clashed with the C of E. They were not going to reinstate a new State Church here. You can ignore that context if you like, it still doesn't change the facts.
I don't see how any of that changes anything I have said. First, for a significant portion of our founding fathers, there was a clear distinction between those supporting a trinitarian perspective of Jesus from those supporting a unitarian perspective. If you accept both as "Christian", much of our disagreement disappears. However, for people like Adams, admiration of Jesus and acceptance of his moral teachings did not include acceptance of his divinity. Second, you seem to be implying that the intent of the forefathers was to ensure that no particular Christian sect, such as the Anglicans, would dominate government, but that it is some how okay for the government to adopt a general Christian bias as long as it does not favor one denomination over another. That is also not true since our forefathers explicitly addressed and rejected proposals that would have done just that as in the case of Virginia.

However, maybe I am assuming too much about your contention. Are you saying this?


Most of our founding fathers where religious to some extent (not necessarily practicing).
Most accepted general notions of Christian morality.
When it came time to vote, they votedfor a Federal government that did not show any religious favoritism -- be it one Christian group over another or Christianity in general over all non-Christian religions or non-trinitarian sects that accepted Jesus as an extraordinary moral teacher who was not divine.
Some believed that individual states could continue to show preference of specific religious practices even while the Federal government was prohibited from doing the same.
If you are, I would agree. If you are disagreeing with any of these statements, I would be interested in knowing the basis for your belief.

YardleyLabs
03-19-2010, 12:21 PM
I think it is interesting, people talk about Judeo-Christian based political ideas found in the work of Locke, Paine, Jefferson....ect.. But I am sorry these where great thinkers but their ideas of democracy and religion it always appear to me to be separate. They were great promoters of individual liberty and democracy that happened to be Christian. Christianity, up until our recent history was never a driver of these ideas. Most of the early concepts of democracy came from the Greeks and Romans (pre-Christianity) and early societies like the Sumerians . We have just merged them recently. Though Israel did have some periods where judges played a large roll, they always had military or political monarchs. Early Christians even practiced what could be most closely compared to communism through the united order. People talk about god given rights. What are these rights and where are they documented being from God.
To me rights come from mutually agreed upon social standards that over the last 2-3000 years we have learned make our lives better. Only the strength of our social an communal bond maintains these rights.
I think your point is fair. Democracy actually emerged despite religion for the most part. Churches tended to be too closely wedded to power and, in the 18th century, that still meant the aristocracy.

dnf777
03-19-2010, 12:34 PM
So far you've made a tepid case that Jefferson wasn't a raging Christian. You've got some work to do on the other 20 or so important playas. And I think you're going to have a hard time proving that our laws aren't not based upon Judeo-Christian tenets. A really hard time, actually.

A very common, but invalid argument is made by noting that one of the Commandments is "thou shall not kill", and we have laws against murder, so therefore our country is based upon Christian values. Much like, "if she weighs the same as a duck...." logic.

The Q'oran also has tenets against killing, stealing, and adultry. Would you argue that we are a Muslim nation?

Most every religion has very similar basic tenets regarding how we should treat our fellow man. (how we treat women varies greatly, but in most areas is coming to center on a norm hopefully!)

One could conversely point out that the laws regarding Wall Street execs, AIG execs, and many of the Enron execs, and our huge bail-out, whereby we stole from the poor and gave to the rich, would make us ANYTHING BUT a Christian nation! (Hew, I'm waiting to hear your arguments to that last point!!) :D

Who would Jesus permit to steal from the common man regards,

dave

K.Bullock
03-19-2010, 12:35 PM
I think it is interesting, people talk about Judeo-Christian based political ideas found in the work of Locke, Paine, Jefferson....ect..[QUOTE] But I am sorry these where great thinkers but their ideas of democracy and religion it always appear to me to be separate. What makes you say this?


They were great promoters of individual liberty and democracy that happened to be Christian. I can agree with this to an extent. Would you say America a democracy or a Republic?


Christianity, up until our recent history was never a driver of these ideas. Most of the early concepts of democracy came from the Greeks and Romans (pre-Christianity) and early societies like the Sumerians . We have just merged them recently.
Greeks and sumerians never really talked much, check out the movie 300 and you'll understand why. LOL! Where the Roman Empire spread, there went Christianity.


Though Israel did have some periods where judges played a large roll, they always had military or political monarchs.
Are you saying Israel is not and has never been a theocracy? I would think the Israeli flag and a picture of Moses next to the definition of theocracy in the dictionary.



Early Christians even practiced what could be most closely compared to communism through the united order. Far from it, communism is a social political philosophy that would create a Utopian society through the violent insurrection of the ruling members of a capitalist society.... then they would redistribute all wealth and goods equally. Christianity doesn't even come close to this.

People talk about god given rights. What are these rights and where are they documented being from God.
I would begin at "endowed by our creator" "certain unalienable rights"and then continue from there.


To me rights come from mutually agreed upon social standards that over the last 2-3000 years we have learned make our lives better. Only the strength of our social an communal bond maintains these rights.

I agree with your sentiments, but it is our Constitution and Bill of Rights developed by American Christians that have kept tyrants at bay at home and abroad for over two hundred years. If this generation gets talked out of believing that those documents and the ideas behind them are outmoded and outdated, our freedoms won't be far behind.

YardleyLabs
03-19-2010, 12:40 PM
...
I agree with your sentiments, but it is our Constitution and Bill of Rights developed by American Christians ....
Simple, direct question: When you say "American Christian", do you mean a person who believes that Jesus is divine?

road kill
03-19-2010, 12:43 PM
Back to the topic, if you believe that the government gives you your rights, then you understand that the governmaent can also take them away.

That is contrary to any of the tennants of any of the founding Fathers.

Pick and choose as you wish, you will find nothing to support your premise.






rk

K.Bullock
03-19-2010, 12:58 PM
Simple, direct question: When you say "American Christian", do you mean a person who believes that Jesus is divine?

That is not a simple direct question.

Politically speaking a Christian is someone that lives in a Christian society, that worships the Christian God, and values Christian morals and principles. In a Muslim country you would be considered a Christian.

I just read a survey of American pastors where some in some very theologically conservative denominations confessed to being atheists., and their flocks have no idea. Are they preaching a Christian message ..lol! in those denominations they better be. Are they outwardly a Christian ..yep. Do they believe? That is between them and "Our Creator" ...to steal a line from our founding fathers.
Would I call them Christians? Politically, outwardly yes. Spiritually, is another matter altogether.

Even Mother Theresa had what is known as a dark night of the soul where she questioned her own belief. In the Psalms it is not uncommon for King David to question God, he even ask's for help with his unbelief. Yet he is still a man "after God's own heart" That is what is unique about Christian belief, we can doubt,defy, and deny God as did Peter, and still belong to God. What we do/don't do doesn't change who He is or what we believe He has done. Coming up on Easter ... a national holiday by the way. Reminds us of that.

That is as "direct and simple" as I can give you.

YardleyLabs
03-19-2010, 01:02 PM
Back to the topic, if you believe that the government gives you your rights, then you understand that the governmaent can also take them away.

That is contrary to any of the tennants of any of the founding Fathers.

Pick and choose as you wish, you will find nothing to support your premise.

rk
By enumerating three rights (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) as inalienable rights granted by the "Creator", the signers of the Declaration of Independence were focusing on what were viewed as "natural" rights, not ones given by any specific God, Christian or otherwise. The notion of "natural" man, made popular by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, rejected the notion of original sin and viewed man, in a natural state,as having certain specific rights of freedom. In his book The Social Contract, Rousseau discussed appropriate and inappropriate ways for government to restrict those rights. Rousseau considered himself to be a Calvinist both early and late in his life, with a period of Catholicism in the middle. However, his views were generally classified as deist and some of his works were banned for committing the "heresy" of assuming an essentially indifferent god. He actually consulted with several countries, including France and Lithuania, as they developed their own Constitutions to establish republican governments. It is interesting that the US Constitution does not include any specific mention of Creator given or natural rights, but basically focuses on the specific rights of the Federal government, reserving all others to the states and the people.

zeus3925
03-19-2010, 03:38 PM
[QUOTE=Nate_C;586004

Far from it, communism is a social political philosophy that would create a Utopian society through the violent insurrection of the ruling members of a capitalist society.... then they would redistribute all wealth and goods equally. Christianity doesn't even come close to this.


I agree with your sentiments, but it is our Constitution and Bill of Rights developed by American Christians that have kept tyrants at bay at home and abroad for over two hundred years. If this generation gets talked out of believing that those documents and the ideas behind them are outmoded and outdated, our freedoms won't be far behind.

Late nineteenth century and twentieth century vision of "communism" was tainted by Marxists, Bolsheviks, and its totalitarian application. There have been other concepts of a communism before those characters arrived on the scene.


Even though the founders may have been religious men, it is noteworthy in the context of the times, the framers of the Constitution scrupulously avoided any mention of religion except to wall off church and state from each other. They may have been religious men but they created a clearly secular state.

I don't know if the bill of rights has kept tyrants at bay here and abroad. Tyrants don't read very much when they get on a roll. Once they have intimidated a populace, they do as they please, despite all the pretty protections. The more good men do nothing, the bigger the Tyrants britches get.

YardleyLabs
03-19-2010, 04:02 PM
That is not a simple direct question.

Politically speaking a Christian is someone that lives in a Christian society, that worships the Christian God, and values Christian morals and principles. In a Muslim country you would be considered a Christian.

I just read a survey of American pastors where some in some very theologically conservative denominations confessed to being atheists., and their flocks have no idea. Are they preaching a Christian message ..lol! in those denominations they better be. Are they outwardly a Christian ..yep. Do they believe? That is between them and "Our Creator" ...to steal a line from our founding fathers.
Would I call them Christians? Politically, outwardly yes. Spiritually, is another matter altogether.

Even Mother Theresa had what is known as a dark night of the soul where she questioned her own belief. In the Psalms it is not uncommon for King David to question God, he even ask's for help with his unbelief. Yet he is still a man "after God's own heart" That is what is unique about Christian belief, we can doubt,defy, and deny God as did Peter, and still belong to God. What we do/don't do doesn't change who He is or what we believe He has done. Coming up on Easter ... a national holiday by the way. Reminds us of that.

That is as "direct and simple" as I can give you.
Based on that, it seems to me that you are saying that our forefathers and our country are Christian because most people are Christian and our cultural identity is Christian regardless factual belief. If that is your yardstick, then presumably I am a Christian even though I am pubic about my atheism. If that is, in fact, your yardstick, then there is no argument because there is no substance. It's sort of like my old camp counselor who believed that if I were not Jewish I was Christian because that was the only other choice.

Hew
03-19-2010, 04:03 PM
A very common, but invalid argument is made by noting that one of the Commandments is "thou shall not kill", and we have laws against murder, so therefore our country is based upon Christian values. Much like, "if she weighs the same as a duck...." logic. Yes, exactly. The First Commandment is the totality of proof that our form of government and its laws are based on Judeo-Christian tenets. :rolleyes:

The Q'oran also has tenets against killing, stealing, and adultry. Would you argue that we are a Muslim nation? If a ham-handed comparison between a Sharia-based legal system and ours is as deep as you can wade into the pool then any further discussion between us on this subject is an abject waste of time for both of us. Have a good weekend.
......................

YardleyLabs
03-19-2010, 04:08 PM
.....If a ham-handed comparison between a Sharia-based legal system and ours is as deep as you can wade into the pool...
Very few Muslim countries practice Sharia based law. The equivalent would be a Jewish or Christian country following Leviticus based law. The closest to that would be Israel where the religious court is supreme.

K.Bullock
03-19-2010, 04:29 PM
Based on that, it seems to me that you are saying that our forefathers and our country are Christian because most people are Christian and our cultural identity is Christian regardless factual belief. If that is your yardstick, then presumably I am a Christian even though I am pubic about my atheism. If that is, in fact, your yardstick, then there is no argument because there is no substance. It's sort of like my old camp counselor who believed that if I were not Jewish I was Christian because that was the only other choice.

You didn't like my answer? :D LOL!

YardleyLabs
03-19-2010, 04:36 PM
You didn't like my answer? :D LOL!
I don't dislike. It simply makes the question of whether we are a "Christian" country or not irrelevant with respect to any discussions of the separation of church and state. It also makes any discussion of the actual beliefs of our forefather irrelevant since you define their religious orientation on history rather than belief.

Hew
03-19-2010, 04:48 PM
Very few Muslim countries practice Sharia based law.
Not exactly. Sharia-based law is practised in some form in nearly every Muslim country. Some Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia and Iran being prime examples, use Sharia law in all their courts. Some Muslim countries have two legal systems...one Sharia and one civil. Other Muslim countries have have meshed Sharia into their legal system. Regardless, equating Sharia law to common law as DNF wanted to do is, well...silly.

K.Bullock
03-19-2010, 05:07 PM
I don't dislike. It simply makes the question of whether we are a "Christian" country or not irrelevant with respect to any discussions of the separation of church and state. It also makes any discussion of the actual beliefs of our forefather irrelevant since you define their religious orientation on history rather than belief.

On the contrary,it just made Jefferson's belief or disbelief as a basis for this being a non-Christian country irrelevant, if anything.

YardleyLabs
03-19-2010, 05:17 PM
On the contrary,it just made Jefferson's belief or disbelief as a basis for this being a non-Christian country irrelevant, if anything.
Now I am totally confused. If the individual beliefs of our forefathers is "deemed" irrelevant to the religious essence of our country, how is the religious essence of our country relevant to interpreting the decisions they made as the country was formed?

dnf777
03-19-2010, 08:34 PM
Regardless, equating Sharia law to common law as DNF wanted to do is, well...silly.

And so is equating Judeo-Christian law to common law.... As you did. And for the record, I did not equate. I merely pointed out how silly your statement was, with as you put it, a silly one.

Like I said, Islamic and Christian tenets are very similar in text. Equating one with common law is no more silly than the other.

Pete
03-19-2010, 09:38 PM
[QUOTE]Even Mother Theresa had what is known as a dark night of the soul where she questioned her own belief. In the Psalms it is not uncommon for King David to question God, he even ask's for help with his unbelief. Yet he is still a man "after God's own heart" That is what is unique about Christian belief, we can doubt,defy, and deny God as did Peter, and still belong to God. What we do/don't do doesn't change who He is or what we believe He has done. Coming up on Easter ... a national holiday by the way. Reminds us of that. /QUOTE]


David didn't question weather God was real or not,,,David had doubts weather God would continue to bless him and cause him to be victorious in some of the different aspects concerning King Davids ability to rule and maintain his standing on the strength of Gods word . David saw God pull off great things in his life and because of Davids choices he didn't know if God would continue to back him. He knew full well why the King before him crashed and burned


Pete

Hew
03-19-2010, 09:56 PM
And so is equating Judeo-Christian law to common law....
You're in way over your head with this stuff. Just tell yourself three times, "It's OK. I don't have to be an expert on EVERYTHING." Believe it or not, the world won't spin off its axis and hurtle us into the sun if you admit to yourself that you don't know what the f you're talking about on some obscure and esoteric subject and choose to sit one discussion out. ;-)

K.Bullock
03-19-2010, 11:17 PM
Now I am totally confused. If the individual beliefs of our forefathers is "deemed" irrelevant to the religious essence of our country, how is the religious essence of our country relevant to interpreting the decisions they made as the country was formed?

I see where you must be getting confused. Jefferson was NOT the only founding father. One article I linked said Jefferson would give the ACLU a heart attack ....our founding Fathers were the ACLU's worst nightmare.

Could you imagine if congress today passed a bill to finance the printing of Christian bibles specifically to be made available to all citizens?



http://www.theworldsgreatbooks.com/Aitken%20Bible.htm


The United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion, as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.”

–Congressional Resolution, September 10, 1782


George Washington, one of the greatest supporters of the Aitken Bible, was so pleased with the result that he regretted that the Revolutionary troops had been disbanded before he could provide them with such an appropriate symbol of his gratitude. Writing to a friend, Washington lamented, "It would have pleased me well, if Congress had been pleased to make such an important present (a copy of the Aitken Bible) to the brave fellows, who have done so much for the security of their Country's rights and establishment."

The printing of the new Bible marked a significant moment in the history of the United States. More American versions of the Bible soon followed and, no longer subject to British editions of the Bible, the United States was, for the first time, able to fully express the freedom of religion held so dearly by the population. The Aitken Bible was championed by the people and symbolized a dramatic release from British, and indeed government control, over their right and ability to worship.

dnf777
03-20-2010, 07:56 AM
You're in way over your head with this stuff. Just tell yourself three times, "It's OK. I don't have to be an expert on EVERYTHING." Believe it or not, the world won't spin off its axis and hurtle us into the sun if you admit to yourself that you don't know what the f you're talking about on some obscure and esoteric subject and choose to sit one discussion out. ;-)





Nice attack Hew, but as usual, NO SUBSTANCE! I can call you names and insult you too, but I'm trying to keep this in a civil debate format. I've noticed its when your points are blown out of the water, your hypocrisy exposed, or you're just out-maneuvered, that you resort to insults and name calling. It's sort of your 'white flag'.

YardleyLabs
03-20-2010, 08:16 AM
I see where you must be getting confused. Jefferson was NOT the only founding father. One article I linked said Jefferson would give the ACLU a heart attack ....our founding Fathers were the ACLU's worst nightmare.

Could you imagine if congress today passed a bill to finance the printing of Christian bibles specifically to be made available to all citizens?



http://www.theworldsgreatbooks.com/Aitken%20Bible.htm
I'm still not getting you. Jefferson, as I have already documented, was not the only founding father who rejected the divinity of Jesus and the decision that "religious freedom" encompassed all religions and non-religions was a group decision, not just something Jefferson wrote in a letter. By the way, Congress also printed The Jefferson Bible and provided copies to all incoming members for more than 50 years. The Jefferson Bible is a redacted version of the bible prepared by TJ over a period of several years that eliminates all descriptions of miraculous events -- which Jefferson considered to be non-credible -- to extract the philosophy and teachngs of Jesus, the man.

Pete
03-20-2010, 08:23 AM
K.Bullock

I think you just drove a stake through their unbelieving hearts. And capped a silver bullet in the back of their heads

I cant wait to see them dance around this one. Jeff will have a perfectly rational answer I'll bet. Something to do with appeasing the public to oppress a possible revolution or something like that:D:

Pete

luvmylabs23139
03-20-2010, 10:42 AM
We have no rights. THe chosen one rules.

Wayne Beck
04-19-2010, 10:17 PM
For Washington, the evidence is less clear. He was a Freemason and strongly supported religious tolerance by which he included non-Christians (See my earlier post from the Library of Congress). However, he was raised as a Christian and was at least moderately active in religious activities.



Its funny how much of freemasonry is still around in today's society.

YardleyLabs
04-20-2010, 04:42 AM
Its funny how much of freemasonry is still around in today's society.
There are actually several Masonic halls in this area including one less than 2 miles from my house. While it appears very active, I know nothing of what it really does. On my father's side, my ancestors include a long line of Masons going back at least until the late 18th/early 19th century in Scotland.

Wayne Beck
04-20-2010, 08:10 AM
You are right Jeff.. You have lodges in Fairless Hills, Bristol, and Newtown(woodside).

Alot of people dont realize that the shriners are masons too. Anymore the Masons are a charitable organization. Not so much at the local level but their appendant bodies are. They give something like 2 million dollars a day to charity worldwide.

dnf777
04-20-2010, 09:21 AM
You are right Jeff.. You have lodges in Fairless Hills, Bristol, and Newtown(woodside).

Alot of people dont realize that the shriners are masons too. Anymore the Masons are a charitable organization. Not so much at the local level but their appendant bodies are. They give something like 2 million dollars a day to charity worldwide.

4 million Freemasons worldwide, approximately half in the US. Have given tremendously to charity, just don't advertise it or accept public awards. True charity as it should be.

ducknwork
04-20-2010, 11:44 AM
I always thought they were just trying to take over the world.:confused:

depittydawg
04-20-2010, 11:47 AM
Our rights come from the people who had the balls and strength to stand up and take them. Nothing else.

Uncle Bill
04-20-2010, 04:50 PM
Our rights come from the people who had the balls and strength to stand up and take them. Nothing else.


How did you miss this hayseed, HEW? Talk about a thread being over a posters head, this dude even scores higher than the Pennsylvania Doc...which, admittedly is difficult to do.

But along the lines of the depth of knowledge the PD disclosed recently while bloviating over one of my posts, comes now none other than his brother in arms from the Keystone state...Yardley the Pious.

This statement of ownership concerning your omnipotence as well as omniscience on the subject of atheism, is an absolute hoot. Amazing how you can be so accurate when it's also inadvertant....


Based on that, it seems to me that you are saying that our forefathers and our country are Christian because most people are Christian and our cultural identity is Christian regardless factual belief.

If that is your yardstick, then presumably I am a Christian even though I am pubic about my atheism.

If that is, in fact, your yardstick, then there is no argument because there is no substance. It's sort of like my old camp counselor who believed that if I were not Jewish I was Christian because that was the only other choice.

Au contraire! It's my guess he too was more interested in how 'pubic' you had become.:rolleyes:

I've got to admit, you dudes from "the Big Ben state" are a real entertaining group.

UB