|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Which religion's creation story should be taught? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
lthough Christian teachings, the Bible, and principles were the majority rule at the time (i.e. most accepted these facts at the time, thus they controlled the laws, norms, customs, ect).
I have a big problem with this statement. Most of the people of the original colonies were not a deeply religious people. We have this vision of everyone that emigrated to America s people that were escaping religious persecution. This is far from true. The elites tended to be thus(Puritan leaders, the Penns, the Catholics in Maryland0, but the average everyday person was not caught up ion religious fervor. Were they christians? Yes. But not christian as you know it now. The American christian you know now was a result of the Great Awakenings. The second and third are the probable basis for the evangelical Christianity people want to associate with colonial America. This new type of christianity though was post formation of the USA. Also, the laws norms and customs of the americas were not based on christianity. They were based on english common law. Were there christian undertones to it? Of course, but the prime basis was english common law that has roots in the pre christian england. The ideals in the Constitution are not Christian. Where do you find them in christian writings? A lot of the ideas go back to the greeks and romans. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Do I smell a new true Scotsmen coming?
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4334 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Theodoric,
Theodoric writes: The constitution isn't a living breathing thing. The Constitution cannot be right or wrong. Would you please define ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ for me so I have a frame of reference to rebut your statement? P.S. I’ll try to remember to leave the coloring out for you; I use it to make it clearer whom or what I am quoting. If it does not offend you; mite I suggest you ‘copy’ and ‘past’ the text to your favorite word processor and change the text color to black. Thank you,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Would you please define ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ for me so I have a frame of reference to rebut your statement? Since you are the one that brought up 'right' and 'wrong', you will need to be the one to define them.
So, If the Supreme Court says something, or does something, that is opposite of what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ says then the Supreme Court is wrong and the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is right. Message 115 I’ll try to remember to leave the coloring out for you; I use it to make it clearer whom or what I am quoting. If it does not offend you; mite I suggest you ‘copy’ and ‘past’ the text to your favorite word processor and change the text color to black. Ever notice how everyone else gets along with understanding peoples quotes without a need for lame colors. I realize you think it makes your arguments impressive, but they do not. The green is tough to read against the blue background and the red is especially hard to pick out with that cursive script you seem to favor.But if you think it helps your arguments an makes you look better, by all means keep it up. Maybe I am the only one that feels this way so why don't you just ignore me. How about you actually try to make your argument. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Ever notice how everyone else gets along with understanding peoples quotes without a need for lame colors. I realize you think it makes your arguments impressive, but they do not. The green is tough to read against the blue background and the red is especially hard to pick out with that cursive script you seem to favor. But if you think it helps your arguments an makes you look better, by all means keep it up. Maybe I am the only one that feels this way so why don't you just ignore me. When he makes his messages unreadable, I just assume that he thinks that what he's posting is of no importance at all. He obviously doesn't think that we should bother to read it, so I don't. After all, if he really thought that any of it were important enough for us to read, he would make it readable, right? Basic rules of communication. It's the responsibility of the sender of a message to remove as many obstacles for the receiver as possible. If the sender introduces obstacles, especially completely unnecessary ones (eg, font colors that blend into the background), then it is his intention to prevent the receiver from receiving the message, which runs completely counter to the entire idea of communication.
PS:A related item. 1980's German comedian, Otto, waved a white handkerchef and pronounced it to the East Frisian flag (Ostfriesland jokes were like our Polish jokes) -- white eagle on a white field. Edited by dwise1, : to remove a double negative
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4984 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined:
|
I find that the characterisation of Jefferson in this posting is wildly at odds with what we actually know from his writings and recorded conversations.
Firstly, he was what would now be called a Deist in my own opinion. I could go along with those who say he was a reluctant theist, or a revolutionary Christian who wanted to take the nonsense (and most of the 'religion') out of Christianity and emphasise the moral/ethical lessons. He had a lifelong hatred of the organised religions - including the various sects of Christianity - and he wrote a great deal, in great depth on the subject so it isn't necessary to second-guess or 'interpret' him. This notion that he wanted religion to be free to interfere with the state but not vica-versa...I find that not just wrong but dishonest. Jefferson is on record on the subject, so the only way one could reach such a wildly inaccurate position is by willfully ignoring history and re-writing it to suit.
quote:Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802 Not much room for doubt is there? He welcomes (and reveres) the decision to erect a wall between the two. A wall works both ways and Jefferson was not stupid, so I think we assume he means what he says and doesn't require 'interpreting' by those with different opinions. If anyone can 'interpret' that as meaning he actually wanted a one-way passage, not a wall, then I believe they should seek employment as a Jesuit, in which calling they will find many like-minded people practising their sophistry and semantic gymnastics. Jefferson despised the established churches, so the notion that he wanted to leave a way for churches to involve themselves in Government is fantasy.
quote: quote:-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 quote:Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (I could go on. He wrote extensively and articulately about his dislike for all organised religion).Did you know that Jefferson also re-wrote the Gospels? He took out all the magic and superstition and left Jesus as an earthly moral philosopher, not the son of God. Damn fine idea from a clear-thinking man Americans should indeed be thankful for. Let's have no more of this tawdry re-writing of history and silly re-interpretation of that which was never opaque. The Jefferson Bible The letters, addresses and various documents penned by Jefferson are publicly available below. If anyone wishes to assert that he was 'for the church' or that he wanted church involvement in Government then I would urge them to read what he said, not what you would have liked him to say.http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/index.htm Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given. Edited by Bikerman, : To provide link to Jefferson letters and documents Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4334 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Coragyps,
Great to hear from you, hope you will enjoy our discussions.
Coragyps writes: I don't know who wrote this, but some of the "absurd" leaked out of their pen. First, the last paragraph of the Constitution preceded the First Amendment by three years or so. We try not to do retroactive laws in this country. I believe that was the point that ‘Congress’ was making. That it was absurd that the ‘9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow’ would contrive that the Constitution’s use of the express religious reference ‘Year of our Lord’ in Article VII is itself a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution Findings Pub. L. 107—293, 1, Nov. 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 2057, provided that: Congress finds the following:
Coragyps writes: Second, ‘Year of our Lord’ is not an "express religious reference" - it's merely a way of telling time. You will note that it is immediately followed by "and of the Independance (sic) of the United States of America the Twelfth." That's an alternate way of telling time. Yes, it is a way of telling time; however, it is also a direct reference to the ‘Christian Era’ that is it refers to the Year of our Lord ‘Jesus Christ’.
Coragyps writes: "Under God" in the pledge is a whole different kettle of fish. It has no purpose in there except to chase away those scary godless pinko commies that were hiding under every other bed in 1954. Kind of like crosses and movieland Dracula. That my be so, however, the phrase We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights in the ‘Declaration of Independence’ is nether an after though (like the Amendments to the ‘Constitution’) nor something added to warred of evil spirits. Hope to hear more from you soon,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4334 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Dr. Adequate,
You have hit on a vary good; and important point.
Dr. Adequate writes: In effect, the Constitution says that the Supreme Court can have the final say on what the Constitution means, whenever this is legally disputed Sure, the Constitution is the final authority on what the Constitution says. But the Supreme Court is the final arbiters of what it means. If you think about it, someone has to be. Of course; you see, my argument is not whether or not the Supreme Court has the authority to be arbiters of what the U.S. Constitution means by what it says. That is a matter of legality. Yes, the Supreme Court is the final ‘Legal’ arbiter of what the U.S. Constitution means by what it says. However, that does not change what the U.S. Constitution actually says or what it actually means by what it says. In other words; if the constitution stated that ‘all dogs were dogs’; and the Supreme Court stated (in a ruling) that the constitution meant that ‘all dogs were cats’. We would all legally have to treat all dogs as if they were cats; however, that does not mean that ‘all dogs are actually cats’. This is the point I was making when I spoke of my mother. If what she said was wrong there was nothing I could do about it; but that did not change the fact that she was wrong; she was still the authority and we had to do it her way. At least with the Supreme Court we could elect presidents that would put people on the Supreme Court that would eventually override these rulings and get things back to the way the Founding Fathers intended.
Dr. Adequate writes: This does not convince me (nor do I see why it convinces you) I was hoping you would use those references as a springboard to actually look at some of the Funding Documents, maybe read some of what our Founding Fathers had to say, etc. I close with this: No amount of evidence will sway a man, convinced that he is correct, if he is not willing to admit he could be wrong Thank you once again for your correspondence,JRTjr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
JRTjr writes: At least with the Supreme Court we could elect presidents that would put people on the Supreme Court that would eventually override these rulings and get things back to the way the Founding Fathers intended. Which of course is utter nonsense. It is absolutely irrelevant what the Founding Fathers believed and they certainly knew that it would be irrelevant. The intent of the Founding Fathers was to create a society that met their needs but that would change over time to meet the needs of each generation. That is why they created a system that can change, designed in planned inefficiencies, and put the greatest power in the Supreme Court who also serve the longest terms. Edited by jar, : fix sub-title Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4984 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
Such terms were simply common ways of expressing quite secular meanings.
If you want to talk about the intent of the founding fathers then look no further than the writings of Jefferson himself. For instance, the original wording HE used for part of the constitutions was: quote:This was changed by the congress. Washington and Adams were quite clear about what Christianity meant to the government. Nothing. The tripoli agreement (below) was written under Washington's Presidency and signed in the Adams Presidence: As I said, Jefferson is clear that he admires Jesus as a secular moralist/philosopher, not a divinity and certainly not in the Christian mold - the son of God. He could not have been clearer.
quote: quote: quote: quote:Clear as crystal to anyone who wants to read the words.... What of Ben Franklin?
quote: quote: quote:Adams? quote: quote: quote: quote:Again it seems pretty clear to me....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4984 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
PS - terms like 'the year of our lord' were just the common idiom. Many people today use religious references with absolutely no religious intent. Anything from swearing to giving the date as BC or AD. The fact that religion deeply permeates the English Language is hardly surprising when you consider history. The inference that using religious expressions is somehow a tacit admission of religiousity is clearly fallacious. Next time you hear someone use a religious turn of phrase - ask them whether they meant it to express some religious POV or not - I'm pretty sure that the majority will say not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Not that it doesn't too often happen elsewhere, but I'm going to butt in here and ask you to supply references/links for your there material.
Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4984 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
Fair request.
Here is the source from which I first found many of the quotes used mbdojo.com - mbdojo Resources and Information. However, being a careful soul, I then checked each quote that I used individually, using a simple google text search. Reference for all the Jefferson quotes is contained in my previous posting up the page - towards the end I give a link to the full letters/writings of Jefferson and all the above quotes can be verified there. Ben Franklin quotes : supporting links:q1. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin/Section Twenty Eight - Wikisource, the free online library q2. I just happen to have learned that one some time ago, but it is relatively well known and a google search should pull up many citations. q3. http://www.quotiki.com/quotes/16535 (not very authoratitive, but again there are many citations available with a quick google). Adams quotes supporting linksq1. John Adams - Wikiquote q2. Miracle - Wikipedia q3. http://www.foundersquotes.com/...ral-authority-of-the-people q4. John Adams quotes Now, I know that these sources are not academically admissable for the most part, and I wouldn't use them in a written thesis, but I think they are all easy enough to track down if required, and I think I did enough due dilligence for a forum debate :-) Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4334 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Dwise1,
Dwise1 writes: Who cares what Jefferson had to say? Well, frankly, I do. I think that being the third President of the United States (1801—1809)A, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776) B, and a horticulturist, political leader, architect, archaeologist, paleontologist, musician, inventor, and founder of the University of Virginia. C eminently qualifies Him to speak on behalf of our founding fathers. However, If you listen to what Madison is saying in his decoration (Yes, I read the whole thing) he was insisting that the government have no right what-so-ever to restrict the freedom of the people in their religious pursuits, and that he believed that if this ‘amendment’ where placed into the Constitution that the government would, at some time, in some way, pervert it and use it to infringe on religious freedoms. Quit prophetic, I would say. By the way, I found these quotes (At the same website you gave us) in reference to government and Religion: (emphasis mine)
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: XXII. The first duty of subjects towards their magistrates is to entertain the most honourable sentiments of their function, which they know to be a jurisdiction delegated to them from God, and on that account to esteem and reverence them as God's ministers and vicegerents. . ..D. Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists: "Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty" in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all Men are clearly entitled to, by the eternal and immutable laws Of God and nature, as well as by the law of Nations, & all well grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.--E. Continental Congress to the Inhabitants of the Province of Quebec: that the Divine Being would bless to you the dispensations of his over-ruling providence, by securing to you and your latest posterity the inestimable advantages of a free English constitution of government, which it is the privilege of all English subjects to enjoy.F. John Adams, Novanglus, no. 4: The clergy of this province are a virtuous, sensible and learned set of men, and they don't take their sermons from news-papers but the bible, unless it be a few who preach passive obedience. These are not generally curious enough to read Hobbs The clergy in all ages and countries, and in this in particular, are disposed enough to be on the side of government, as long as it is tolerableG. It is the duty of the clergy to accommodate their discourses to the times, to preach against such sins as are most prevalent, and recommend such virtues as are most wanted.H. Let me put a supposition. Justice is a great Christian as well as moral duty and virtue, which the clergy ought to inculcate and explain. Suppose a great man of a parish should for seven years together receive 600 sterling a year, for discharging the duties of an important office; but during the whole time, should never do one act or take one step about it. Would not this be great injustice to the public? And ought not the parson of the parish to cry aloud and spare not, and shew such a bold transgressor his sin? Shew that justice was due to the public as well as to an individual, and that cheating the public of four thousand two hundred pounds sterling, is at least as great a sin as taking a chicken from a private hen roost, or perhaps a watch from a fob!I. Dwise1 writes: quote: 3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. quote: Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? What part of that do you not understand? The part, were you believe that this somehow declares that there must be a wall of separation between the Church and the State (Keeping the state out of the Church and the Church out of the state.) I agree with Madison on the point that he is making here; which is that if you start allowing the government to make laws concerning religion (The Church) then the government can begin restricting the free exercise of religion. Which, by the way, is exactly what the First Amendment was placed into the Constitution to prevent: keeping the government from restricting the free exercise of religion. Not to keep religious expression out of the Government. I would like to respond to all that you have written but that would, inevitably, make both of our post far to long. Thank you for your time and effort,JRTjr. References:
A,B,C. Wikipedia.org / Thomas Jefferson D. U Chicago.edu / founders documents / amend I - on religion / 1 E. U Chicago.edu / founders documents / amend I - on religion / 15 F. U Chicago.edu / founders documents / amend I -on religion / 20 G,H,I. U Chicago.edu / founders documents / amend I - on religion / 22.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4984 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
quote:What belief? Those are the words used by Jefferson - you don't have to believe the evident, you simply have to accept it. I don't 'believe' in evolution, for example, it is evident, therefore I accept it. Likewise I don't 'believe' that the constitution was both designed to, and does, establish exactly a WALL of separation between Church and State, since no belief is required - it is evident. As for Madison's intent : I refer you to the following which should clear up any perceived ambiguity:
quote: and
quote: I don't see how any ambiguity could now remain in the mind of any honest person. This is explicit, completely clear and entirely unambiguous. Sources:Reach And Teach | Books, Toys, Fair Trade Gifts, and Green Lifestyle Products for A More Peaceful World http://www.constitution.org/jm/18191213_monopolies.htm Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024