constitutionality of using public funds to promote religion

Quit taking things out of context. By themselves does not refer to doing it without God, but to the fact the government is a democratic republic. Why not just own up to the truth here? By themselves in the same paragraph he states God-did-it in stating "the Great Author of every public and private good." Clearly, he thinks God was involved.I've got to get some sleep, but if you cannot acknowledge something as plainly stated as this, you have real problems. It's useless to argue with you because it seems you are arguing without merit. On the one hand, you admit Washington states God originated the ideas and made things providential for them, and then pretend God was not "the Author" even though he says He was. It's really silly because you contradict yourself here.

ahem.

quote:

---

Quit taking things out of context.

---

you first. if you actually understood deism at all, this wouldn't be a problem. heck, you've already admitted that it sure sounds deist, haven't you?

---

אָרַח

Valid for what? Who said that presidents could not have personal faith, or express personal faith during moments of personal reflection?Your clear statement was that his address was pushing religion. If you are now going to back off that claim, then I guess there is no argument.You also suggested this was an indication that religion was accepted within the functions of govt. That it is only seen during a moment of personal reflection and he sets this as the context within that speech, is counter to your implication. If you are going to back off that as well, then there is no argument.If your entire argument has been simply to show that Washington had a faith of some kind, then there is no argument from me. He certainly had a different faith from most Xians of the day and today, but he had a faith and it was important to him. I did not see a correction, other than to say only look at the first address. I think the fact that you said look at both, and then had to correct yourself is something. It shows a lack of understanding of history on your part, no? And it shows that you were willing to draw conclusions from a single instance, rather than a body of work. It means that one cannot use faith to determine what are the right laws to impress upon the nation and individuals within the nation. While you are correct... and I have not said otherwise... that he believed God or a Godlike force has hands in the affairs of men and can allow for the success or failure of a nation, what did he clearly indicate was to be the decision making process for law? What was to be the limit of law on the individual?Once again I must point out that you look at an opening and closing personal prayer, and miss the very important content within his speech. I guess we can be thankful he didn't decide to open and end on a joke or standup comedians would be vying for courses on the importance of comedy to the formation and function of our govt. Undoubtedly Washington believed that a state would be answerable to A Creator. Not THE Creator as that would indicate some sort of relevance to your religion, which he did not share. And this is the more important point, from all the things he wrote and did it appears he would have allowed you to believe it is answerable to Your Creator, and to No Creator should someone not have believed in Creators.I'm still not sure how you miss the importance of this. He separated the personal from the public.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, you seem to have been arguing that public funds should be used to promote religion, or views of religion.You have used arguments that Congress has chaplains and that there has been prayer, as well as the fact that Washington said a prayer in one address, that the boundary between the two is illusory.If I have gotten this wrong, you may correct me. Yes there is a plan to evangelize america. That is what evangelism is, right? It's not like you can hide that from someone who has grown up within Xian communities and evangelicals in specific. The point is conversion. The point currently is to meld religion into the political arena.Even if there is not a "plot" to brainwash people into one version of Xianity, there is an effort to pose a threat to society for shifting away from mythical Xian roots, and a desire to force people to view the US and much of history from a Xian perspective, despite the errancy of that view.In short, even if not to be a Xian, to adhere to its moral laws, and react from a Xian viewpoint.Are you seriously going to deny this? Intriguingly he seemed to believe his deity had rewarded the nation for pursuing reason and rationality and expanding freedom of intellectual pursuits. That he might pursue one course and you might pursue another.That is not the evangelical view of God or what was implied by Washington's faith.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm sorry, but is this your attempt to argue this is a Xian nation? He clearly did not think God formed this nation. It was himself and others that did, and personally he thanked God for the success that had been awarded.You notice that he addressed those around essentially begging their indulgence for what he felt he had to do personally, and suggesting that those around him would feel the same. That did not indicate he thought others should, or that this was God's nation.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I already showed you where in this same speech he specifically defined morality as private in nature within this new govt.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Then deal with the evidence presented that refutes your claims. Except you have not demonstrated "very" -- or "deeply" (your previous adjective) -- and this has been refuted by the evidence from Washingtons life rather than based on your opinion. The evidence says otherwise.You take an example from one specific instance in one moment of Washington's life and build a fantasy on that, while I show you the rest of his life was other than what your fantasy would require. In other words you reject it because it challenges your pet beliefs on the matter: they show Washingtons public and private attitude on religion. ROFLOL. I post facts about Washingtons life and you are making up stuff about how religious he was ... stuff contradicted by the facts presented. Denial is like that.Enjoy your fantasy randman.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

Do you guys on the Left just think there is some sinister plot to use the government to make you be a Christian or something?

---

There is certainly a plan by powerful fundamentalist people in the US government to "Christianize" our laws and culture, yes.Banning gay marriage, putting limits on divorce, the Whitehouse putting pressure on the FDA to restrict the release of over the counter birth control for women, cutting of funds and leagal restrictions for family planning and abortion services for women here and internationally, faith-based initiatives that get government funds and do not restrict evangelizing, candidates for school boards running on false pretenses in order to ram through religiously-based curricula, the restriction on most stem cell research, Bush appointing a man to head up his advisory committee to the FDA on women's health who prescribes the reading of scripture and prayer as a treatment to alleviate menstrual cramps and who is completely opposed to all forms of birth control, etc., etc., etc.I'm sure others could also come up with many more examples, as could I if I did some research, but these are just off the top of my head.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-17-2005 08:01 AM

quote:

---

but that he felt God should be acknowledged and credited with the formation of the nation.

---

So, does that mean that when a football player makes a touchdown, and says a prayer of thanks, that he believes that God created that touchdown?

You know I was really looking forward to see what his response was going to be to that question, but I guess it won't be coming.Interesting that they want prayer (at football games) despite the fact that it might offend others, but ban nipples because that might offend others. That would have been closer to a religious experience for me than any prayer. Indeed that before football games might increase attendance.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-18-2005 08:24 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Please tell me you're exagerating for effect here.Please.I'm male but I sat reading this saying to myself "This can't be true, not even in the Bush Administration".This is the kind of thing you expect to hear about in some of the more backward Third World countries with failed or non-existant education systems and rampant cronyism or nepotism.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

It's true. Another "Brownie" point for the Botch administration.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The rest of the story is even worse. The fellow (a gynecologist, IIRC) resigned in the wake of accusations from an ex-wife that he favored marital anal rape; she described him as a control freak who refused a joint checking account and paid for his sexual violence with unsolicited cash.The Nation controversially published his ex-wife's accusations, complete with confirming testimony of her anguish from contemporaneous friends. No strong attempt was made by the accused or his political allies to deny the charges, but he resigned and faded from view rather abruptly.

Here is an article about Dr. Hager written last May or so. (I hope that you have a strong stomach when you read this.)

While it's likely that no President since Reagan has been surrounded by as many incompetent people as Bush (or his Dad since it's pretty much the same role call), that really isn't the subject of this thread.