|
Author
|
Topic: constitutionality of using public funds to promote religion
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: addressing washington
must a person be christian to invoke the word "god?" No and I have never claimed Washington was a Christian or not a Christian. I have claimed he was very religious, particularly in his political philosophy and approach, but also in his manner. He quite explicitly gave the most religious speech for his inaugural address that I know of, for any president, and more religious than some sermons. Why you don't acknowledge that is a mystery? Moreover, why don't you actually deal with my points? You have ignored what Washington said, and instead argue about whether he was a Christian or not which is not even relevant to the thread.
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
Message 47 of 78 (260462)
11-17-2005 2:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by randman
11-17-2005 2:06 AM
|
|
Re: Washington and religion
Washington believed in an active God that rules among the affairs of men, specifically causing events to be America's favor, "almighty being," "great author,' and "invisible hand" are pretty good indications of deism. maybe washington likes an active deist god, who knows. but his words sound like expressions of providence, not miracle.
Washington had a fairly Christian concept of God it's 1789 in post-colonial america. EVERYONE had a fairly christian concept of god. i think you fill todays deism a little different from 1700's deism. same goes for christianity.
The important thing is not whether he was a Christian in his private life, but that he felt God should be acknowledged and credited with the formation of the nation. does he? let's look.
quote:
His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes
quote:
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;
what did i say about providence?
quote:
not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication 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 advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views
the close personal and involved god that give "opportunities?" he's saying "we formed the government, and god's happy about it." that's not the same as saying god should be creditted with the formation of the old u.s. of a.
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by randman, posted 11-17-2005 2:06 AM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 49 by randman, posted 11-17-2005 2:33 AM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 48 of 78 (260463)
11-17-2005 2:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 46 by randman
11-17-2005 2:10 AM
|
|
Re: addressing washington
He quite explicitly gave the most religious speech for his inaugural address that I know of, for any president, and more religious than some sermons. Why you don't acknowledge that is a mystery? because it's not a very religious speech. i see about four sentances that relate to god at all. he talks abotu god -- in a very deist manner -- for half of the second paragraph, and a bit in the conclusion.
Moreover, why don't you actually deal with my points? You have ignored what Washington said, and instead argue about whether he was a Christian or not which is not even relevant to the thread. see above.
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by randman, posted 11-17-2005 2:10 AM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 50 by NosyNed, posted 11-17-2005 2:35 AM | | arachnophilia has not replied | | | Message 51 by randman, posted 11-17-2005 2:46 AM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: Washington and religion
it's 1789 in post-colonial america. EVERYONE had a fairly christian concept of god. Thanks for acknowledging that truth, and Washington felt and expressed gratitude towards that God. I admit the words he used to describe God such as Creator and Invisible Hand were more Deist sounding and broader sounding, but you have to realize that Washington's faith differed a lot from, say, Paine's Deism which was denounced at times as atheist, although that is probably incorrect.
the close personal and involved god that give "opportunities?" he's saying "we formed the government, and god's happy about it." that's not the same as saying god should be creditted with the formation of the old u.s. of a. That's a misrepresentation of what he stated. Why not use the full quotes or at least the sections such as:
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; 1. He states God is the Author of every private and public good; " the Great Author of every public and private good." That's a powerful theological statement. It credits God with originating our own good deeds and that good government comes from God as well as many other things. 2. God does not just originate the good that we do, but He stated that God providentially helped pave the way. What could be more clearer? This message has been edited by randman, 11-17-2005 02:34 AM
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
Christian Prayer
You might note in his first post here ( Message 16 RM was talking about the importance of congress opening with a Christian prayer. Now we find this very important (to him) prayer isn't Christian at all. Perhaps the nation was not founded as a Christian one after all. It seems that RM can't remember what he is arguing for from day to day but you have managed a miracle and gotten him to understand that just maybe, the founders were NOT founding a CHRISTIAN nation. Now he'd just love it to be a god based one. Of course, he doesn't know what god they are talking about but at this point he might be happy with Shiva and pretend that was his original arguement anyway. 
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 52 by randman, posted 11-17-2005 2:50 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: addressing washington
The speech is 6 paragraphs.The first deals with his personal issues of accepting the presidency. The 2nd paragraph is entirely religious in nature and specifically links God to the success of the nation and lays out his fundamental belief and gratitude in the Creator, setting politics in a religious perspective. Read it.
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. The 3rd paragraph deals with his pledge and belief in morality, and once again sets this idea within a religious perspective in his closing.
...since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people. The 4th paragraph deals with the fact the level of Executive powers are to be worked out more clearly, and the 5th deals with his renumeration. He closes by reminding everyone of the religious concepts he laid out so forcefully earlier.
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. So I'd say 2.5 paragraphs are totally religious in nature, and considering this was a political speech, and he chose to underline the entire speech with religious faith towards the Creator, the Author of every private and public good, I take exception to your claim the speech is not very religious.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 52 of 78 (260469)
11-17-2005 2:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 50 by NosyNed
11-17-2005 2:35 AM
|
|
Re: Christian Prayer
Ned, I don't know if you too old, and thus feeble-minded or what, but the context of talking about Christian prayer in Congress concerned the fact that Congress did not consider it against the establishment clause, not that I was arguing they wanted to make Christianity the official state religion. In fact, I was arguing that public religious expression is not equal to public establishment of religion in the law. I guess that's too difficult a concept for you to grasp. You just see someone saying "Christian", and it's like waving a red flag to a bull, eh?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 50 by NosyNed, posted 11-17-2005 2:35 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 53 of 78 (260471)
11-17-2005 2:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by randman
11-17-2005 2:33 AM
|
|
Re: Washington and religion
I admit the words he used to describe God such as Creator and Invisible Hand were more Deist sounding and broader sounding good.
but you have to realize that Washington's faith differed a lot from, say, Paine's Deism that's the nature of deism.
the close personal and involved god that give "opportunities?" he's saying "we formed the government, and god's happy about it." that's not the same as saying god should be creditted with the formation of the old u.s. of a. That's a misrepresentation of what he stated. Why not use the full quotes or at least the sections such as: why not read the quote box right above it that i was referring to.
quote:
not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication 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 advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views
what he's saying is that god gave us opportunity and disposition -- with which WE (not god) created our government.
1. He states God is the Author of every private and public good; " the Great Author of every public and private good." That's a powerful theological statement. It credits God with originating our own good deeds and that good government comes from God as well as many other things. no, he doesn't.
quote:
His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves 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,
his speech, and maybe the government, is an homage to the author of good. but god is not the author of the government -- THE PEOPLE ARE.
2. God does not just originate the good that we do, but He stated that God providentially helped pave the way. providentially. as in providence, which is a loosely religious concept at best. he said the god gave us the situation and mindset, but that's it.
What could be more clearer? even you agree this is pretty clear
quote:
I admit the words he used to describe God such as Creator and Invisible Hand were more Deist sounding and broader sounding
.
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by randman, posted 11-17-2005 2:33 AM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 55 by randman, posted 11-17-2005 3:05 AM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 54 of 78 (260472)
11-17-2005 3:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 51 by randman
11-17-2005 2:46 AM
|
|
Re: addressing washington
So I'd say 2.5 paragraphs are totally religious in nature, 3 paragraphs contain religious references, yes. half of paragraph two is religious, sure. here's the second half:
quote:
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.
where's the talk about god?
quote:
..since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained
heaven ≠ god. getting vaguer. vaguery on religion is a sure sign of deism.
I take exception to your claim the speech is not very religious. considerin how most of the speech isn;t religious at all, and the parts that are are pretty vague as to WHICH religion, i'd say that's a strange exception. {added by edit} just for the heck of it, here's some political speech that IS christian, from 20 years later or so:
quote:
The authorities show that blasphemy against God, and contumelious reproaches and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures, (which are equally treated as blasphemy,) are offences punishable at common law, whether uttered by words or writings
little more specific, hm? This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-17-2005 03:04 AM
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by randman, posted 11-17-2005 2:46 AM | | randman has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: Washington and religion
what he's saying is that god gave us opportunity and disposition -- with which WE (not god) created our government. He is still crediting God with being the Author of our government anyway you look at it. What do you think he means when he says "the Author of every public and private good"? Of course, he is not claiming God did this without he and the revolutionaries, but so what? You think I was stating he is claiming God just went "poof" and created the USA without people ever being involved? Get real and read the darn speech.
his speech, and maybe the government, is an homage to the author of good. but god is not the author of the government -- THE PEOPLE ARE. Once again, what do you think he means by referring to "the Author of every public and private good"? Of course, the people created the government, but Washington is saying God is the Author of the government, and thus suggests the people were one of the agencies God employed in bringing it to pass. And heck, do you think there is any preacher now or back then that would say any differently (provided they believed it was God)? You act like a Christian would say, hey, we didn't fight this war. God did it, and the people were not part of it. What the heck really are you talking about?
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 56 of 78 (260474)
11-17-2005 3:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by randman
11-17-2005 2:50 AM
|
|
Re: Christian Prayer
no, i'm concerned with this one, singular misrepresentation. you called washington's speech "a prayer." why?
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by randman, posted 11-17-2005 2:50 AM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 58 by randman, posted 11-17-2005 3:14 AM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 57 of 78 (260475)
11-17-2005 3:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 55 by randman
11-17-2005 3:05 AM
|
|
Re: Washington and religion
He is still crediting God with being the Author of our government anyway you look at it. no, not anyway you look at it. one more time in big letters: United States a Government instituted by themselves how do you figure that "instituted by themselves" means "god is the author of our government?"
Get real and read the darn speech. why don't you? christian prayer, right.
And heck, do you think there is any preacher now or back then that would say any differently (provided they believed it was God)? You act like a Christian would say, hey, we didn't fight this war. God did it, and the people were not part of it. What the heck really are you talking about? it doesn't read like christian turns of phrase. it just doesn't. there's no use of the word "God" or the name "Jesus" or the title "LORD." and yes, i think a christian then WOULD have said it differently.
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 55 by randman, posted 11-17-2005 3:05 AM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 61 by randman, posted 11-17-2005 3:20 AM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: Christian Prayer
You asked:
you called washington's speech "a prayer." why? Because Washington called it a prayer.
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. Supplications and thanksgiving and acknowledgement of God are forms of prayer. Washington said he was offering "my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being", and it's pretty clear he considers his references to "His benediction..." to be a prayer and homage even if expressed in a manner which seems to us to not directly address God. Clearly Washington felt it did address God as a fervent supplication. Are you going to answer the questions or not?
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 59 of 78 (260478)
11-17-2005 3:15 AM
|
Reply to: Message 58 by randman
11-17-2005 3:14 AM
|
|
Re: Christian Prayer
ok, so when jay-z or someone wins a grammy, and gets up and thanks god, that's prayer?
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by randman, posted 11-17-2005 3:14 AM | | randman has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 60 of 78 (260479)
11-17-2005 3:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 58 by randman
11-17-2005 3:14 AM
|
|
dodgeball
Are you going to answer the questions or not? which questions are those? and why should i? you never do. why should i bother to engage in an honest discussion with someone who simply ignores the opposition whenever their position is in danger? This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-17-2005 03:18 AM
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by randman, posted 11-17-2005 3:14 AM | | randman has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2