Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2018 9:41 AM
242 online now:
DrJones*, herebedragons, jar, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx (7 members, 235 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 835,582 Year: 10,405/29,783 Month: 1,069/1,583 Week: 87/451 Day: 19/68 Hour: 4/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
91011Next
Author Topic:   A Closer Look at Pat Robertson
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 106 of 160 (237892)
08-28-2005 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by nwr
08-27-2005 9:13 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
Read the whole thing. "Congress shall make no law respecting en establishment of religion."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by nwr, posted 08-27-2005 9:13 PM nwr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Theodoric, posted 08-28-2005 2:56 AM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 107 of 160 (237895)
08-28-2005 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by crashfrog
08-27-2005 9:27 PM


obfuscation
In typical fashion you totally misrepresent others. Clearly, I said he believes in the original meaning of the term, true separation of Church and State, but not the modern definition, which no one should, because it's merely a mask for denigrating religion and religious values and ideas.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2005 9:27 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2005 8:35 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 108 of 160 (237896)
08-28-2005 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by randman
08-28-2005 2:53 AM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
and?? your point is??? How does this mean that christianity should be the preemiminat religion?

Oops I let you lead me off topic again. I promise I wont respond to your off topic BS arguments again


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by randman, posted 08-28-2005 2:53 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by randman, posted 08-28-2005 2:58 AM Theodoric has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 109 of 160 (237897)
08-28-2005 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Theodoric
08-28-2005 2:56 AM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
What are you talking about? Who is talking about using the government to make Christianity the preeminent religion?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Theodoric, posted 08-28-2005 2:56 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Theodoric, posted 08-28-2005 3:16 AM randman has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 110 of 160 (237900)
08-28-2005 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by randman
08-28-2005 2:58 AM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
If there is no seperation of church and state what happens?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by randman, posted 08-28-2005 2:58 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by randman, posted 08-28-2005 3:31 AM Theodoric has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 111 of 160 (237901)
08-28-2005 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Theodoric
08-28-2005 3:16 AM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
Theodric, I know of no Christian minister in the country that wants to see a marriage of Church and State.

What Robertson and many are oppossed to are bogus concepts that use the phrase "separation of Church and State" but really are nothing but attempts to codify anti-religious bigotry. Specifically, these anti-religionists argue it is wrong to allow people to use religious values to influence legislation.

Under the false concept termed "separation" but really is joining of the State with a certain ideology of secularism, someone like Martin Luther King was wrong because he sought and did use his religious values to influence legislation. Of course, the liberals making these bogus claims which have become accepted even in the courts to a degree, don't bash MLK, jr. for the most part. You might could find some atheists that do, but overall they really want to use the argument to denigrate religious conservatives and suggest they are wrong to try to see their values used as a basis for governmental legislation.

Their claims are in effect that the government is to have a secular ideology that is hostile towards religious values.

But the government is not suppossed to substitute a marriage of Church and State with a marriage of Ideology and State. It's not suppossed to be "secular" in that sense. It's suppossed to not pass laws to establish an official religion, whether religious or secular, and the reason is that the law should not be used to coerce people in religious affairs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Theodoric, posted 08-28-2005 3:16 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Theodoric, posted 08-28-2005 3:38 AM randman has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 112 of 160 (237902)
08-28-2005 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by randman
08-28-2005 3:31 AM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
Ok I won't bite because you are off topic again, but as always you make claims with no backing evidence. You really need to post evidence if you want to convince anyone. Rhetoric gets you no where
This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by randman, posted 08-28-2005 3:31 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by randman, posted 08-28-2005 3:41 AM Theodoric has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 113 of 160 (237903)
08-28-2005 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Theodoric
08-28-2005 3:38 AM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
What do you think is unsubstantiated? You really think PR and other Christians want a marriage of Church and State so they can force people to be Christians?

That's very sad if you are so deluded.

As far as George Washington and Thomas Paine, where should I start? I have no idea what your knowledge is so how can I substantiate what you do not know if you are so lacking in knowledge of the era.

I assume you know Washington was the first president?

Are you aware of his inaugural addresses? They both are religious in nature and reflect a man that was a religious thinker in many respects.

So that's your substantiation. Go and read them for yourself, if you don't believe me.

Concerning Thomas Paine. Are you aware of the disagreement between Paine and Washington? Do I have to start at the beginning? Do you even know who Paine was and what his beliefs towards religion were?

This message has been edited by randman, 08-28-2005 03:46 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Theodoric, posted 08-28-2005 3:38 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Theodoric, posted 08-28-2005 3:57 AM randman has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 114 of 160 (237909)
08-28-2005 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by randman
08-28-2005 3:41 AM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
Please start at the beginning since you think I am so stupid. What was his disagreement with Paine. Then I will start a new thread since you cant seem to keep from going off topic. But I truly want to hear your interpretation of why the extremeely religious(actually a deist)Washington broke with the atheist Paine. This should be fun.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by randman, posted 08-28-2005 3:41 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by randman, posted 08-28-2005 4:51 AM Theodoric has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 115 of 160 (237918)
08-28-2005 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Theodoric
08-28-2005 3:57 AM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
This is what I said.

Anti-religious people like Thomas Paine were totally discredited in the eyes of the public, and more religious thinkers like Washington, who could arguably be considered an Enlightenment thinker as well, were applauded.

You could, if you would spend a little time learning, discover why Paine was eventually scorned by American soceity.

Meanwhile, he completed and published his critique of religion, The Age of Reason, with part I in 1794 and part II in 1796. ...
Christians do not attempt to know God in a reasonable way, Paine wrote. The Bible is rife with inconsistencies, subject to many interpretations, and therefore fallible. He compared the mythology of the Trinity with the paternity of Zeus, still a provocative analogy. Having dispensed with Christianity, Paine spoke again about his deist God as the power and the wisdom anyone can witness directly in nature. He wrote that God is evident "in the immensity of the creation, ...in the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible is governed."

Unwelcome Homecoming
THE first copy of The Age of Reason to arrive in America for U.S. publication was lent to Thomas Jefferson for a first reading. In returning the book to the printer, Jefferson scribbled a genial note to offset the tome's "dryness," he later said. In his brief note, he remarked that the essay was useful as an antidote for "political heresies" of the time. The quip by deist Republican Jefferson of Virginia was a slam aimed at his chief political rival, the Unitarian Federalist John Adams of Massachusetts.

Without the consent of either Paine or Jefferson, the printer published the note as a preface. The unsanctioned action was costly, and it inadvertently changed the course of history.

Federalists vented their outrage at the preface. John Quincy Adams, writing as "Publicola" within the Columbian Sentinel, condemned Paine for his religious principles, then blasted rival Jefferson for his indiscretion in the "preface."

Fueled by public fervor, John Adams was elected the second U.S. President in 1796. He signed the four Alien and Sedition acts in 1798, aimed to repress the Republican party of Jefferson, who won a bitter 1800 election to be the third U.S. President.

President Jefferson offered Tom Paine free passage home on a navy ship. Paine declined, but the offer roused his interest. Returning on a private ship, the Maryland, he landed a second time in America in October 1801. He'd later rue his return.

A mob met Paine at the docks, cursing his name.

Never an easy person to love, now faced real hatred. Paine's Letter to Washington and the firestorm over the unauthorized preface for The Age of Reason, sadly, converged to alienate most of his prior allies and patrons in the young nation.

Now a reviled figure, Paine was taunted in the streets, pelted with rocks by children. He was rejected from debates between Federalists and Republicans over centralized vs. decentralized national government. Henry Adams wrote that Paine now was "regarded by respectable society, both Federalist and Republican, as a person to be avoided, a person to be feared."

http://www.media-visions.com/tompaine.html

Thomas Paine, a key American founder and Deist, was totally rejected and ostracized, whether right or wrong, for his attack on religion.

Washington was a Deist, or was at one point, but was also very religious, attending church, and in his first inaugural address, says this:

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by t hemselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure my self that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United Stat es. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tran quil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anti cipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under t he influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.

....

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplica tion that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advanc ement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/wash1.html

Washington in effect repudiates the secularism of the French Revolution and Thomas Paine, and calls to mind the need for "supplication" to the "Almighty Being.... whose providential aids can supply every human defect."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Theodoric, posted 08-28-2005 3:57 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Theodoric, posted 08-28-2005 4:54 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 116 of 160 (237919)
08-28-2005 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by randman
08-28-2005 4:51 AM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
Well lets start a new topic, because you are spouting absolute BS>
This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by randman, posted 08-28-2005 4:51 AM randman has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 160 (237937)
08-28-2005 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by randman
08-28-2005 2:55 AM


Re: obfuscation
Clearly, I said he believes in the original meaning of the term, true separation of Church and State, but not the modern definition, which no one should, because it's merely a mask for denigrating religion and religious values and ideas.

Since the article does not refer to any particular definition of the church-state separation, I don't see how this is relevant to the thread, or to a claim that the wiki article is somehow biased or inaccurate.

Church-state issues are not on-topic in this thread. Again I must ask you to take these arguments to the thread specifically opened on that topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 08-28-2005 2:55 AM randman has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 118 of 160 (238036)
08-28-2005 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Phat
08-27-2005 3:13 AM


Re: After a bit of googling....
Yeah I looked up that quote too, but didn't think it was the saem one.


porteus@gmail.com
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 08-27-2005 3:13 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 1962 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 119 of 160 (238229)
08-29-2005 9:06 AM


This could get interesting...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4194108.stm
Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Tal, posted 08-30-2005 12:31 PM CK has not yet responded

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 3511 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 120 of 160 (238585)
08-30-2005 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by CK
08-29-2005 9:06 AM


Re: This could get interesting...
Hugo Chavez said Venezuela might even seek to extradite Pat Robertson.

That isn't happening. Countries have trouble extraditing real criminals, I don't see how he's gonna get the FBI to turn over Pat to the Venezuelan authorities. Does he have a warrant? Has he gone through their legal system? I mean, we can't extradite US felons that live in frickin Canada.

"I announce that my government is going to take legal action in the United States... to call for the assassination of a head of state is an act of terrorism," Mr Chavez said in a televised speech.

"If the US government does not take action that it must take, we will go to the United Nations and the Organization of American States to denounce the US government," Mr Chavez said.

Anyone know what the Organization of American States is?


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by CK, posted 08-29-2005 9:06 AM CK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by nwr, posted 08-30-2005 1:45 PM Tal has responded
 Message 124 by Phat, posted 08-31-2005 6:50 AM Tal has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
67
8
91011Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018