Founding Fathers and Revisionary Interpretation

[Calvinist4Him]

First I think if would be helpful if we define our terms. By "founding fathers", I am referring to the original authors and signers of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Founding fathers include historical figures such as: Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. By "revisonary interpretation", I mean interpretation which is independent of the original authors thoughts and intent.

Second I feel the need to make a disclaimer, I am by no means an expert on this subject, but I would like to learn more on this subject, because it seems to be relevant to today. I ordered the book: "Founding Fathers: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution" from Amazon.com today. I plan on purchasing the book: "New Views of the Constitution" by John Taylor in the near future.

Amendment I of the Bill of Rights states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

From the following article: http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/enlight/prayer.htm

Supreme Court Ruling: Official prayer in public schools is a violation of the Constitution which states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."

Majority Opinion Excerpt

The decision of Supreme Court in the case of Engel v. Vitale was delivered by Justice Hugo Black in 1962. Representing the majority opinion of 5-2, Black wrote:

The religious nature of prayer was recognized by Jefferson, and has been concurred in by theological writers, the United States Supreme court, and State courts and administrative officials, including New York's Commissioner of Education. A committee of the New York legislature has agreed.

The petitioners contend... that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause... We agree with this contention since we think that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

The New York laws officially prescribing the Regent's prayer are inconsistent both with the purposes of the Establishment Clause and with the Establishment Clause itself.

Dissenting Opinion Excerpt

Justice potter Stewart wrote:

I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an "official religion" is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation.

He continued with excerpts from speeches made by presidents of the United States from Washington to Kennedy that made some sort of reference to God or religion. He also used Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address. On March 4, 1805, President Thomas Jefferson said:

". . . I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations."

The principles outlined in Engel v. Vitale were extended to a voluntary moment of silence in the 1985 case of Wallace v. Jaffe.

My thoughts on the Engel v. Vitale case: One one hand I agree with part of the decision that neither the government (Congress), nor the state, should have the authority to impose prayer in public schools. On the other hand, I disagree with the notion that individual teachers in public schools should not have the freedom to resite a prayer with their students. I agree that public school teachers should not have the authority to force students to pray, but that students should have the freedom to decide for theirselves.

Is the Supreme Court ruling in the Engel v. Vitale case, a revisionary interpretation or is it in line with the thoughts and writings of the founding fathers?

[Conductor42]

I don't think their is any rule prohibiting a teacher for praying with his or her students, so long as it is not part of the official class.

[Thomas2003]

My thoughts on the Engel v. Vitale case: One one hand I agree with part of the decision that neither the government (Congress), nor the state, should have the authority to impose prayer in public schools. On the other hand, I disagree with the notion that individual teachers in public schools should not have the freedom to resite a prayer with their students. I agree that public school teachers should not have the authority to force students to pray, but that students should have the freedom to decide for theirselves.

Is the Supreme Court ruling in the Engel v. Vitale case, a revisionary interpretation or is it in line with the thoughts and writings of the founding fathers?

It's much worse than revisionism, it's Treason. Please understand, I do not say that as an emotional laden response, but from simple facts of making war against the foundations of our social order. It's revolutionary and an illegality of the highest order, the Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally and has proscribed free exercise of religion in the name of disestablishment.

I've written a bit on this subject matter in other threads, and you'll find something very odd as it flows from the impetus of this presupposition and its predecessor in 1947. In 1954 Congress, for the first time in its history, began regulating religion through the commerce clause as a "non-profit" commercial activity. It's proposes licensure and establishment through voluntary submission.

When the 14th Amendment was established a Congressman named Blaine attempted six times to have it defined in terms of the First Amendment and applied backwards against the States and six times the full Congress rejected it as contrary to the intent of the 14th Amendment. It's purpose was to extend the social liberty of citizenship to the negro, that is all, not to be the foundation of Judicial revolution against the foundations of American jurisprudence.

Our Constitutions, both federal and state, are common law documents - they do not exist in a vacuum. The purpose of the First Amendment was to insure that the federal government could not claim the religious Sovereignty of the King of England in the common law and to chain that claim to the common law itself. It was to prohibit a national denomination of Christianity as the offical denomination of the federal union, not to act detrimental to the free exercise clause. Thus, the federal government could not claim to be "head of the Church." The several States plugging their law directly into the common law have the legal authority to regulate religion in terms of their Constitutions, which were all beneficial and harmonius with Christianity.

"Establishing religion" was to proscribe or prescribe certain tenents, not general assent, and it's not nor was it ever intended to be equalitarian. Other religions were free to exercise their faith in America in concert with the common law and general Christianity - if it was hostile to these things then it is lawful to regulate it, such as the case with Mormonism in the Reynolds v US, 1878, the first "free exercise" case.

In 1947 the Court shifted, upon its own motion and its own claim, from consistent historic law in regards to "establishment" going back to Constantine, and embarked on a new course consistent with a Marxist definition and view of law. No pope, no king, ever acted with such hostility against Christianity itself as this Court has.

[alcibiades]

It's much worse than revisionism, it's Treason. Please understand, I do not say that as an emotional laden response, but from simple facts of making war against the foundations of our social order. It's revolutionary and an illegality of the highest order, the Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally and has proscribed free exercise of religion in the name of disestablishment.

I strongly disagree. Your notion as to the motivation for amendment flies in the face of extensive recorded discussion among those who wrote the amendment. It flies in the face of the intellectual context in which it was written, the enlightenment, and it flies in the face of the concept of a government based on pragmatism and secular and not on religion. A large number of the founders were only nominally Christian if that, and were more like deits.

It is clear that they intended that the government and religion be kept apart, and that, certainly no funding for religious institutions be supported.

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. James Madison

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. Benjamin Franklin

And of course, Jefferson's letter was the source of the phrae "separation of church and state".

[technomage]

Hi, Alcibiades,

This is not only a two year-old thread, but Calvinist4Him has not posted here for about a year and a half.

[Glenn P]

It flies in the face of the intellectual context in which it was written, the enlightenment,
This sentence caught my eye.

Can you please explain why it is contrary to the spirit of "the enlightenment" for a teacher to pray with students?

[alcibiades]

This sentence caught my eye.

Can you please explain why it is contrary to the spirit of "the enlightenment" for a teacher to pray with students?
For a teacher in a private environment, probably nothing. I was thinking more of the general notion of separation of church and state.

To my recollection the enlightenment fostered a spirit of reason and reduced the centrality of religion in society. I think this contributed to the impetus to keep religion and the state apart, although there were probably more immediate pragmatic reasons.

I don't think a prayer event organized in a public school is appropriate to our current scociety. Prayer can take place at any time in a persons mind or privately. To me the impetus to organize group prayer is to establish a social message, in some cases not welcome. Having experienced this sort of thing as a kid, I know its more problematic than many think.

[WinterStag]

This sentence caught my eye.

Can you please explain why it is contrary to the spirit of "the enlightenment" for a teacher to pray with students?

Well, one could somewhat wryly state that prayer itself as it pre-supposes a personal, accessible God runs contrary to the spirit enlightenment which generally pre-supposed a deism or agnosticism/atheism.

More to the actual point of the thread though, a lot of the conversation surrounding "original intent" of the 1st amendment as it applies to things like prayer in school tends to ignore a couple of rather important issues:

1) When drafting that amendment a government as expansive and intrusive as our present one is was never envisioned. Which is to say, the drafters had no "original intent" for how the amendment would apply to prayer in federally funded public schools, because no such thing existed at the time and few if any of them would've envisioned the existence of such an institution.

2) The founders themselves were never in perfect agreement of how to apply the amendment, and even individual ones changed positions at various times in their lives. Madison for example was responsible for establishing the tradition of a Chaplain opening sessions of congress with prayer, but would himself later express regret for doing so feeling that it was in fact an "establishment of religion".

[Glenn P]

Well, one could somewhat wryly state that prayer itself as it pre-supposes a personal, accessible God runs contrary to the spirit enlightenment which generally pre-supposed a deism or agnosticism/atheism.This is, with respect, mere ignorance. The enlightenment presupposed no such thing. Descartes, Berkely, Locke, Kant, ringing any bells? That there have been noteables who were not theists who also held to many enlightenment ideals is true, but it's not a defensible inference from this to say that the enlightenment presupposes non-thesism. It's just untrue.

More to the actual point of the thread though, a lot of the conversation surrounding "original intent" of the 1st amendment as it applies to things like prayer in school tends to ignore a couple of rather important issues:

1) When drafting that amendment a government as expansive and intrusive as our present one is was never envisioned. Which is to say, the drafters had no "original intent" for how the amendment would apply to prayer in federally funded public schools, because no such thing existed at the time and few if any of them would've envisioned the existence of such an institution.

2) The founders themselves were never in perfect agreement of how to apply the amendment, and even individual ones changed positions at various times in their lives. Madison for example was responsible for establishing the tradition of a Chaplain opening sessions of congress with prayer, but would himself later express regret for doing so feeling that it was in fact an "establishment of religion".

Well that may be, but my only objecttion that I intended to go into was what struck me as a very strange claim that the defence of a prayer in school somehow runs contrary to the enlightenment.

[WinterStag]

This is, with respect, mere ignorance. The enlightenment presupposed no such thing. Descartes, Berkely, Locke, Kant, ringing any bells?

Um, yes, and even while some like Locke would not have viewed themselves as Deist, his philosophical treatises formed the basis for Deism. Though perhaps it would be more accurate to say that deism and agnosticism were the ultimate logical conclusion of The Enlightenment and it's emphasis on reason and naturalism rather than it's presupposition.

[Philosophickle]

Um, yes, and even while some like Locke would not have viewed themselves as Deist, his philosophical treatises formed the basis for Deism. Though perhaps it would be more accurate to say that deism and agnosticism were the ultimate logical conclusion of The Enlightenment and it's emphasis on reason and naturalism rather than it's presupposition.

So you have Locke vs. the the list Jack produced? And the only way deism and agnosticism can be the logical conclusion of the Enlightenment is if there are premises from which that conclusion would follow.

So please, produce the premises of the Enlightenment.

[Glenn P]

Um, yes, and even while some like Locke would not have viewed themselves as Deist, his philosophical treatises formed the basis for Deism. Though perhaps it would be more accurate to say that deism and agnosticism were the ultimate logical conclusion of The Enlightenment and it's emphasis on reason and naturalism rather than it's presupposition.This just will not do.

Which premises of Locke form the basis of Deism?

In what way do necessray enlightenment principles logically require deism and agnosticism?

[WinterStag]

This just will not do.

Which premises of Locke form the basis of Deism?


Well, you're asking a question here that entire books have been written about, but here a short summation:

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=143
"Shortly after its invention by Lord Herbert, deism received indirect support from the physics of Isaac Newton (1642-1727) and the philosophy of John Locke (1632-1704). The physical world, according to Newton, was explicable in terms of “insurmountable and uniform natural laws” that could be discovered by observation and formulated mathematically. By mastering these laws human reason could explain cosmic events that had previously been ascribed to divine intervention. The beauty and variety of the system, Newton believed, was irrefutable evidence that it had been designed and produced by an intelligent and powerful Creator. Close though he was to deism, Newton differed from the strict deists insofar as he invoked God as a special physical cause to keep the planets in stable orbits. He believed in biblical prophecies, but rejected the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation as irrational.

Newton’s close friend John Locke, though not a deist, supplied an epistemological grounding for deism more plausible than the innatism of Lord Herbert. Beginning with human experience of the external world, he accepted a version of the argument from causality that demonstrated, as he thought, the existence of God as the uncaused Necessary Being, eternal, all-powerful, and all-knowing. Locke also believed in Christian revelation on the ground of biblical prophecies and miracles. But he held that reason should be the ultimate judge of all truth and that the firmness of our assent to any proposition should not exceed the strength of the evidence that we could produce in its favor. It followed that revealed truths, which rested on indirect proofs from reports in Scripture and tradition, were less certain than things known directly by reason. He rejected certain Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and the Incarnation, which in his judgment failed to meet the test of rational coherence. But, as I have said, he regarded himself as a Christian because he accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah foretold in biblical prophecy; he had no difficulty in admitting the miracles ascribed in the Bible to the prophets and to Jesus.

From Locke’s system it was but a small step to deism. In 1696 his disciple John Toland published the book Christianity not Mysterious, in which he attributed the mysteries of Christianity to pagan conceptions and the machinations of priestcraft. In 1730 another disciple, Matthew Tindal, published the book Christianity as Old as Creation, in which he sought to demonstrate that all rational creatures have access to “a law of nature or reason, absolutely perfect, eternal, and unchangeable; and that the design of the gospel was not to add to, or take from this law,” but only to rescue humankind from superstition. Tindal’s work, more radical than Toland’s, came be used as a kind of Bible of deism. Both Toland and Tindal were Christian deists; they accepted revelation but maintained that it was nothing more than a republication of the religion of pure reason. Reason alone, they believed, could establish the fundamental truths necessary for salvation. "


In what way do necessary enlightenment principles logically require deism and agnosticism?

Naturalism (or Empiricism to take the other branch of Enlightenment though) will ultimately lead to deism and then agnosticism/atheism. It didn't happen overnight, but once reason was elevated over revelation and human reason and/or experience became the ultimate test for what was "real" it became the inevitable conclusion, and so Western philosophy (with society only lagging slightly behind) move from orthodox Christianity to Unitarianism to Deism to Agnosticism/Atheism.

Now, none of this is to say that agnosticism/atheism is right or true (as I would hope you would surmise by own religious affiliation is far from my own conclusion), and in fact as modernity and "The Enlightenment Project" slowly fade away, we're already beginning to see the death of "hard atheism". As we move into the "post-modern" era I think we're quite likely a major resurgence of religious thought, but it will look a bit different than religion in the modern or pre-modern eras. (For a Christian perspective on this I would recommend "The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World" by Alister McGrath.)

[Glenn P]

Well, you're asking a question here that entire books have been written about, but here a short summation:

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=143
"Shortly after its invention by Lord Herbert, deism received indirect support from the physics of Isaac Newton (1642-1727) and the philosophy of John Locke (1632-1704). The physical world, according to Newton, was explicable in terms of “insurmountable and uniform natural laws” that could be discovered by observation and formulated mathematically. By mastering these laws human reason could explain cosmic events that had previously been ascribed to divine intervention. The beauty and variety of the system, Newton believed, was irrefutable evidence that it had been designed and produced by an intelligent and powerful Creator. Close though he was to deism, Newton differed from the strict deists insofar as he invoked God as a special physical cause to keep the planets in stable orbits. He believed in biblical prophecies, but rejected the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation as irrational.None of this suggests that Locke's views formed the basis of Deism, but let's look at what comes next:

Newton’s close friend John Locke, though not a deist, supplied an epistemological grounding for deism more plausible than the innatism of Lord Herbert. Beginning with human experience of the external world, he accepted a version of the argument from causality that demonstrated, as he thought, the existence of God as the uncaused Necessary Being, eternal, all-powerful, and all-knowing. Locke also believed in Christian revelation on the ground of biblical prophecies and miracles. But he held that reason should be the ultimate judge of all truth and that the firmness of our assent to any proposition should not exceed the strength of the evidence that we could produce in its favor. It followed that revealed truths, which rested on indirect proofs from reports in Scripture and tradition, were less certain than things known directly by reason. He rejected certain Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and the Incarnation, which in his judgment failed to meet the test of rational coherence. But, as I have said, he regarded himself as a Christian because he accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah foretold in biblical prophecy; he had no difficulty in admitting the miracles ascribed in the Bible to the prophets and to Jesus.Notice the issue here - epistemology. Many Christians throughout history could affirmed the epistemology outlined here. That means that Locke no more provided the basis for Deism than for various forms of Christianity.

When it says above that "reason should be the judge" of truth, it just means that Locke held to a fairly strictly rationalist epistemology when it comes to assessing religious claims to mircal and the like. Many Christians, rightly or otherwise, affirm this. But the step from this to the metaphysical (not epistemological) claim that is deism is truly massive. Deism is a view that denies Locke's views on God's relation to the world, prophecy, mircalkes and such, and a deist would reject outright Locke's entire work, The Reasonableness of Christianity.

From Locke’s system it was but a small step to deism.Good heavens no - it would be a herculean leap!

In 1696 his disciple John Toland published the book Christianity not Mysterious, in which he attributed the mysteries of Christianity to pagan conceptions and the machinations of priestcraft. In 1730 another disciple, Matthew Tindal, published the book Christianity as Old as Creation, in which he sought to demonstrate that all rational creatures have access to “a law of nature or reason, absolutely perfect, eternal, and unchangeable; and that the design of the gospel was not to add to, or take from this law,” but only to rescue humankind from superstition. Tindal’s work, more radical than Toland’s, came be used as a kind of Bible of deism. Both Toland and Tindal were Christian deists; they accepted revelation but maintained that it was nothing more than a republication of the religion of pure reason. Reason alone, they believed, could establish the fundamental truths necessary for salvation. "
Toland? Well, it's fair to say that Locke is not Tolland!

Naturalism (or Empiricism to take the other branch of Enlightenment though) will ultimately lead to deism and then agnosticism/atheism.Since naturalism is the view that the physical universe is all that exists, then of course it rules out a Christian outlook. But the enlightenment was not a naturalist movement.

It didn't happen overnight, but once reason was elevated over revelation and human reason and/or experience became the ultimate test for what was "real" it became the inevitable conclusion, and so Western philosophy (with society only lagging slightly behind) move from orthodox Christianity to Unitarianism to Deism to Agnosticism/Atheism.This is a new species of claim. Your previous claim was that deism/agnosticism is the logical conclusion of enlightement thought, such as that found in Locke. This claim is without support.

[WinterStag]

None of this suggests that Locke's views formed the basis of Deism, but let's look at what comes next:

Do you really not see how it progressed that once Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and Incarnation became open to evaluation and rejection on a rationalist basis, that for the exact same reasons ever other doctrine related to the supernatural could be evaluated and rejected?


Notice the issue here - epistemology. Many Christians throughout history could affirmed the epistemology outlined here. That means that Locke no more provided the basis for Deism than for various forms of Christianity.

Except that once a rationalist epistemology is accepted, then a naturalist metaphysic will follow. Not necessarily immediately, but within a generation or so. Sure, there have been Christians who have followed a rationalist epistemology, but in a culture where it's widely acceptedly you'll see Christianity begin to decline rather rapidly thereafter. (Or any other religion really.)


When it says above that "reason should be the judge" of truth, it just means that Locke held to a fairly strictly rationalist epistemology when it comes to assessing religious claims to mircal and the like. Many Christians, rightly or otherwise, affirm this. But the step from this to the metaphysical (not epistemological) claim that is deism is truly massive. Deism is a view that denies Locke's views on God's relation to the world, prophecy, mircalkes and such, and a deist would reject outright Locke's entire work, The Reasonableness of Christianity.

Have you ever read The Reasonableness of Christianity? While it was in many senses an attempt to refute deistic thought, and for much of the work he attempts to. However, after constructing his case for the belief in Jesus as Messiah becoming a requirement for salvation, he becomes uncomfortable with the end result that this would damn anyone who had never heard of Jesus, and veers off into a defense of a salvific "natural religion" that would make any Deist proud:

"To this I answer that God will require of every man 'according to what a man hath, and not according to what he hath not.' ". . . . many to whom the promise of the messiah never came, and so were never of a capacity to believe or reject that revelation--yet God had, by the light of reason, revealed to all mankind who would make use of that light, that He was good and merciful."

"The same spark of the divine nature and knowledge in man, which making him a man, showed him the law he was under, as a man, showed him also the way of atoning the merciful, kind, compassionate Author and Father of him and his being, when he transgressed that law. He that made use of this candle of the Lord, so far as to find what was his duty, could not miss to find also the way to reconciliation and forgiveness, when he had failed of his duty, though if he used not his reason this way, if he put out or neglected this light, he might, perhaps, see neither."

"The law is the eternal, immutable standard of right. And a part of that law is that a man should forgive, not only his children, but his enemies, upon their repentance, asking pardon, and amendment. And therefore he could not doubt that the Author of this law, and God of patience and consolation, who is rich in mercy, would forgive his frail offspring, if they acknowledged their faults, disapproved the iniquity of their transgressions, begged his pardon, and resolved in earnest, for the future to conform their actions to this rule, which they owned to be right. This way of reconciliation, this hope of atonement, the light of nature revealed to them; and the revelation of the gospel, having said nothing to the contrary, leaves them to stand or fall to their own Father and Master, whose goodness and mercy is over all his works."

The deists simply took this way of thinking and became more consistent with it.



Since naturalism is the view that the physical universe is all that exists, then of course it rules out a Christian outlook. But the enlightenment was not a naturalist movement.

Not at first no, it was an rationalist and empiricist movement, but both of these ultimately produce naturalism.


This is a new species of claim. Your previous claim was that deism/agnosticism is the logical conclusion of enlightement thought, such as that found in Locke. This claim is without support.

Except that I have supported it, and frankly it should be rather obvious purely from looking at the actual progression of philosophy and religion from the time Enlightenment.

[Glenn P]

Do you really not see how it progressed that once Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and Incarnation became open to evaluation and rejection on a rationalist basis, that for the exact same reasons ever other doctrine related to the supernatural could be evaluated and rejected?No. That's your assumption, certainly not mine or Locke's. Recall that Locke thought Christianity was entirely reasonable.

Except that once a rationalist epistemology is accepted, then a naturalist metaphysic will follow. Not necessarily immediately, but within a generation or so. Sure, there have been Christians who have followed a rationalist epistemology, but in a culture where it's widely acceptedly you'll see Christianity begin to decline rather rapidly thereafter. (Or any other religion really.)BACK UP - let's not allow you to forget that you claimed this was a matterof logical consequence. But now you've just taken a step back and admitted that it's not. Nice, thanks - but you ought to have admitted it.

Have you ever read The Reasonableness of Christianity? While it was in many senses an attempt to refute deistic thought, and for much of the work he attempts to. However, after constructing his case for the belief in Jesus as Messiah becoming a requirement for salvation, he becomes uncomfortable with the end result that this would damn anyone who had never heard of Jesus, and veers off into a defense of a salvific "natural religion" that would make any Deist proud:

"To this I answer that God will require of every man 'according to what a man hath, and not according to what he hath not.' ". . . . many to whom the promise of the messiah never came, and so were never of a capacity to believe or reject that revelation--yet God had, by the light of reason, revealed to all mankind who would make use of that light, that He was good and merciful."

"The same spark of the divine nature and knowledge in man, which making him a man, showed him the law he was under, as a man, showed him also the way of atoning the merciful, kind, compassionate Author and Father of him and his being, when he transgressed that law. He that made use of this candle of the Lord, so far as to find what was his duty, could not miss to find also the way to reconciliation and forgiveness, when he had failed of his duty, though if he used not his reason this way, if he put out or neglected this light, he might, perhaps, see neither."

"The law is the eternal, immutable standard of right. And a part of that law is that a man should forgive, not only his children, but his enemies, upon their repentance, asking pardon, and amendment. And therefore he could not doubt that the Author of this law, and God of patience and consolation, who is rich in mercy, would forgive his frail offspring, if they acknowledged their faults, disapproved the iniquity of their transgressions, begged his pardon, and resolved in earnest, for the future to conform their actions to this rule, which they owned to be right. This way of reconciliation, this hope of atonement, the light of nature revealed to them; and the revelation of the gospel, having said nothing to the contrary, leaves them to stand or fall to their own Father and Master, whose goodness and mercy is over all his works."

The deists simply took this way of thinking and became more consistent with it.
Seriously, you are so far off it's not funny. Have you heard what contemporary evangelicals say about the fate of those who have never heard? There is absolutely, positively nothing here that logically conlcudes in deism. Nothing in the very least. Not a scrap, not an utterance, not a hint.

Not at first no, it was an rationalist and empiricist movement, but both of these ultimately produce naturalism.That's supposed to be a conclusion that you want to demonstrate. You can't appeal to it without begging the question.

Except that I have supported it, and frankly it should be rather obvious purely from looking at the actual progression of philosophy and religion from the time Enlightenment.
You supported it where?

[WinterStag]

No. That's your assumption, certainly not mine or Locke's. Recall that Locke thought Christianity was entirely reasonable.

That's fine. I don't deny that Locke thought that, but that was because he failed to take many of the arguments he presented to their full conclusion.


BACK UP - let's not allow you to forget that you claimed this was a matterof logical consequence. But now you've just taken a step back and admitted that it's not. Nice, thanks - but you ought to have admitted it.

No, I didn't admit that at all. I acknowledge that there a in fact Christians who hold to a rationalist epistemology. When they do so they are ultimately holding to an epistemology that when taken to it's logical conclusion will destroy their metaphysics.


Seriously, you are so far off it's not funny. Have you heard what contemporary evangelicals say about the fate of those who have never heard? There is absolutely, positively nothing here that logically concludes in deism. Nothing in the very least. Not a scrap, not an utterance, not a hint.

That's fine that they hold to it. That doesn't mean it is logical. And frankly, if you can't see how the concept of "salvation" through following "natural law" leads to deism, then I can only assume you're rather ignorant of what deists believed.


That's supposed to be a conclusion that you want to demonstrate. You can't appeal to it without begging the question.

The rather simple tasking of observing western philosophy and culture is sufficient to demonstrate it as the ultimate consequence.

[Glenn P]

That's fine. I don't deny that Locke thought that, but that was because he failed to take many of the arguments he presented to their full conclusion.The key that you need to show is the very thing you keep leaving out - that deism or naturalism are the conclusion to what Locke said.

No, I didn't admit that at all. I acknowledge that there a in fact Christians who hold to a rationalist epistemology. When they do so they are ultimately holding to an epistemology that when taken to it's logical conclusion will destroy their metaphysics. So let's see the logical proof. Claims about logical conclusions are very easy to produce, for example:

1) Locke said Q
2) Q entails deism
3) therefore the logical conclusion of Locke's argument is deism.


That's fine that they hold to it. That doesn't mean it is logical. And frankly, if you can't see how the concept of "salvation" through following "natural law" leads to deism, then I can only assume you're rather ignorant of what deists believed.Don't just tell me that I should see how Locke's views logically entail the metaphysical view that we are calling deism. Give a logical proof.

The rather simple tasking of observing western philosophy and culture is sufficient to demonstrate it as the ultimate consequence.
Just give a logical proof. One will do. Just one.

[Ratnat]

May I suggest you read Locke's works on Human Understanding... http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10615

Locke also wrote an essay on education that relates to your discussion.

[Glenn P]

May I suggest you read Locke's works on Human Understanding... http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10615

Locke also wrote an essay on education that relates to your discussion.
I second that suggestion.

[Ratnat]

I second that suggestion.

I meant for you in particular, Jack.lol

[Glenn P]

I meant for you in particular, Jack.lol
Then I say physician, heal thyself! Read those works - as well as the first section of Locke's Treatise on government, and his work on the reasonableness of Christianity.

But above all, while I'm thinking of it, read the volume edited by Von Leyden, Locke's essays on the law of nature.

[Ratnat]

Then I say physician, heal thyself! Read those works - as well as the first section of Locke's Treatise on government, and his work on the reasonableness of Christianity.

But above all, while I'm thinking of it, read the volume edited by Von Leyden, Locke's essays on the law of nature.


I guess I am not sure what you are arguing since Locke's writings placed him into what was called Christian Deism. Although he set out to refute deism in general--specifically the innate philosophy--his arguments actually revealed he himself held deistic ideals. He was accused of being heretical or at least unorthodox.

Deism has had many flavors--even before it was called "Deism".

French Deism, English Deism, European Deism, Christian Deism, Jewish Deism, etc....Here in this country at the founding there were mostly Deists and Christian Deists. The distinction has to do with belief in Jesus in particular. Many Christian Deists cited Locke frequently and Jefferson put forward a Christian Deist Bible.

In the 16th and17th centuries Deism was really the only option for freethinkers because of the law and social aspects. Even Locke stated that more people would express their Atheism if it was lawful to do so.

[Glenn P]

I guess I am not sure what you are arguing...Then you can't disagree with me. Or you didn't mean this.

[Ratnat]

Then you can't disagree with me. Or you didn't mean this.


You did not quote me completely. tsk

You are arguing that deism and naturalism were not the logical conclusion of the enlightenment. I, as well as others, disagree.

Locke himself uses deistic(what has become modern deism)arguments against the deists of his day.

Perhaps we need an agreed on definition of what Deism is today.

[Glenn P]

You did not quote me completely. tsk

You are arguing that deism and naturalism were not the logical conclusion of the enlightenment. I, as well as others, disagree.Nobody has so much as lifted a finger to show that deism as a metaphysical belief (not a Christian view) and naturalism are the logical conclusion of the enlightenment,

Locke himself uses deistic(what has become modern deism)arguments against the deists of his day.

Perhaps we need an agreed on definition of what Deism is today.
Deism = the metaphysical belief that there was a creator of the universe, but he does not interact in history. He does not hear or answer prayer, and things like miracles or fulfilled prophecy, let alone an earthly visit from the son of God, are out of the question.
Naturalism = the mtaphysical belief that the universe is all that exists.

[Ratnat]

Nobody has so much as lifted a finger to show that deism as a metaphysical belief (not a Christian view) and naturalism are the logical conclusion of the enlightenment,

Deism = the metaphysical belief that there was a creator of the universe, but he does not interact in history. He does not hear or answer prayer, and things like miracles or fulfilled prophecy, let alone an earthly visit from the son of God, are out of the question.
Naturalism = the mtaphysical belief that the universe is all that exists.

I agree with your definition of Deism but do not see either being metaphysical necessarily.

Naturalism(IMO) allows for the existence of more than one universe if others are found. For example- if it can be proven our universe began with the implosion of a former universe.

Do you think Darwin would have been allowed to publish had it not been for the enlightenment? The greatest gift of the enlightenment was tolerance.

Don't get me wrong, I do not think the evolution of human thought was due only to that one period. The reformation, the printing press, the rediscovery of classic literature, the discoveries in the new world, the plague...all contributed.

[Glenn P]

I agree with your definition of Deism but do not see either being metaphysical necessarily.

Naturalism(IMO) allows for the existence of more than one universe if others are found. For example- if it can be proven our universe began with the implosion of a former universe.Sure, perhaps a better way to put it then is that naturalism = the metaphysical doctrine that the physical is all that exists (matter and energy).

Do you think Darwin would have been allowed to publish had it not been for the enlightenment? The greatest gift of the enlightenment was tolerance.

Don't get me wrong, I do not think the evolution of human thought was due only to that one period. The reformation, the printing press, the rediscovery of classic literature, the discoveries in the new world, the plague...all contributed.

I don't disagree with that necessarily. What I disagree with is that deism or naturalism follows logically from "the enlightenment." They certainly don't follow as logical consequences of what a lot of enlightenment thinkers thought.

I do agree that tolerance for a number of views (including deism) is a logical consequence of what most enlightenment thinkers taught. What I was objecting to was the following implied line of reasoning:

1) The enlightenment advocated rational means of enquiry
2) (implied premise) if you only think rationally, you'l never reach Christian conclusions, but only naturalistic or deistic ones,
3) Therefore desim or natrualism are the logical consequences of the enlightenment.

A number of enlightenment thinkers held views that are incompatible with deism or naturalism, and in fact in large part the enlightenment was grounded in Christian views about the possibility of reason, the regularity and knowability of the Universe etc. Whether some people took enlightenment views on reason and ended up believing in deism or naturalism is another matter, but I think it's a case of historical hijacking to say, as Winterstag did, that those views follow as a matter of logical consequence from the enlightenment.

[Amazing Rando]

Nobody has so much as lifted a finger to show that deism as a metaphysical belief (not a Christian view) and naturalism are the logical conclusion of the enlightenment,

Alasdair MacIntyre did a pretty decent job of that in After Virtue and its follow-up Whose Justice? Whose Rationality?

[Ratnat]

Sure, perhaps a better way to put it then is that naturalism = the metaphysical doctrine that the physical is all that exists (matter and energy).


I don't disagree with that necessarily. What I disagree with is that deism or naturalism follows logically from "the enlightenment." They certainly don't follow as logical consequences of what a lot of enlightenment thinkers thought.

I do agree that tolerance for a number of views (including deism) is a logical consequence of what most enlightenment thinkers taught. What I was objecting to was the following implied line of reasoning:

1) The enlightenment advocated rational means of enquiry
2) (implied premise) if you only think rationally, you'l never reach Christian conclusions, but only naturalistic or deistic ones,
3) Therefore desim or natrualism are the logical consequences of the enlightenment.

A number of enlightenment thinkers held views that are incompatible with deism or naturalism, and in fact in large part the enlightenment was grounded in Christian views about the possibility of reason, the regularity and knowability of the Universe etc. Whether some people took enlightenment views on reason and ended up believing in deism or naturalism is another matter, but I think it's a case of historical hijacking to say, as Winterstag did, that those views follow as a matter of logical consequence from the enlightenment.

I get ya...

I would like to add something though...I think Christianity became more of a philosophy than a religion for many following the 18th century. Of course that led to an Awakening...

Cause and effect, I suppose.

[Glenn P]

Alasdair MacIntyre did a pretty decent job of that in After Virtue and its follow-up Whose Justice? Whose Rationality?This is a colossal misunderstanding of what McIntyre did. He never argued at all that naturalism follows from the type of rationality advanced int he enlightenment. Indeed, as a proponent of natural theology he utterly rejects such a claim.

And on the broader topic of this thread, McIntyre actually argued that in a genuinely pluralistic and tiotally secular society, the declaration of independence of the USA are inappropriate because they are... *gasp* too religious!

[Amazing Rando]

This is a colossal misunderstanding of what McIntyre did. He never argued at all that naturalism follows from the type of rationality advanced int he enlightenment. Indeed, as a proponent of natural theology he utterly rejects such a claim.



Yet MacIntyre also stands as an immense critic of what he calls "the Enlightenment project" on numerous grounds, one of which if I recall correctly was its well-meaning but ultimately misguided attempt to establish a universal source of morality outside of Christian convictions. The names you cited, thinkers like Descartes, etc. were indeed Christians in some or other sense, and they certainly believed that they were contributing positively to a Christian theological system through their promulgation of reason as an independent source of authority meant to critique but ultimately confirm Christian revelation, yet the project they set in motion (perhaps unwittingly) served to give the skeptically inclined thinkers of the era a toehold in establishing a philospohical metanarrative rather than a theological one, thus unseating the privileged place theology once had in the Western academies. I'm going through Gavin D'Costa's The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity right now for a paper, and he dialogues heavily with MacIntyre (and to a lesser extent, John Milbank) throughout. This passage in particular highlights how as the philospohical metanarrative gradually replaced the theological one, the concept of God became increasingly marginalized in the academic intelligencia of Europe-

The Enlightenment project, in so much as it has dominated philospohy and moral and political thought, has inevitably affected religious thought, primarily Christian, but also other religions in differing ways. Milbank's work is particularly helpful in charting the impact of modernity on Christian theology and practice. It is worth noting two features of this impact. First, the Enlightenment tragectory in part accounts for the demise of trinitarian theology and Christian practice in rendering and reconstructing the grand-narratives of philospohy (Kant, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, and eventually Marks and Hegel), sociology (Comte , Durkheim and Weber) and science. Within these narratives the world is best understood and analyzed without God, who is always positioned as moral authorizer, social cement, and expedient but ultimately redundant explanatory principle. Deism was the initial home for this unemployed god, but agnosticism, atheism, and secularism were the inevitable trajectories, such that unemployment eventually led to redundancy and liquidation.

Second, the relationship between morality and deity underwent a radical shift. The Christian telos was ousted, such that universal reason and freedom became both the ethical means and ends. The Kantian move toward a universal ethics which could be grounded in pure reason and fleshed out in practical reason was inevitable. Kant could view religions, with Christianity as the unsurpassable best, as more or less embodying the ethical universals he was able to arrive at through reason alone. This form of ethical thinking required an impartial state to arbitrate political, ethical, and social matters. Christianity would have to allign itself with these ethical universals or lose social credibility and privilege.

D'Costa is certainly generalizing in this passage (In context, it's an introductory page setting the stage for his critique of "Christian" pluralists, like John Hick and Paul Knitter, in which he argues that despite the pluralists' claims to the contrary, they are in fact operating on incognito and unarticulated modernist Enlightenment assumptions of "progress".), but his archaeology of knowledge is essentially correct here- basically when one posits "reason" as an independent authority, even if one does so in the hope and belief that reason will confirm the truth of the biblical revelation, one has already opened the door to the dethronement of the Bible, as indeed occured as the "Enlightenment project" developed.

[Glenn P]

Rando, I'm not sure that we're all talking about the same thing here.

"The Enlightenment" = a period of history during which a variety of different thinkers expressed a variety of viewpoints with the common feature of an elevation of the role of reason, and the assumption that reason can provide us with knowledge. There is here an openness to religious testimony and the possibility of miracles and divine mysteries - depending on who the thinker is.

"The Enlightenment Project" = a much much later term used to typify a particular aspect of the enlightenment, which is generally not as open to the aforementioned sources of religious knowledge.

But - and this is the focus of this post - the question before us is not whether evangelical Christianity follows logically from "the enlightenment," but rather whether deism or naturalism follows logically from the same. Your whole argument in your last post is concerned with the former, in a thread where the latter is actually the issue.

[Amazing Rando]

If you say so, chief. :smile:

:aye:

[TyRockwell]

Rando, I'm not sure that we're all talking about the same thing here.

"The Enlightenment" = a period of history during which a variety of different thinkers expressed a variety of viewpoints with the common feature of an elevation of the role of reason, and the assumption that reason can provide us with knowledge. There is here an openness to religious testimony and the possibility of miracles and divine mysteries - depending on who the thinker is.

"The Enlightenment Project" = a much much later term used to typify a particular aspect of the enlightenment, which is generally not as open to the aforementioned sources of religious knowledge.

But - and this is the focus of this post - the question before us is not whether evangelical Christianity follows logically from "the enlightenment," but rather whether deism or naturalism follows logically from the same. Your whole argument in your last post is concerned with the former, in a thread where the latter is actually the issue.
I was of the impression that the purpose of this thread had to do with The Founding Fathers and Revisionary Interpretation. At the start the First Amendment was quoted, and I was interested, but as I read on, it seemed that 'enlightened thought' has reinvented the founding fathers. Their writings were filled with references to God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and other affirmations of Christian beliefs.
David Barton has documented that the great majority of the founders were not deists, as has been one of the revisions about them. Many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were pastors, deacons, elders of churches. Almost all of them did pay with their lives, their fortunes, and of late, their sacred honor.
The biggest, to avoid the term, 'greatest,' reinterpretation of the First Amendment was the change of meaning of the word, "establishment."
Congress was forbidden to make any laws concerning an entity established by religion, (an establishment) such as a church or school. Nor were they to prohibit the free exercise of religion.
The founding fathers made no attempt to keep religious faith seperate from govenment. The first congress funded missionaries to bring the knowledge of God's salvation to native americans. Are we to believe they were violating the very first amendment they had voted for? No. Later, congress paid for the publication of Bibles for use in schools in all the states. All schools were required to teach the Bible, as a necessary part of a good education. Maybe they didn't understand their own first amendment? No. The revisionism of the first amendment came much later, and was the ignoring of the "thing established," for the change to, "the act of establishing."
This change conflicts with the idea of "the free exercise thereof." The founders never kept their free exercise out of government. Indeed, they opened the sessions of both houses of Congress with prayers. They held church services in the capital building. They were not confused about the word, 'thereof.' They were highly enough educated to know that, 'nor prohibiting the free exercise of the act of establishing religion' would still allow for freedom of religion, not from religion.

[Glenn P]

I was of the impression that the purpose of this thread had to do with The Founding Fathers and Revisionary Interpretation.
Yes, mea culpa. Someone made a claim about the enlightenment that I knew to be false, and I chased the scent. Back on track!

[Ratnat]

I think if you look at the writings of the founding fathers in a chronological way, you can see the evoloution of thought quite clearly.

A good way-IMO-to figure out what was going on is to read some of the anti-masonic literature of the early 19th century. They certainly thought the government was secular and even accused it of being anti-christian.

Your interpretation of the 1st amendment is revisionist. The founders wanted to keep the government from ever establishing a "State Religion" like European countries had done for millenia. No Holy Roman Empire or Church of England, etc...They were not against religion for individuals by any means and advocated the free exercise of all religion as well as the right to not practice as long as it did not harm one's neighbor.

That is not to say that those who served in government did not try to promote their own flavor once in power. There were intolerent leaders and congressmen just like there are today. That is human nature. If you look at how the Mormons in the early years were treated you would not see the first amendment being in place at all.

Two last points--the prayers used to open congressional sessions are deistic(small d). Non-believers whether deist, agnostic, atheists, when in public service, have no problem using terminology that some may call religious since most of our constituents are religious. Sometimes it borders on pandering but mostly it is out of respect.

[Amazing Rando]

Two last points--the prayers used to open congressional sessions are deistic(small d). Non-believers whether deist, agnostic, atheists, when in public service, have no problem using terminology that some may call religious since most of our constituents are religious. Sometimes it borders on pandering but mostly it is out of respect.

Indeed. Pale, substanceless, watered-down civil religion makes me barf. I'd much rather that the false veneer of convictionless religion were stripped away completely than for things like having our money proclaim our trust in some vague unspecified deity to continue. :grin:

[Glenn P]

Your interpretation of the 1st amendment is revisionist.
Who is this directed at?

[TyRockwell]

I think if you look at the writings of the founding fathers in a chronological way, you can see the evoloution of thought quite clearly.

A good way-IMO-to figure out what was going on is to read some of the anti-masonic literature of the early 19th century. They certainly thought the government was secular and even accused it of being anti-christian.

Your interpretation of the 1st amendment is revisionist. The founders wanted to keep the government from ever establishing a "State Religion" like European countries had done for millenia. No Holy Roman Empire or Church of England, etc...They were not against religion for individuals by any means and advocated the free exercise of all religion as well as the right to not practice as long as it did not harm one's neighbor.

That is not to say that those who served in government did not try to promote their own flavor once in power. There were intolerent leaders and congressmen just like there are today. That is human nature. If you look at how the Mormons in the early years were treated you would not see the first amendment being in place at all.

Two last points--the prayers used to open congressional sessions are deistic(small d). Non-believers whether deist, agnostic, atheists, when in public service, have no problem using terminology that some may call religious since most of our constituents are religious. Sometimes it borders on pandering but mostly it is out of respect.
I agree they didn't want a state religion, but the didn't want the kind of 'separation of church and state' that has been imposed on us, since 1961, either. Like the liberal antichrist judges who imposed this, you misinterpret 'establishment,' to do away with the free exercise clause. You didn't read my post all the way through. The revisionist judge's interpretation of "thereof," would make 'an act of establishing' religion not prohibitable, and not what they did. They prohibited the free exercise of religion in public places. Absolutely opposite of what the founders practiced. If you are really open to hearing the truth, go to: wallbuilders.com

[TyRockwell]

Indeed. Pale, substanceless, watered-down civil religion makes me barf. I'd much rather that the false veneer of convictionless religion were stripped away completely than for things like having our money proclaim our trust in some vague unspecified deity to continue. :grin:
In wanting what you said, you suppose to know men's hearts. It is better to have free exercise, and fewer would be intimidated to pray in Jesus' name. Check out wallbuilders.com

[Ratnat]

Who is this directed at?

To TyRockwell and the statement..."The biggest, to avoid the term, 'greatest,' reinterpretation of the First Amendment was the change of meaning of the word, "establishment."
Congress was forbidden to make any laws concerning an entity established by religion, (an establishment) such as a church or school"

[Glenn P]

They prohibited the free exercise of religion in public places. Absolutely opposite of what the founders practiced.
Now THAT is undeniably the case.

[alcibiades]

Yes, mea culpa. Someone made a claim about the enlightenment that I knew to be false, and I chased the scent. Back on track!
I guess that would be me. However, the point I was making was not false to my knowledge. The founding fathers were quite aware of, and in tune with enlightenment thinking, including Locke, and I don't see how you can deny that the consititution and the intellectual environmnet was very much influenced by that. Of course, I dont think the specific issue of a teacher leading prayer was taken up, but I think the notion of keeping government functions and religious functions separate was a consequence, essential of a rational pragmatism.

Its also quite possible that they weren't concerned with details such as prayer at sessions or other questions which later consideration brought to bear. They had other fish to fry. But there were known objections to, for example to having paid chaplains at that time.

One poster mention Barton, whose web site is constructed to leave the impression that the founders were all devoted Christians and didn't really want separation. I wouldn't trust
Barton as an expert since there are fabricated quotes. A number of others have debunked his propaganda web site (I think it is wallbuilders.com).

The notion that keeping the government separated absolutely from religion does not in any way restrict free exercise. In most ways it protects it. But to allow the religious community to use the government to further their religious purposes is an establishment and is inherently coercive, and calls into question the equal protection clause since the majority religion can then easily be suspected of preference, which is clearly wrong.

[TyRockwell]

The "thereof" in, "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof," cannot refer to "religion," because the phrase, "establishment of religion" is a single concept. The prepositional phrase,"of religion" is a modifier of 'establishment,' telling us, (a) what kind of "establishment," since, as I say, it means 'a thing or enity established,' or, telling us, (b) as the 1961/1963 Supreme Court found, 'what kind of establishing.'

Under the (a) scenario, Congress must make no law concerning a thing or entity established of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of such a thing or entity established, the object referred to by "thereof."
Under the (b) scenario, Congress must make no law concerning the act of establishing religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of the act of establishing religion, the object referred to by "thereof."

The Founders may have been influenced by 'enlightened' thought, scholars they were. But, scholars that they were, they knew grammatical construction, and never dreamed that any Supreme Court would ever get it so wrong.

[Glenn P]

I guess that would be me. However, the point I was making was not false to my knowledge. The founding fathers were quite aware of, and in tune with enlightenment thinking, including Locke, and I don't see how you can deny that the consititution and the intellectual environmnet was very much influenced by that.I never denied that.

My response (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2094336&postcount=6) was to a specific claim you made - not about the founders, but about the spirit of the enlightenment and what it entails. I consider that issue I raised to have been now finished with by myself and others who responded in this thread.

[Ratnat]

The "thereof" in, "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof," cannot refer to "religion," because the phrase, "establishment of religion" is a single concept. The prepositional phrase,"of religion" is a modifier of 'establishment,' telling us, (a) what kind of "establishment," since, as I say, it means 'a thing or enity established,' or, telling us, (b) as the 1961/1963 Supreme Court found, 'what kind of establishing.'

Under the (a) scenario, Congress must make no law concerning a thing or entity established of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of such a thing or entity established, the object referred to by "thereof."
Under the (b) scenario, Congress must make no law concerning the act of establishing religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of the act of establishing religion, the object referred to by "thereof."

The Founders may have been influenced by 'enlightened' thought, scholars they were. But, scholars that they were, they knew grammatical construction, and never dreamed that any Supreme Court would ever get it so wrong.

Although I disagree with your conclusion I do see the point you are making. If we didn't have the writings of said founders and the notes on the ratification process and such, your point would have more weight.

I interpret the term "an establishment" as a verb meaning "the setting up". I see the "thereof" referring to the subject "religion".

I am on a word search of contemporary documents of the time to see the actual usage.

[TyRockwell]

I guess that would be me. However, the point I was making was not false to my knowledge. The founding fathers were quite aware of, and in tune with enlightenment thinking, including Locke, and I don't see how you can deny that the consititution and the intellectual environmnet was very much influenced by that. Of course, I dont think the specific issue of a teacher leading prayer was taken up, but I think the notion of keeping government functions and religious functions separate was a consequence, essential of a rational pragmatism.

Its also quite possible that they weren't concerned with details such as prayer at sessions or other questions which later consideration brought to bear. They had other fish to fry. But there were known objections to, for example to having paid chaplains at that time.

One poster mention Barton, whose web site is constructed to leave the impression that the founders were all devoted Christians and didn't really want separation. I wouldn't trust
Barton as an expert since there are fabricated quotes. A number of others have debunked his propaganda web site (I think it is wallbuilders.com).

The notion that keeping the government separated absolutely from religion does not in any way restrict free exercise. In most ways it protects it. But to allow the religious community to use the government to further their religious purposes is an establishment and is inherently coercive, and calls into question the equal protection clause since the majority religion can then easily be suspected of preference, which is clearly wrong.
Just blow off the research and the documentation of wallbuilders.com, so you don't have to deal with it? I've met David Barton, and have read his evidence. Not propaganda. The propaganda is the statement you made that his documentation is propaganda. Barton is a historian. Or an historian, if you prefer to dismiss the 'h' as propaganda.

[alcibiades]

The Founders may have been influenced by 'enlightened' thought, scholars they were. But, scholars that they were, they knew grammatical construction, and never dreamed that any Supreme Court would ever get it so wrong.
This sounds to me like excruciating grammatical rationalization. The term free exercise makes most sense as applied to religion, not "establishment of religion". I completely reject your hypothesis as implausible.

As to Dan Barton, he may be an historian, but he's clearly devoted to propaganda. The presence on his site of quotes never traceable in any document to their supposed authors calls his reliablity into question.

I think far too much has been made by the semi-dominionists of the notion that the founders intended a Christian state because they were mostly Christian. Most certainly had a lot of respect for religion, not necessarily the clergy, particularly the notion that in led to moral behavior which they though necessary for democracy, but recognized that entanglement with religion by the state would be to the detriment of both.

In my view, the notion that religion promotes good behavior is undemonstrated and removes that justification. I see any involvement of religion with government, certainly in the context of the U.S. society we have no to be a dangerous, counterproductive and destructive idea. Religion should be the preserve of the religious institutions, their buildings and organizations. The state should be completely neutral and uninvolved unless some violation of law, such as ritual mutilation is practiced.

[alcibiades]

.

As to Dan Barton, he may be an historian, but he's clearly devoted to propaganda. The presence on his site of quotes never traceable in any document to their supposed authors calls his reliablity into question.

.

Actually, I should have stated it more stronly. Dan Barton is a pretend historian. He has a degree only from Oral Roberts not in history. A quick scan of the web reveals that real historians i.e those with degrees in history with teaching posts at reputable universities have been refuting his reviionism for some time.

He's actually a Republican activist and a fundamentalist driven by religion, not a scholar. He's certainly not a source to be trusted, and his site is, as I said, a pure propaganda site.

[Glenn P]

Actually, I should have stated it more stronly. Dan Barton is a pretend historian. He has a degree only from Oral Roberts not in history. A quick scan of the web reveals that real historians i.e those with degrees in history with teaching posts at reputable universities have been refuting his reviionism for some time.

He's actually a Republican activist and a fundamentalist driven by religion, not a scholar. He's certainly not a source to be trusted, and his site is, as I said, a pure propaganda site.I don't know who Dan Barton is, so I don't care how good he is, but this post of yours, alcibiades, is BS of the worst kind.

The ad hominem argument is committed when you dismiss a person's position regardless of the arguments or evidence they provide, but because of features of the person. That's what you've just don't This man's motives and qualifications are irrelevant if he gives reasons for the claims he makes. I don't care if Dan Barton is motivated by green cheese - are his claims flawed or are they not? Or are you just too lazy to find out? Because I gotta tell you, this incredibly disappointing post of yours gives exactly that impression.

[TyRockwell]

Actually, I should have stated it more stronly. Dan Barton is a pretend historian. He has a degree only from Oral Roberts not in history. A quick scan of the web reveals that real historians i.e those with degrees in history with teaching posts at reputable universities have been refuting his reviionism for some time.

He's actually a Republican activist and a fundamentalist driven by religion, not a scholar. He's certainly not a source to be trusted, and his site is, as I said, a pure propaganda site.
You are an agnostic and a liberal. Jack Bauer is right. When you don't like the message, you don't even try to find out what is the truth, you just shoot the messenger. Typical.


As to history, there are a large number of historically verified documents that are in the possesion of David Barton and Wallbuilders. He probably has the largest collection of the actual papers, writings, and even the laws that were enacted by the Founders than anyone else in America. Colleges and seminaries have history professors who conveniently forget that the pilgrims were coming to America to get away from the Church of England, headed by the king, and the Catholic Church's dominance in the rest of Europe.. They were not fleeing religion, but the restrictions of forced adherence to the approved religion of the state. They were more a product of the Reformation than the darkness of 'enlightenment.'


So if you want to make the claim that the Founders were 'enlightened deists', you have to provide evidence, not speculation to that effect. About two-thirds of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were members of the clergy.


Peace and Truth,

Ty

[Ratnat]

You are an agnostic and a liberal. Jack Bauer is right. When you don't like the message, you don't even try to find out what is the truth, you just shoot the messenger. Typical.


As to history, there are a large number of historically verified documents that are in the possesion of David Barton and Wallbuilders. He probably has the largest collection of the actual papers, writings, and even the laws that were enacted by the Founders than anyone else in America. Colleges and seminaries have history professors who conveniently forget that the pilgrims were coming to America to get away from the Church of England, headed by the king, and the Catholic Church's dominance in the rest of Europe.. They were not fleeing religion, but the restrictions of forced adherence to the approved religion of the state. They were more a product of the Reformation than the darkness of 'enlightenment.'


So if you want to make the claim that the Founders were 'enlightened deists', you have to provide evidence, not speculation to that effect. About two-thirds of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were members of the clergy.


Peace and Truth,

Ty

I doubt anyone is claiming that all of them were Deists. The whole argument has to do with whether the US Government was intended to be Secular or Religious.

Even most religious people agree SECULAR.

Secular does not mean anti-religion.

[TyRockwell]

I doubt anyone is claiming that all of them were Deists. The whole argument has to do with whether the US Government was intended to be Secular or Religious.

Even most religious people agree SECULAR.

Secular does not mean anti-religion.
The antichrist judges on the left have turned argument into whether, in a secular state, it should be required that a person keep his religious beliefs outside of public speech.

Ty

[alcibiades]

I don't know who Dan Barton is, so I don't care how good he is, but this post of yours, alcibiades, is BS of the worst kind..
Really. If someone purports to expertise, their credentials are of interest. If a person has an organization which uses a web site and money from political activists to push a political agenda their impartiality is not to be taken for granted.

[QUOUTE]The ad hominem argument is committed when you dismiss a person's position regardless of the arguments or evidence they provide, but because of features of the person. That's what you've just don't This man's motives and qualifications are irrelevant if he gives reasons for the claims he makes..[/QUOTE]
He isn't in the argument so my saying that I don't think he's a reliable source isn't an ad hominem.

[QUOUTE]I don't care if Dan Barton is motivated by green cheese - are his claims flawed or are they not? Or are you just too lazy to find out? Because I gotta tell you, this incredibly disappointing post of yours gives exactly that impression.[/QUOTE]

Yes his data is flawed. His web site has been scrutinized by academics and found to contain a series of errors, misinterpretations, cherry picked data, and a series of quotes of, at the minimum, highly questionnable authenticity since they are not found in the literature or any known document.

Here is some information on this guy. He, in my opinion is a dangerous person, who seeks to undermine the constitution with other dominionist fanatics.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Barton

And there's more.

I'm terribly sorry you're disappointed, but if I find out someone is a propagandist who falsifies history I'm not going to regard him as a reliable sourcet.

[alcibiades]

TY Rockwell writes:"You are an agnostic and a liberal. "
True.

[Jack Bauer is right.]
I disagree.


[ When you don't like the message, you don't even try to find out what is the truth, you just shoot the messenger.]
False. I had already read about this revisionist non-historian. I didn't have time to get the references. I have more by the way, including articles taking apart his revisionism.


[As to history, there are a large number of historically verified documents that are in the possesion of David Barton and Wallbuilders. He probably has the largest collection of the actual papers, writings, and even the laws that were enacted by the Founders than anyone else in America.]
I'm sure you think so. I'll wait until someone with the training and background to authenticate them comes along to examine them, and not take the word of an untrained, propagandist with an axe to grind.

[Colleges and seminaries have history professors who conveniently forget that the pilgrims were coming to America to get away from the Church of England, headed by the king, and the Catholic Church's dominance in the rest of Europe.. They were not fleeing religion, but the restrictions of forced adherence to the approved religion of the state. They were more a product of the Reformation than the darkness of 'enlightenment.']
Oh, so now your are more expert that those whose profession it is to study history. I'm sure their aware of the pilgrims. They weren't the only population at the time the constitution was drafted, nor is their religious motivation particularly interesting to the debate. As it happens, there were others who also came for different religious reasons. The diversity of religious opinion at the time of the constitution was unlikely to go unnoticed by the framers, nor was the fact that Europse had just gone through a bloodbath over relious nonsense.

[So if you want to make the claim that the Founders were 'enlightened deists', you have to provide evidence, not speculation to that effect.]
Some of them were, some of them weren't. We have plenty of documentation of that.

[About two-thirds of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were members of the clergy.]
Whether they were or weren't isn't germain to their views on how the state should interact with religion. There was, it has been recorded quite a bit of disagreement and the language was a compromise to keep everyone relatively satisified. Its pretty clear, despite the dominionist claim to the contrary. And thankfully so.

Politics is about practical solutions. It requires facts and reason to get the best results. Religion is about emotion and wishful thinking. It is eminently unuseful for practical purposes.

[TyRockwell]

The real revisionism in this debate is not on the part of David Barton, nor the many who have seen the evidence and heard the presentations. Nor is David Barton, and his research revisionist, nor is it held by just a few people.

The revisionism is in the ant-God biased arguments of people who will always accuse for their own agenda driven purposes. It should be amazing how over 200 years worth of Christian speaking, writing, praying, and public expressions of faith have been re-interpreted, in the last 45 or so years, to mean something other than what was actually said, and written and done.

And when it suits their purposes to remove the heritage of faith so consistently affirmed over that long span of years, they resort to explaining it away by claiming it was all a watered down, unfelt, shallow, hypocritical show. So they deny that the heritage is there, and when it is presented to be seen, it is said to be a 'political correctness' of another kind.

There current form of political correctness is the revision.

Love the Truth,
Ty

[Glenn P]

I'm terribly sorry you're disappointed, but if I find out someone is a propagandist who falsifies history I'm not going to regard him as a reliable sourcet.Don't be belligerent.

You didn't supply any good reasoning or evidence int he post I replied to. You merely attacked a man's motives and association. Had you actually given some of the reasons you say you are aware of, you would not have negaged in an ad hominem argument, and I would not have posted the reply I did. That you're giving hints after the fact as to what the evidence and reasons against Barton might be is beside the point.

[Ratnat]

Don't be belligerent.

You didn't supply any good reasoning or evidence int he post I replied to. You merely attacked a man's motives and association. Had you actually given some of the reasons you say you are aware of, you would not have negaged in an ad hominem argument, and I would not have posted the reply I did. That you're giving hints after the fact as to what the evidence and reasons against Barton might be is beside the point.

After your post on Ehrman, this is laughable.

That said, I think Barton has a great collection(not the greatest)of correspondence from many of the lesser well known founders. Some of his attributions have been shown to be incorrect and he has admitted to speculation in some cases. Regardless of whether I agree with his premise or conclusion, I respect anyone who puts together a case with evidence that we can at least discuss and debate. That is how the FOUNDERS did it, after all.

[Ratnat]

The real revisionism in this debate is not on the part of David Barton, nor the many who have seen the evidence and heard the presentations. Nor is David Barton, and his research revisionist, nor is it held by just a few people.

The revisionism is in the ant-God biased arguments of people who will always accuse for their own agenda driven purposes. It should be amazing how over 200 years worth of Christian speaking, writing, praying, and public expressions of faith have been re-interpreted, in the last 45 or so years, to mean something other than what was actually said, and written and done.

And when it suits their purposes to remove the heritage of faith so consistently affirmed over that long span of years, they resort to explaining it away by claiming it was all a watered down, unfelt, shallow, hypocritical show. So they deny that the heritage is there, and when it is presented to be seen, it is said to be a 'political correctness' of another kind.

There current form of political correctness is the revision.

Love the Truth,
Ty

You make the debate out to be what it is not. It is not a pro-God, anti-God argument whatsoever. Although a few cases have gone after the generic concept, I am not aware of any winning their cases.

I do agree that political correctness is the bane of debate.

Barton and you yourself seem to be arguing for a particular God.

Evidence shows that we as a nation have no problem using money with God invoked, make pledges to our flag invoking God, allow churches, temples, mosques to be built and thrive without interference, have federal holidays on common Holy Days, etc... Where do see any rejection of the faith heritage?

[alcibiades]

Originally posted by TyRockwell
The real revisionism in this debate is not on the part of David Barton, nor the many who have seen the evidence and heard the presentations. Nor is David Barton, and his research revisionist, nor is it held by just a few people.
The number of people who agree with him doesn't determine who is revisionist. The revisionist is the one going agains the mainstream of professional historical opinion. That would be Barton.

By the way, you must be listening to Huckabee too much.
"“When our founding fathers put their signatures on the Declaration of Independence, those 56 brave people, most of whom, by the way, were clergymen, they said that we have certain inalienable rights given to us by our creator, and among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, life being one of them. I still believe that.” This isn't even close, nor is your 2/3.

"Only one of the 56 was an active clergyman, and that was John Witherspoon. Witherspoon was a Presbyterian minister and president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University).

A few more of the signers were former clergymen, though it's a little unclear just how many. The conservative Heritage Foundation said two other signers were former clergymen. The religion web site Adherents.com said four signers of the declaration were current or former full-time preachers. But everyone agrees only Witherspoon was an active minister when he signed the Declaration of Independence."
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/137/

I don't know if you got your mistaken information from Barton. If not you must have yet another unreliable source.


The revisionism is in the ant-God biased arguments of people who will always accuse for their own agenda driven purposes. It should be amazing how over 200 years worth of Christian speaking, writing, praying, and public expressions of faith have been re-interpreted, in the last 45 or so years, to mean something other than what was actually said, and written and done.
All of which is argument by impugning the motives of others and is, moreover a straw man since no one was discussing the sincerity of religious feeling in the last 200 years. Its entirely besides the point, which is that the overwhelming opinion was and is that government should be secular and not entagled with relgion.



And when it suits their purposes to remove the heritage of faith so consistently affirmed over that long span of years, they resort to explaining it away by claiming it was all a watered down, unfelt, shallow, hypocritical show. So they deny that the heritage is there, and when it is presented to be seen, it is said to be a 'political correctness' of another kind.

There current form of political correctness is the revision.
So now we have a meadow filled with straw men and the irrelevant banner of "political correctness" dragged in for good measure.

It is not political correctness to stand for freedom. It is not political correctness to oppose the infestation of political consideration with speculations on the supernatural, or what was ordained by a supposed being, knowledge of which is not attainable. It is not political correctness to oppose tainting government institutions with the suspicion of sectarian favoritism. It is not political correctness to seek to keep focus on facts in choosing our nation's direction. It is not political correctness to insist that education paid for by the state and attendence at which the state can mandate for those not otherwise enrolled, that activities and instruction be exclusively secular. These positions are based on pragmatism and what, in my and others view, lead to a workable civil society, not the the faith encumbered one you seem to favor.

[alcibiades]

I respect anyone who puts together a case with evidence that we can at least discuss and debate. That is how the FOUNDERS did it, after all.

Barton published ""We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." As a quote from Madison. Madison never said it. Barton finally backed down and admitted it... along with about 12 other quotes. At least he quietly removed them from subsequent editions of his book.

Here's another link to info on his stuff:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/founding.htm#BOSTON

Here's a reproduction of a Southern Baptist critique of Barton.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bjcpa1.htm

which is found in this collection of links
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bartidx.htm

[TyRockwell]

.
The number of people who agree with him doesn't determine who is revisionist. The revisionist is the one going agains the mainstream of professional historical opinion. That would be Barton.

By the way, you must be listening to Huckabee too much.
"“When our founding fathers put their signatures on the Declaration of Independence, those 56 brave people, most of whom, by the way, were clergymen, they said that we have certain inalienable rights given to us by our creator, and among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, life being one of them. I still believe that.” This isn't even close, nor is your 2/3.

"Only one of the 56 was an active clergyman, and that was John Witherspoon. Witherspoon was a Presbyterian minister and president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University).

A few more of the signers were former clergymen, though it's a little unclear just how many. The conservative Heritage Foundation said two other signers were former clergymen. The religion web site Adherents.com said four signers of the declaration were current or former full-time preachers. But everyone agrees only Witherspoon was an active minister when he signed the Declaration of Independence."
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/137/

I don't know if you got your mistaken information from Barton. If not you must have yet another unreliable source.


All of which is argument by impugning the motives of others and is, moreover a straw man since no one was discussing the sincerity of religious feeling in the last 200 years. Its entirely besides the point, which is that the overwhelming opinion was and is that government should be secular and not entagled with relgion.



So now we have a meadow filled with straw men and the irrelevant banner of "political correctness" dragged in for good measure.

It is not political correctness to stand for freedom. It is not political correctness to oppose the infestation of political consideration with speculations on the supernatural, or what was ordained by a supposed being, knowledge of which is not attainable. It is not political correctness to oppose tainting government institutions with the suspicion of sectarian favoritism. It is not political correctness to seek to keep focus on facts in choosing our nation's direction. It is not political correctness to insist that education paid for by the state and attendence at which the state can mandate for those not otherwise enrolled, that activities and instruction be exclusively secular. These positions are based on pragmatism and what, in my and others view, lead to a workable civil society, not the the faith encumbered one you seem to favor.
That which you just posted is most assuredly political correctness.
It is nothing short of willful blindness to read the founders writings, private and puvlic, and believe that they wanted faith speech, and faith motivated practice kept out of the workings of government.

You have nothing but a wrongly interpreted 1st Amendment establishment clause in your corner, while there is much more in the actual lives and writings of the founders to the contrary.

Love the Truth,
Ty

[TyRockwell]

You make the debate out to be what it is not. It is not a pro-God, anti-God argument whatsoever. Although a few cases have gone after the generic concept, I am not aware of any winning their cases.

I do agree that political correctness is the bane of debate.

Barton and you yourself seem to be arguing for a particular God.

Evidence shows that we as a nation have no problem using money with God invoked, make pledges to our flag invoking God, allow churches, temples, mosques to be built and thrive without interference, have federal holidays on common Holy Days, etc... Where do see any rejection of the faith heritage?
You and the others like you, who have brought about laws apart from morality, in the last 45 years, and tossed out the baby, but kept the dirty bath water, when there was nothing wrong with how the first amendment and government worked together for 200 years, have given us perversion parading in the streets, dressed in drag. They ought to be arrested, and before you started twisting wrongs into rights, they would have been.

Wake up, laws are based on morality.
Ty

[Ratnat]

You and the others like you, who have brought about laws apart from morality, in the last 45 years, and tossed out the baby, but kept the dirty bath water, when there was nothing wrong with how the first amendment and government worked together for 200 years, have given us perversion parading in the streets, dressed in drag. They ought to be arrested, and before you started twisting wrongs into rights, they would have been.

Wake up, laws are based on morality.
Ty

Then explain slavery and female voting rights, etc...

You also tend to forget about the Civil War in your "perfect nation for 200 years" fantasy.

[alcibiades]

That which you just posted is most assuredly political correctness.
That which you have responded is patent nonsense.

"Political correctness (adjectivally politically correct, both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language, ideas, policies, or behaviour seen as seeking to minimize offence to racial, cultural, or other identity groups.".... which has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Someone who doesn't understand contemporary usage may have difficulty interpreting other things.


It is nothing short of willful blindness to read the founders writings, private and puvlic, and believe that they wanted faith speech, and faith motivated practice kept out of the workings of government.
And of course, you are to be entrusted with correct interpretation? I don't think so. The founders thought religion promoted morality. They were also aware that faith is not a basis for practical consideration.
Jefferson:""The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."


You have nothing but a wrongly interpreted 1st Amendment establishment clause in your corner, .
"Wrongly interpreted?" I think not. You certainly haven't made anything close to a reasonable case. There's a good reason. It isn't in the facts.


while there is much more in the actual lives and writings of the founders to the contrary.

Which, of course, you interpret to support your senseless theocratic view. Many were religious. Those who wrote the constitution wanted no theocracy.

[alcibiades]

Originally posted by TyRockwell


Wake up, laws are based on morality.

That's highly debatable. Laws, at least in current democratic societies, and morality have much in common. Both are essentially practical rules designed to bring about a workable society. What we call morality relates to personal behavior and is enforced by social pressure. Laws relate to matters deemed essential to the society and are backed by the coercive power of the state.

Of course, you likely base your morality on your religious beliefs, which amounts to basing rules of behavior on 2000-4000 year old ideas along with their prejudices. That you then want to corrupt the state with its coercive power with the same defies reason.

[TyRockwell]

Then explain slavery and female voting rights, etc...

You also tend to forget about the Civil War in your "perfect nation for 200 years" fantasy.
I didn't say we had a 'perfect nation' for 200 years. We had a nation, that for over 200 years, people were not trying to get the Ten Commandments taken off of public buildings.

We had a nation that respected people's public expressions of faith. You would have people believe that the free and open acknowledgment of God in the halls of government didn't happen very often, when the truth is, God's Word was often invoked, and He was prayed to, without fear that doing so would get them arrested. Check out the prayer that F.D.R. prayed at the declaration of war after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor.

We have a Declaration that holds the 'self-evident' position, that all men are created equal, that would eventually put an end to slavery. Godly men put that into the Declaration, the same men who wrote and ratified the Constitution.

Consider this; that while slavery was still practiced, even by the founders, they, or GOD, planted a seed of faith in a vital founding document, that would someday bloom into the understanding that slavery had to be ended. Rome didn't fall in a single day, but it fell. Slavery was ended on the grounds of that faith. Just read the Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln.

The same expression of belief, the equality of all men, was also the seed that led to equal rights for women, for "all men" means all mankind. The time came. Thank God.

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

The truth will make (not 'set,' which is lesser) you free.
Ty

[TyRockwell]

.
That which you have responded is patent nonsense.

"Political correctness (adjectivally politically correct, both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language, ideas, policies, or behaviour seen as seeking to minimize offence to racial, cultural, or other identity groups.".... which has nothing to do with what I wrote.


----Political Correctness, as it is practiced, assumes that what is right is what the majority, or a louder minority, declares is right, and attempts to silence or shame, or marginalize those with a supposedly 'outdated' view.


Someone who doesn't understand contemporary usage may have difficulty interpreting other things.


----Your definition of PC insinuates you won't be able to understand concepts other than what you are familiar with.
.
And of course, you are to be entrusted with correct interpretation? I don't think so. The founders thought religion promoted morality. They were also aware that faith is not a basis for practical consideration.
Jefferson:""The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

----Jefferson's comments do not infer the seperation of religious belief from public practical consideration.
----It is injurious to people to take faith expressions and reasons based on faith out of consideration of legislation.
----His comments, rather, allows for free speech, even religious speech, for it neither picks his pocket nor breaks his leg. Blindfolded fear has nothing to do with faith. Faith is the opposite of fear.

"Wrongly interpreted?" I think not. You certainly haven't made anything close to a reasonable case. There's a good reason. It isn't in the facts.

----The FACT, is that the 1st Amendment was correctly interpreted up until the 1962-63 judicial raping of the Constitution. Before then, the 1st Amendment did not require taking the Ten Commandments off public buildings for fear the might be seen and followed. Are you prepared to make the case that from the founders on, for 200 plus years, no one understood the 1st Amendment?

Which, of course, you interpret to support your senseless theocratic view. Many were religious. Those who wrote the constitution wanted no theocracy.

----Theocracy is not what freedom of religious expression leads to. The implication, of your interpretation, is that by failing to censor Christians, you are less free. Not true. The danger your interpretation portends, is that of an antichrist spirit ruling in government. We've already had too much of that, Nero.

Freedom of, not from, religion.
Ty

[Ratnat]

I didn't say we had a 'perfect nation' for 200 years. We had a nation, that for over 200 years, people were not trying to get the Ten Commandments taken off of public buildings.

We had a nation that respected people's public expressions of faith. You would have people believe that the free and open acknowledgment of God in the halls of government didn't happen very often, when the truth is, God's Word was often invoked, and He was prayed to, without fear that doing so would get them arrested. Check out the prayer that F.D.R. prayed at the declaration of war after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor.

Ty

Where did I ever say people did not acknowledge God?

[TyRockwell]

Originally posted by TyRockwell



That's highly debatable. Laws, at least in current democratic societies, and morality have much in common. Both are essentially practical rules designed to bring about a workable society. What we call morality relates to personal behavior and is enforced by social pressure. Laws relate to matters deemed essential to the society and are backed by the coercive power of the state.

Of course, you likely base your morality on your religious beliefs, which amounts to basing rules of behavior on 2000-4000 year old ideas along with their prejudices. That you then want to corrupt the state with its coercive power with the same defies reason.
The state has already been corrupted by liberal lawmakers and judges, who have made up their own ideas of right and wrong, legalizing criminal behavior and making God given freedoms illegal. It was better before.

All legislation is somebody's morality. It is voted for as 'right' and 'good' and "we ought to pass it into law." Just watch C-span.

The 'new morality' is already obviously a failure. There is more crime, more perversion, more corruption since people have started "doing what is right in their own eyes," as God put it. He didn't make up rules for behaviour on a whim, or according to His personal 'tastes,' but upon what WORKS. There are outlaw influences that make the world more dangerous, and they are not God's ideas.

[alcibiades]

The 'new morality' is already obviously a failure. There is more crime, more perversion, more corruption since people have started "doing what is right in their own eyes," as God put it.
Actually crime is unrelated to religion. You may not like the culture, but you can't please everyone.

Since there is no reliable way to know what, if anything, is God's morality we just have to muddle through.


He didn't make up rules for behaviour on a whim, or according to His personal 'tastes,' but upon what WORKS.
I agree moral rules are based on what works, but there is no reason to suppose they come from a deity and very good reason to suppose they come from human experience.



There are outlaw influences that make the world more dangerous, and they are not God's ideas.
The most dangerous "outlaws", the greatest destroyers, the most ruthless of killers are the true believers who think they know the will of God or of some other force. The presumption to knowledge of absolute truth is the essence of evil.

[TyRockwell]

You said:

Actually crime is unrelated to religion. You may not like the culture, but you can't please everyone.

Since there is no reliable way to know what, if anything, is God's morality we just have to muddle through.

Me: Not true, God has revealed what is right and what is wrong in His word. Most of it has to do with person to person behavior, and is not what would be called honoring or worshipping God.

You:
I agree moral rules are based on what works, but there is no reason to suppose they come from a deity and very good reason to suppose they come from human experience.

Me: Human experience shows that most of non-biblical laws do not work.

You:
The most dangerous "outlaws", the greatest destroyers, the most ruthless of killers are the true believers who think they know the will of God or of some other force. The presumption to knowledge of absolute truth is the essence of evil.

Me: The essence of evil is the rejection of truth.

[Ratnat]

TyRockwell:"The essence of evil is the rejection of truth."

What is Truth?

[TyRockwell]

You: What is Truth?

Me: Said Pilate when Truth embodied was standing right there in front of him. Yet even Pilate did not want to kill the Truth. He washed his hands of the people's insistance that the Truth must die. Pilate was in fear of the Truth, the people, and Caesar. Truth died, but you can't do away with the Truth, He lives again!

Like modern day revisionists, what is 'right' and 'good' and 'we need to pass this into law,' is an attempt to make 'true' and 'right' what the majority wants it to be at that moment. Godless atheists reject truth, by choice, so it isn't hard to see how they want to change the constitution into something even the 'enlightened' and 'deists' wanted to preserve as Truth: that government must be limited and the people's rights to freedom, including the free practice of religion anytime and anywhere must not be infringed.

[Ratnat]

You: What is Truth?

... that government must be limited and the people's rights to freedom, including the free practice of religion anytime and anywhere must not be infringed.

I agree with the above right 100 percent.

How would you feel if a voodoo priestess was sacrificing a chicken in the cafeteria at your child's school(if public) or in the lobby of the courthouse? How about calls to Muslim prayer several times a day over a school's intercom or courthouse intercom? Surely as a Christian you would feel your rights were being infringed and/or would feel uncomfortable having to witness those of other faiths practicing in your presence. Even Jesus commented on hypocritical practice in public, no?

Matthew 6:5-8
5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

more at link...

[TyRockwell]

I agree with the above right 100 percent.

How would you feel if a voodoo priestess was sacrificing a chicken in the cafeteria at your child's school(if public) or in the lobby of the courthouse? How about calls to Muslim prayer several times a day over a school's intercom or courthouse intercom? Surely as a Christian you would feel your rights were being infringed and/or would feel uncomfortable having to witness those of other faiths practicing in your presence. Even Jesus commented on hypocritical practice in public, no?

Matthew 6:5-8
5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

more at link...
The voo doo chile should be arrested for disorderly conduct, and littering, and the muslims already broadcast calls to prayer in schools and in a downtown city in either Wisconsin or Minnesota. They should be forbidden to create a public nuisance. Let them put their calls to prayer on their cell phone ringers, on vibrate.

Do you think that Muslims should have more freedom of their religion than Christians? Now they are asking for footwashing stations in public schools and airports. The left doesn't see a problem, because its politically correct to say Christians are the 'pushers' rather than the 'pushees.' Is it 'pushing' to just mention the Christian God, when Islamists get freedom?

Which way do you 'push'? Against Christians, is my guess, since you don't think the Founders leaned toward freedom of the Christian faith. They used the term, "etablishment of religion," as in 'a thing established,' instead of a list such as Christian churches, schools, seminaries, universities, Jewish synagogues, and temples, Muslim mosques, Mecca facing prayer matts, foot washing stations, and voo doo chicken altars. Not to mention Mormon harems? Get the idea? Each of these is an "establishment of religion."

[Ratnat]

The voo doo chile should be arrested for disorderly conduct, and littering, and the muslims already broadcast calls to prayer in schools and in a downtown city in either Wisconsin or Minnesota. They should be forbidden to create a public nuisance. Let them put their calls to prayer on their cell phone ringers, on vibrate.

Do you think that Muslims should have more freedom of their religion than Christians? Now they are asking for footwashing stations in public schools and airports. The left doesn't see a problem, because its politically correct to say Christians are the 'pushers' rather than the 'pushees.' Is it 'pushing' to just mention the Christian God, when Islamists get freedom?

Which way do you 'push'? Against Christians, is my guess, since you don't think the Founders leaned toward freedom of the Christian faith. They used the term, "etablishment of religion," as in 'a thing established,' instead of a list such as Christian churches, schools, seminaries, universities, Jewish synagogues, and temples, Muslim mosques, Mecca facing prayer matts, foot washing stations, and voo doo chicken altars. Not to mention Mormon harems? Get the idea? Each of these is an "establishment of religion."

I push for all to practice whatever religion they choose and not be compelled to participate in other religions, especially in governmental establishments.

I still have a problem with your interpretation of the term establishment. Even if I use your term in the sense of being a noun, public schools and courthouses are governmental establishments not religious ones.

[TyRockwell]

You: I push for all to practice whatever religion they choose and not be compelled to participate in other religions, especially in governmental establishments.

Me: The freedom "to practice whatever religion they choose" is not a 'compelling to participate.' The 1st Amendment, as the Founders intended, was to keep government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

We tolerate the freedom of others to practice their religions. A Muslim has already been sworn into office with his hand on a Koran. According to your reasoning that should not have happened. But for 200 years, until 1962/63, you would have us believe, the people in government buildings and in schools were breaking the 1st Amendment!

I contend they were not. Even in your useage of the word 'establishment' when there is no 'compelling' going on, freedom to practice is allowed. There is no 'compelling' going on simply because there are people present who are not practitioners of that faith. Indeed, there is no clearer picture of people NOT being compelled.

[SlapShot]

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson


I'll take the word of the man who drafted the U.S. Constitution.

[Ratnat]

You: I push for all to practice whatever religion they choose and not be compelled to participate in other religions, especially in governmental establishments.

Me: The freedom "to practice whatever religion they choose" is not a 'compelling to participate.' The 1st Amendment, as the Founders intended, was to keep government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

We tolerate the freedom of others to practice their religions. A Muslim has already been sworn into office with his hand on a Koran. According to your reasoning that should not have happened. But for 200 years, until 1962/63, you would have us believe, the people in government buildings and in schools were breaking the 1st Amendment!

I contend they were not. Even in your useage of the word 'establishment' when there is no 'compelling' going on, freedom to practice is allowed. There is no 'compelling' going on simply because there are people present who are not practitioners of that faith. Indeed, there is no clearer picture of people NOT being compelled.

How does a Muslim using a Koran(Thomas Jefferson's Koran, BTW)in a swearing in ceremony become wrong under my reasoning? The oath is to uphold the Constitution and nothing else. The hand could be on a copy of Playboy for all I care...