There's no such thing as a stupid question, but they're the easiest to answer.
JoinTour
Login
 
Tag Cloud
access audio avg avg 8 bios blue screen boot bsod computer connection cpu crash css dell desktop dma driver drivers dvd email error excel explorer firefox firefox 3 freeze gimp graphics hard drive hardware hijackthis hjt install internet internet explorer itunes keyboard laptop macro malware monitor motherboard network networking outlook outlook 2003 outlook 2007 outlook express pio problem problems router seo server slow sound sp3 spyware trojan usb video virtumonde virus vista vundo windows windows vista windows xp winxp wireless
Civilized Debate
Search
Search in:
 
Advanced Search
Tech Support Guy Forums > Community > Civilized Debate >
The Lies of the Religious Right


HELLO AND WELCOME! Before you can post your question, you'll have to register -- it's completely free! Click here to join today! We highly recommend that you print a copy of our Guide for New Members. Enjoy!

 
Thread Tools
linskyjack's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 22,282 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
01-May-2005, 11:38 PM #1
The Lies of the Religious Right
This is an excellent piece that pretty much throws into doubt all the crap you have been told about the Founding Fathers and Christianity. I would ask any of the righties who want to respond to it to please stick with facts. Dont make stuff up and please, answer the important points made by the author:




Our Godless Constitution

by BROOKE ALLEN


It is hard to believe that George Bush has ever read the works of George Orwell, but he seems, somehow, to have grasped a few Orwellian precepts. The lesson the President has learned best--and certainly the one that has been the most useful to him--is the axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administration's current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent.

Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of "foreign aid"; according to another, he simply said "we forgot." But as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.

In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the "only Heaven knows" sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," and the famous line about men being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: "In God We Trust" did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and "under God" was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954 [see Elisabeth Sifton, "The Battle Over the Pledge," April 5, 2004].

In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:

As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today.

The Founding Fathers were not religious men, and they fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "a wall of separation between church and state." John Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans--the fundamentalists of their day--would "whip and crop, and pillory and roast." The historical epoch had afforded these men ample opportunity to observe the corruption to which established priesthoods were liable, as well as "the impious presumption of legislators and rulers," as Jefferson wrote, "civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time."

If we define a Christian as a person who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, then it is safe to say that some of the key Founding Fathers were not Christians at all. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine were deists--that is, they believed in one Supreme Being but rejected revelation and all the supernatural elements of the Christian Church; the word of the Creator, they believed, could best be read in Nature. John Adams was a professed liberal Unitarian, but he, too, in his private correspondence seems more deist than Christian.

George Washington and James Madison also leaned toward deism, although neither took much interest in religious matters. Madison believed that "religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize." He spoke of the "almost fifteen centuries" during which Christianity had been on trial: "What have 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." If Washington mentioned the Almighty in a public address, as he occasionally did, he was careful to refer to Him not as "God" but with some nondenominational moniker like "Great Author" or "Almighty Being." It is interesting to note that the Father of our Country spoke no words of a religious nature on his deathbed, although fully aware that he was dying, and did not ask for a man of God to be present; his last act was to take his own pulse, the consummate gesture of a creature of the age of scientific rationalism.

Tom Paine, a polemicist rather than a politician, could afford to be perfectly honest about his religious beliefs, which were baldly deist in the tradition of Voltaire: "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.... I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." This is how he opened The Age of Reason, his virulent attack on Christianity. In it he railed against the "obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness" of the Old Testament, "a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." The New Testament is less brutalizing but more absurd, the story of Christ's divine genesis a "fable, which for absurdity and extravagance is not exceeded by any thing that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients." He held the idea of the Resurrection in especial ridicule: Indeed, "the wretched contrivance with which this latter part is told, exceeds every thing that went before it." Paine was careful to contrast the tortuous twists of theology with the pure clarity of deism. "The true deist has but one Deity; and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in every thing moral, scientifical, and mechanical."

Paine's rhetoric was so fervent that he was inevitably branded an atheist. Men like Franklin, Adams and Jefferson could not risk being tarred with that brush, and in fact Jefferson got into a good deal of trouble for continuing his friendship with Paine and entertaining him at Monticello. These statesmen had to be far more circumspect than the turbulent Paine, yet if we examine their beliefs it is all but impossible to see just how theirs differed from his.

Franklin was the oldest of the Founding Fathers. He was also the most worldly and sophisticated, and was well aware of the Machiavellian principle that if one aspires to influence the masses, one must at least profess religious sentiments. By his own definition he was a deist, although one French acquaintance claimed that "our free-thinkers have adroitly sounded him on his religion, and they maintain that they have discovered he is one of their own, that is that he has none at all." If he did have a religion, it was strictly utilitarian: As his biographer Gordon Wood has said, "He praised religion for whatever moral effects it had, but for little else." Divine revelation, Franklin freely admitted, had "no weight with me," and the covenant of grace seemed "unintelligible" and "not beneficial." As for the pious hypocrites who have ever controlled nations, "A man compounded of law and gospel is able to cheat a whole country with his religion and then destroy them under color of law"--a comment we should carefully consider at this turning point in the history of our Republic.

Here is Franklin's considered summary of his own beliefs, in response to a query by Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale. He wrote it just six weeks before his death at the age of 84.

Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
As for Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as it probably has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed, especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any particular marks of his displeasure.

Jefferson thoroughly agreed with Franklin on the corruptions the teachings of Jesus had undergone. "The metaphysical abstractions of Athanasius, and the maniacal ravings of Calvin, tinctured plentifully with the foggy dreams of Plato, have so loaded [Christianity] with absurdities and incomprehensibilities" that it was almost impossible to recapture "its native simplicity and purity." Like Paine, Jefferson felt that the miracles claimed by the New Testament put an intolerable strain on credulity. "The day will come," he predicted (wrongly, so far), "when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." The Revelation of St. John he dismissed as "the ravings of a maniac."

Jefferson edited his own version of the New Testament, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth," in which he carefully deleted all the miraculous passages from the works of the Evangelists. He intended it, he said, as "a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." This was clearly a defense against his many enemies, who hoped to blacken his reputation by comparing him with the vile atheist Paine. His biographer Joseph Ellis is undoubtedly correct, though, in seeing disingenuousness here: "If [Jefferson] had been completely scrupulous, he would have described himself as a deist who admired the ethical teachings of Jesus as a man rather than as the son of God. (In modern-day parlance, he was a secular humanist.)" In short, not a Christian at all.

The three accomplishments Jefferson was proudest of--those that he requested be put on his tombstone--were the founding of the University of Virginia and the authorship of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The latter was a truly radical document that would eventually influence the separation of church and state in the US Constitution; when it was passed by the Virginia legislature in 1786, Jefferson rejoiced that there was finally "freedom for the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammeden, the Hindu and infidel of every denomination"--note his respect, still unusual today, for the sensibilities of the "infidel." The University of Virginia was notable among early-American seats of higher education in that it had no religious affiliation whatever. Jefferson even banned the teaching of theology at the school.

If we were to speak of Jefferson in modern political categories, we would have to admit that he was a pure libertarian, in religious as in other matters. His real commitment (or lack thereof) to the teachings of Jesus Christ is plain from a famous throwaway comment he made: "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." This raised plenty of hackles when it got about, and Jefferson had to go to some pains to restore his reputation as a good Christian. But one can only conclude, with Ellis, that he was no Christian at all.

John Adams, though no more religious than Jefferson, had inherited the fatalistic mindset of the Puritan culture in which he had grown up. He personally endorsed the Enlightenment commitment to Reason but did not share Jefferson's optimism about its future, writing to him, "I wish that Superstition in Religion exciting Superstition in Polliticks...may never blow up all your benevolent and phylanthropic Lucubrations," but that "the History of all Ages is against you." As an old man he observed, "Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been upon the point of breaking out, 'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!'" Speaking ex cathedra, as a relic of the founding generation, he expressed his admiration for the Roman system whereby every man could worship whom, what and how he pleased. When his young listeners objected that this was paganism, Adams replied that it was indeed, and laughed.

In their fascinating and eloquent valetudinarian correspondence, Adams and Jefferson had a great deal to say about religion. Pressed by Jefferson to define his personal creed, Adams replied that it was "contained in four short words, 'Be just and good.'" Jefferson replied, "The result of our fifty or sixty years of religious reading, in the four words, 'Be just and good,' is that in which all our inquiries must end; as the riddles of all priesthoods end in four more, 'ubi panis, ibi deus.' What all agree in, is probably right. What no two agree in, most probably wrong."

This was a clear reference to Voltaire's Reflections on Religion. As Voltaire put it:

There are no sects in geometry. One does not speak of a Euclidean, an Archimedean. When the truth is evident, it is impossible for parties and factions to arise.... Well, to what dogma do all minds agree? To the worship of a God, and to honesty. All the philosophers of the world who have had a religion have said in all ages: "There is a God, and one must be just." There, then, is the universal religion established in all ages and throughout mankind. The point in which they all agree is therefore true, and the systems through which they differ are therefore false.

Of course all these men knew, as all modern presidential candidates know, that to admit to theological skepticism is political suicide. During Jefferson's presidency a friend observed him on his way to church, carrying a large prayer book. "You going to church, Mr. J," remarked the friend. "You do not believe a word in it." Jefferson didn't exactly deny the charge. "Sir," he replied, "no nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example. Good morning Sir."

Like Jefferson, every recent President has understood the necessity of at least paying lip service to the piety of most American voters. All of our leaders, Democrat and Republican, have attended church, and have made very sure they are seen to do so. But there is a difference between offering this gesture of respect for majority beliefs and manipulating and pandering to the bigotry, prejudice and millennial fantasies of Christian extremists. Though for public consumption the Founding Fathers identified themselves as Christians, they were, at least by today's standards, remarkably honest about their misgivings when it came to theological doctrine, and religion in general came very low on the list of their concerns and priorities--always excepting, that is, their determination to keep the new nation free from bondage to its rule.
Mulderator's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 49,760 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
01-May-2005, 11:54 PM #2
Well, this thread tells me I really don't have to worry about the Democrats winning back the votes of those that believe in God! You guys just keep insulting them!

Better check with Hillary--I heard she's been quoting scripture!
alex_holker's Avatar
Senior Member with 1,928 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: West Australia
Experience: Tech-Addict
02-May-2005, 02:15 AM #3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulder
Well, this thread tells me I really don't have to worry about the Democrats winning back the votes of those that believe in God! You guys just keep insulting them!

Better check with Hillary--I heard she's been quoting scripture!
You completely failed to address the subject, Mulder. Besides which, you make it sound like you'd want political parties to brownnose just to get some more votes.

Linsky: A very interesting article, I'm curious as to whether anyone does actually try to prove the article wrong.

Alex
Mulderator's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 49,760 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
02-May-2005, 02:39 AM #4
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex_holker
You completely failed to address the subject, Mulder. Besides which, you make it sound like you'd want political parties to brownnose just to get some more votes.
I don't see the need to address the subject of a thread that starts out with "The Lies of the Religious Right." You should know the thread starter well enough to know he doesn't care to discuss the issue intelligently either (otherwise the thread title would have been named differently).

As for political parties, its not an issue of "brownnosing", its an issue of respect. There is no need to disrespect people simply because they have a belief in God, even if you think the belief is silly.

And Linsky's not going to discuss anything--he's going to tell people what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
__________________
Weapon of Mass Instruction!

Do you like counting dead bodies? If so, you'll LOVE this thread: http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-...ity-chart.html. On the other hand, if you prefer honoring heroes, please visit this thread: http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-...those-who.html
Mulderator's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 49,760 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
02-May-2005, 02:59 AM #5
By the way--the author of that article is a left wing zealout and she has no legal training. I might as well post articles by Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter in response to this left wing hag.

Here is an example of her thought process (or lack of it):

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...apin040605.htm


Quote:
Brooke Allen: First of all, I very much object to the term "conservative," which has come, at least in political terms, to be meaningless. Ever since Reagan took office the Republican party has been on a course of extreme radical CHANGE. While I have always voted Democrat or Green, I consider myself far more of a conservative in the real sense of the word than Clarence Thomas or Tom Delay. I want to conserve the social fabric, or what's left of it, and conserve the New Deal policies that have traditionally helped those in need; I want to conserve respect for the elderly embodied in Medicaid; I want to conserve educational standards (or more properly, restore them to what they once were); I want to conserve (or restore) the respect that America has traditionally enjoyed in the world community; I want to conserve the right of labor to organize; I want to conserve the wall of separation between Church and State established by our Founding Fathers; I want to conserve the character of our countryside and towns and to limit the hideous sprawl that is swallowing the countryside; I want above all to preserve the environment, or what's left of it. Republican administrations since the 1980s have sought either actively to destroy these things or to destroy the legislation that has protected them. This radical social agenda is a long way from traditional conservatives such as Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford, who simply tried to run the country on fiscally conservative lines without imposing their own extreme ideology on the country. I (and many of my friends) are deeply offended at the idea of men like Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Newt Gingrich (all flawed men who have led far from blameless personal lives) preaching their version of morality. In America we are all supposed to be free to make our own moral choices. In recent years the American right has embraced a very crude form of social Darwinism (while denying biological Darwinism!) of which the basic principle seems to be "eat or be eaten." If someone succeeds on a grand scale, good for them; if not, too bad for them; the safety net is to be removed. The most vulnerable populations in our country--children and old people, who are literally defenseless--are being stripped of resources daily. The rhetoric of the New Right appeals not to the ideals of the electorate but to their fears and prejudices, thus persuading populations (such as blue collar workers and organized labor) that have traditionally depended on liberal policies for their well-being to vote against their own interests.
Does that sound like every senseless emotional liberal rhetoric you've ever heard--she sounds like an advertisement for a Hallmark Christmas special--its dripping with self-righteous indignation--her thinking is as niave as it is overly simplistic.

But the point is she is not in the least bit qualified to discuss the Constiution, religion, or the effect one had on the other.
__________________
Weapon of Mass Instruction!

Do you like counting dead bodies? If so, you'll LOVE this thread: http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-...ity-chart.html. On the other hand, if you prefer honoring heroes, please visit this thread: http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-...those-who.html

Last edited by Mulderator : 02-May-2005 03:11 AM.
Wet Chicken's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 10,676 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Chickenatti
Experience: Forums Favorite Piñata
02-May-2005, 03:04 AM #6
Quote:
Originally Posted by linskyjack
I would ask any of the righties who want to respond to it to please stick with facts. Dont make stuff up and please
ROFL!!! You're asking way too much from the righties there. You practically tied them into a knot
Mulderator's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 49,760 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
02-May-2005, 03:08 AM #7
Here is an article by two people eminently more qualified to discuss this topic:

Let me preface by saying I firmly believe in separation of church and state, but the problem is people like Linsky and most other liberals have absolutely no idea what it means--certainly the author of the article by Linsky does not.

http://michaelnovak.net/Module/Artic...ew.aspx?id=119

Quote:
Religion and the Founders

The Nation is out of step with the American people.

By Christopher Levenick and Michael Novak

Published by National Review Online

If one were looking for an example of how desperately out of touch the Left is with mainstream American culture, it would be difficult to find a better example than the February 21 issue of The Nation. That issue features an article by Brooke Allen entitled "Our Godless Constitution," which attempts to prove that "[o]ur nation was founded not on Christian principles, but on Enlightenment ones." What a strange distinction! It certainly would have been foreign to the Founders, who thought the moral precepts of Christian faith indispensable to the survival of the infant republic. And it's a distinction that remains foreign to the vast majority of Americans today.

Why, one wonders, does Allen even bother to raise this argument? Why now, after the Left has so manifestly marginalized itself on moral and religious issues? For one thing, like most everything The Nation publishes, her article accuses President Bush of lying — indeed, of lying on an Orwellian scale. But it's remarkable how uninterested she is in proving the point. She offers not one shred of evidence of the president's actually saying what she accuses him of saying. Not one quote. And even if she were to find some example of Bush's asserting that the United States was founded on Christian and not Enlightenment principles, she would have to provide evidence that Bush himself disbelieved the statement. Otherwise Bush wouldn't be lying, he would merely be expressing his historical judgment. That judgment may or may not be wrong, but that possibility doesn't make it a lie. Lying means saying something other than what you yourself think. It means intentional deceit.

Honest mistakes are not lies. Allen makes plenty of mistakes herself, but it would be unfair to call her a liar.

To take an example: In her litany of statements that intend to prove that "the Founding Fathers were not religious men," she cites one line from a letter written by John Adams. According to Allen, "As an old man, [Adams] observed, 'Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"'" Pretty damning evidence, right? Well, no: Allen neglects to include the next two sentences from Adams: "But in this exclamati[on] I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without Religion, this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell."

Allen commits plenty of other errors in her argument, but we'll confine ourselves to looking at just a few.

She asserts that "[i]n the Declaration of Independence, [God] gets two brief nods." Not true. As every schoolboy knows, the Declaration mentions God four times: "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," "endowed by their Creator," "Supreme Judge of the world," and "divine Providence." Equally problematic is her dismissive description of these invocations as "brief nods." (In fact, if you exclude the long list of grievances against George III, the Declaration on average invokes the name of God just about once every paragraph.) More important than its frequency is the indispensability of divine sovereignty to the document's overarching natural-law argument. The source of human rights, according to the Declaration, is not located in mutual human consent but rather in the creative activity of God.

Allen declares that "in the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is only mentioned twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the "only Heaven knows" sense)." Not true. The specific word "God" occurs twice, but neither time in Vidal's sense. In Federalist #18, Madison uses the term in reference to Apollo; in #43, he echoes the Declaration by invoking the "transcendent law of nature and of nature's God." Yet The Federalist employs other terms for God. John Jay mentions the blessings of "Providence" three times in Federalist #2. In Federalist #37, meanwhile, Madison twice takes note of the "Almighty," whose finger "has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution." Incidentally, a God who personally intervenes in the course of human affairs is not consistent with the Deist account of God. Such a God was known to the Hebrew prophets and the Christian apostles, but not to the philosophes who imagined a cold and distant watchmaker deity.

Allen claims that "our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God." Not true. The Constitution does invoke the name of the Lord in the enactment clause of Article VII: "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." Allen no doubt writes this off as a mere formality. But if we are to take seriously her claim that the "omission" of references to God in the Constitution is "too obvious to have been anything but deliberate," perhaps we need to take a second look at the text. A close reading reveals that the Constitution mentions only one other specific date. Article I, Section 9 allowed the importation of bonded slaves until "the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight" — a date that excludes the words "of our Lord." Given that she (incorrectly) thinks the "omission" of references to God was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, surely she would agree that the omission of the phrase "year of our Lord" was likewise too obvious to have been anything but deliberate. And if it was indeed deliberate, wouldn't this omission imply the ungodliness — or, to use a word not much in fashion at The Nation, the sinfulness — of chattel slavery?
Indeed, the fact that the Founders referred to God more frequently in the Declaration than in the Constitution is in itself further evidence of their belief in the compatibility of Enlightenment and Christian principles. The Founders learned from both classical statesmanship and Christian theology that the moral virtue of prudence involves first identifying the good to be achieved, and then formulating the means to achieve it. The Declaration, with its lapidary presentation of natural rights endowed by the Creator, identifies the good to be achieved. The Constitution in turn formulates the means for achieving this divinely appointed end. In this way the Founders rendered unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's.

The list of Allen's errors goes on. Allen portrays James Madison as making a blistering indictment of Christianity, when in fact Madison was disparaging nations that maintained an established institutional church. She contends that George Washington only occasionally mentioned the Almighty in public addresses, when in fact Washington's official (and private) writings are littered with scores of references to "Providence." She quotes a few lines from Benjamin Franklin, implying that they represent the mature reflections of a senior Framer, when in fact Franklin wrote the words in 1722, more than 60 years before the Constitutional Convention. She claims that "in modern-day parlance" Thomas Jefferson was "a secular humanist" — indeed, "not a Christian at all." It's a strange claim, especially since, not three sentences before, she quotes Jefferson's letter to Charles Thomson, in which Jefferson adamantly insists, "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus" (emphasis Jefferson's). Presumably Jefferson was privy to the content of his own beliefs, but Allen seems to think she knows better.

There are other serious lapses, both of omission and commission, but it's beside our purposes to catalogue them here. What absolutely must be addressed is the fundamental chasm that Allen sees between Christianity and the Enlightenment.

Every single one of the Founders believed that, at the level of both individual morality and public policy, the demands of reason and of revelation powerfully reinforce one another. They understood that with respect to the ultimate questions — the creation of the universe, the purpose of human existence, and the hope of life after death — faith and philosophy might differ. In the practical world they inhabited, however, the Founders believed that both Socrates and Jesus enjoined their followers to accord all persons truth, justice, and charity.

Indeed, the Founders saw the cultivation of religious sentiment as the ultimate safeguard of American liberty. They knew that liberty could only prosper among moral citizens, whose practice of self-government in their private lives was a necessary prerequisite for its exercise in public. They believed that even if it were possible for certain individuals to behave morally without believing in God, on the whole an entire citizenry could not long keep its moral bearings without the guidance of religious faith.

This conviction permeates their public and private writings. George Washington placed it at the heart of his Farewell Address, in which he advised the nation that of "all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens." Indeed, he continued, "reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Thomas Jefferson shared this sentiment entirely, as when he famously wondered whether "the liberties of a nation [can] be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but by his wrath?" John Adams likewise held the opinion that republican government required religious practice, as when he wrote as president: "We have no government armed with power of contending with human passions unbridled by morality or religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Such thinking runs throughout the whole of American political life, from Washington to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Reagan, and up to the present day. It is a tradition from which President Bush has not deviated.

Bush does not doubt that the religious principles of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews have nurtured and maintained our constitutional democracy. He doesn't see an intractable opposition between Enlightenment and Christian principles. Rather, he perceives an innate affinity, a belief in which he is joined by the overwhelming majority of Americans. And until Brooke Allen, The Nation, and the cultural Left make their peace with that fact, they will remain on the fringes of our national politics, isolated and confused.

— Christopher Levenick is the W.H. Brady Doctoral Fellow at AEI and a doctoral candidate at the University of Chicago.

— Michael Novak is the winner of the 1994 Templeton Prize for progress in religion and the George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute.
As I said--the author of Linsky's article, like Linsky, is completely out of touch with mainstream America--she hasn't got a clue and she couldn't be more wrong in her assertion that the founding fathers were not religious men.
__________________
Weapon of Mass Instruction!

Do you like counting dead bodies? If so, you'll LOVE this thread: http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-...ity-chart.html. On the other hand, if you prefer honoring heroes, please visit this thread: http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-...those-who.html

Last edited by Mulderator : 02-May-2005 03:32 AM.
Wet Chicken's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 10,676 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Chickenatti
Experience: Forums Favorite Piñata
02-May-2005, 03:12 AM #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulder
You should know the thread starter well enough to know he doesn't care to discuss the issue intelligently either
Seems to me that he's asked some honest questions in this thread, and that you righties are dancing around avoiding the issue by your usual evocative name calling

Quote:
otherwise the thread title would have been named differently
This from the master of suggestive thread titles
Mulderator's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 49,760 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
02-May-2005, 03:36 AM #9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wet Chicken
Seems to me that he's asked some honest questions in this thread, and that you righties are dancing around avoiding the issue by your usual evocative name calling
D
So I guess you don't consider "The Lies of the Religious Right" as evocative (you meant "provocative") name calling? Would that be considered a friendly invitation to some intelligent discourse in your circles?
Wet Chicken's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 10,676 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Chickenatti
Experience: Forums Favorite Piñata
02-May-2005, 03:45 AM #10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulder
you meant "provocative" name calling?
No I meant evocative just as stated.

And I consider the title as being "accurate" more then anything
bassetman's Avatar
Computer Specs
Moderator with 46,195 posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great White North (WI)
Experience: Getting somewhere I hope
02-May-2005, 04:29 AM #11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulder

I don't see the need to address the subject of a thread that starts out with "The Lies of the Religious Right." You should know the thread starter well enough to know he doesn't care to discuss the issue intelligently either (otherwise the thread title would have been named differently).

As for political parties, its not an issue of "brownnosing", its an issue of respect. There is no need to disrespect people simply because they have a belief in God, even if you think the belief is silly.

And Linsky's not going to discuss anything--he's going to tell people what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
So Mulder, does this mean you are not just a Right Wing Nut, but a Religious Right Wing Nut?
bassetman's Avatar
Computer Specs
Moderator with 46,195 posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great White North (WI)
Experience: Getting somewhere I hope
02-May-2005, 04:31 AM #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulder
Here is an article by two people eminently more qualified to discuss this topic:

Let me preface by saying I firmly believe in separation of church and state, but the problem is people like Linsky and most other liberals have absolutely no idea what it means--certainly the author of the article by Linsky does not.

http://michaelnovak.net/Module/Artic...ew.aspx?id=119



As I said--the author of Linsky's article, like Linsky, is completely out of touch with mainstream America--she hasn't got a clue and she couldn't be more wrong in her assertion that the founding fathers were not religious men.
Well fortunately, that is changing!
linskyjack's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 22,282 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
02-May-2005, 07:56 AM #13
Once again, Mulder really does everything in his power to skirt the issue. If he wants to equate the mention of "Apollo" and "Providence" with the Founding Fathers creating a Christian country then, heck, there is very little to be done convince him differently. Studying the history of the period, it is so obvious that until the early 19th Century, and the beginning of the Second Great Awakening, religion played a very minor role in politics.
The Treaty of Tripoli should be enough to shut these religious fanatics up once and for all.
Ciberblade's Avatar
Computer Specs
Community Moderator with 15,700 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Heart of the Bluegrass Ky
Experience: Mostly Harmless
02-May-2005, 08:08 AM #14
I have addressed your claims about George Washington before...I submit to you the first thanksgiving:
Quote:
Proclamation of National Thanksgiving

George Washington

City of New York, October 3, 1789

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington
link
I am also reminded of his first inagural address:
Quote:
since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained: and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

and

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the human race in humble supplication that, since he has been pleased to favor the American People with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union, and the advancement of their happiness, so his divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.
linskyjack's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 22,282 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
02-May-2005, 08:10 AM #15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulder
I don't see the need to address the subject of a thread that starts out with "The Lies of the Religious Right." You should know the thread starter well enough to know he doesn't care to discuss the issue intelligently either (otherwise the thread title would have been named differently).

As for political parties, its not an issue of "brownnosing", its an issue of respect. There is no need to disrespect people simply because they have a belief in God, even if you think the belief is silly.

And Linsky's not going to discuss anything--he's going to tell people what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

Once again Mulder's logic is lacking. No one is attacking religious people. We are attacking religious people who want us to see the world the way they do. We are attacking theocracy, and the distortion of the views of our Founding Fathers. By the way, as far as I am concerned, the "theologians" link that Mulder supplied makes a very poor case in questioning the article I posted. Just read it. I mean how desperate are you when you say that God is mentioned in the Constitution---"in the year of our Lord"
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

You Are Using:
Server ID
Advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:12 PM.
Copyright © 1996 - 2008 TechGuy, Inc. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin, Copyright © 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.1.0
Powered by Cermak Technologies, Inc.