Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,590 Year: 2,847/9,624 Month: 692/1,588 Week: 98/229 Day: 9/61 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4946 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


(1)
Message 141 of 331 (571642)
08-01-2010 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by JRTjr
10-08-2009 12:24 AM


Re: Except it does violate the 1st amendment!?
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:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
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:
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
quote:
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
quote:
May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by JRTjr, posted 10-08-2009 12:24 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by JRTjr, posted 09-04-2010 7:38 AM Bikerman has not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4946 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 145 of 331 (572225)
08-04-2010 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by JRTjr
08-04-2010 2:44 PM


Re: FRe: Opposite World?!?!?
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:
"All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable."
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:
The priests of the superstition, a bloodthirsty race, are as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel. That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore.
quote:
"It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism, he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it."
quote:
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
quote:
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."
Clear as crystal to anyone who wants to read the words....
What of Ben Franklin?
quote:
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my 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."
quote:
When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
quote:
"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."
Adams?
quote:
The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.
quote:
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
quote:
". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
quote:
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."
Again it seems pretty clear to me....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by JRTjr, posted 08-04-2010 2:44 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Bikerman, posted 08-04-2010 9:52 PM Bikerman has not replied
 Message 147 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-04-2010 11:02 PM Bikerman has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4946 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 146 of 331 (572245)
08-04-2010 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Bikerman
08-04-2010 7:23 PM


Re: FRe: Opposite World?!?!?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Bikerman, posted 08-04-2010 7:23 PM Bikerman has not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4946 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 148 of 331 (572254)
08-05-2010 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Adminnemooseus
08-04-2010 11:02 PM


Re: Random administrative reference request (RARR)
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 links
q1. 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-04-2010 11:02 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4946 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 150 of 331 (572432)
08-05-2010 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by JRTjr
08-05-2010 11:10 AM


Re: Except it does violate the 1st amendment!?
quote:
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.)
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:
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. (See the cases in which negatives were put by J. M. on two bills passd by Congs and his signature withheld from another. See also attempt in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes.
  —"Madison"
and
quote:
"We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."
  —"Madison"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by JRTjr, posted 08-05-2010 11:10 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by JRTjr, posted 09-12-2010 4:37 PM Bikerman has not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4946 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 169 of 331 (573583)
08-12-2010 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by JRTjr
08-10-2010 11:16 PM


quote:
I have actually given several examples in this string; however let’s just start with the Declaration of Independence which sited more then two dozen Biblical violations as the justification for their need for independence from England.
No, it cited more than two dozen violations of natural justice, not a single one of which mentions, alludes to or references the bible in any way, and all of which are completely secular in nature, being mostly concerned with legislation, taxation and supporting hostile powers/peoples. None of those are religious 'violations' -
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s
Last time I checked legislation and taxation were definitely in the 'Caeser' category.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by JRTjr, posted 08-10-2010 11:16 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by JRTjr, posted 10-27-2010 1:36 PM Bikerman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024