OMG! Science Attacks Religion!

[newpolitics]

That's a lazy argument.

As is the argument I was responding to, so it just seemed fitting that I respond in similar fashion so as to be respectful.

Cop out. If you can't respond to the points made, dont bother posting. Attacking the messenger isn't a mature or intellectual response.

Point this out to your conservative Christian friends who do the same thing. Most notably, political chic, the author of this very thread and you might show some consistency.

 

[Newby]

No, you made the claim that the difference between the french revolution and the american was christianity. It had nothing to do with a king who repeatedly starved his people while living in palaces. By comparison our complaints of over high taxes and restrictive rule was a meager one.

I simply pointed out that the fact that the US was supposedly a 'christian' nation didn't stop them from exterminating the indians. If you don't like the term morally superior, it doesn't really change anything.

Now if you have a reasonable response as to why christianity was such a big help with one and not the other situation I will listen.

"...you made the claim that the difference between the french revolution and the american was christianity. "

It was.

And that is why they don't teach this difference between the two revolutions in government schools.




1. Contrary to the assertions of Liberals, who wish our founding fathers were more like the godless French peasants, skipping around with human heads on a pike, our founding fathers were God-fearing descendants of Puritans and other colonial Christians.
Coulter, 'Demonic," chapter eight.

2. The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.”
David Limbaugh

3. "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were... the general principles of Christianity. ...I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." -
John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28th, 1813, from Quincy. The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The
Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, edited by Lester J. Cappon,
1988, the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, pp. 338-340.

Who our founding fathers were descended from is irrelevant to anything within this discussion. You seem to think this fact makes our founding fathers also puritans or of similar theological disposition: This is a genetic fallacy. Who our founding fathers' forebears were is utterly irrelevant to who they were, and even more so, to the constitution they forged. Your intention in using these facts escapes me. The actual reality of our history, not the one you wish, points to our founding fathers being largely deistic and not the god-fearing Christians you wish them to have been, as they were influenced by enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau and Voltaire. Quoting a contemporary author with the same Christian bias' as you does nothing to make your case, in fact, it just outlays the severity of your own bias.

That is absolutely incorrect. I think you need to do a little more reading of the FF's writings and educate yourself on the true history of their backgrounds.

George Washington

"Father of Our Country"

While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.

(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)

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 labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)

John Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)

Fisher Ames

Framer of the First Amendment

Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.

(Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)

Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.
(Source: Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)

Oliver Ellsworth

Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court

[T]he primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important. . . . [T]he legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions—institutions wisely calculated to direct men to the performance of all the duties arising from their connection with each other, and to prevent or repress those evils which flow from unrestrained passion.

(Source: Connecticut Courant, June 7, 1802, p. 3, Oliver Ellsworth, to the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut)

Benjamin Franklin

Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence

[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

(Source: Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, April 17, 1787. )

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

(Source: James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, pp. 450-452, June 28, 1787.)

Thomas Jefferson

Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States

Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. 5, pp. 82-83, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr on August 19, 1785.)

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383.)

I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Frequently Asked Questions

The Aitken Bible and Congress

What involvement did Congress have with the Aitken Bible – that is, the 1782 “Bible of the Revolution”?
Because English language Bibles could not be printed in America but had to be imported, when the Revolution began and the British began to blockade all materials coming to America, the ability to obtain such Bibles ended. Therefore, in 1777, America began experiencing a shortage of several important commodities, including Bibles. On July 7, a request was placed before Congress to print or import more, because “unless timely care be used to prevent it, we shall not have Bibles for our schools and families and for the public worship of God in our churches.” Congress concurred with that assessment and announced: “The Congress desire to have a Bible printed under their care and by their encouragement.” A special committee overseeing that project therefore recommended:


[T]he use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great, . . . your Committee recommend that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different ports of the States of the Union.
Congress agreed with the committee’s recommendation and ordered Bibles imported.

While those Bibles were ordered imported by Congress, there is no indication that any ever arrived.

Four years later, in January of 1781, Robert Aitken (publisher of the Pennsylvania Magazine in Philadelphia) petitioned Congress for permission to print an English-language Bible on his presses in America rather than import the Bibles. In his memorial to Congress, Aitken said “your Memorialist begs leave to, inform your Honours That he both begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools” and went on to say “your Memorialist prays, that he may be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of, the Sacred Scriptures, in such manner and form as may best suit the wants and demands of the good people of these States.” Congress appointed a committee that was to “from time to time [attend] to his progress in the work; that they also [recommend] it to the two Chaplains of Congress to examine and give their opinion of the execution.” The committee, comprised of Founding Fathers James Duane, Thomas McKean, and John Witherspoon reported back to Congress in September of 1782 giving its full approval. They also included assurances from the two chaplains of Congress that “Having selected and examined a variety of passages throughout the work, we are of opinion that it is executed with great accuracy as to the sense, and with as few grammatical and typographical errors as could be expected in an undertaking of such magnitude.” Congress gave Aitken a ringing endorsement in the form of a congressional resolution to “publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper” to help sell and circulate the Bible.

I can go on and on and on...

 

[Truthmatters]

1. Western society remains strongly polarized with respect to God. This is the fundamental conflict, the result of which is a godless secular society. A careful study will convince one that the dichotomy originated in the French Revolution, wherein the efforts to remove the yoke of the monarchy and the Church resulted in an explosive overreaction: the assault on all religion, and the ongoing tirade against God.





2. Finding easy cover, many champion science as the cudgel…even though “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times

a. “But, today, there are scientists who shout from the rooftops, ‘Scientific and religious belief are in conflict. They cannot both be right. Let us get rid of the one that is wrong!’ And, not just tolerated, today they are admired. It is a veritable orgy of competitive skepticism- but a skepticism supposedly built of science. Physicist Victor Stengler and Taner Edis have both published books championing atheism. Both men exhibit the salient characteristic of physicists endeavoring to draw general lessons about the cosmos from mathematical physics: They are willing to believe anything.”
Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”

b. Before one accepts the support of such “smart scientists” simply because of their vocation, why not question this scientific atheism as merely yet another foolish intellectual fad, successor to academic Marxism, or feminism, or the various doctrines of multicultural tranquility? Ibid.

3. Charles Darwin knew that the theory of evolution placed religion in doubt, and atheist academics and scientists love to quote Darwin on that account. It is less than curious that Alfred Wallace, co-originator of the theory, is far less cited. Could it be because Wallace was spiritually inclined, and remained so throughout his life?





4. Scientific discoveries serve as formidable weapons in this conflict. For example, Darwinian evolution’s explanation for speciation, natural selection, requires variation, wherein one is superior to another. And science has gone further, with the theory of mutation, errors in transcription of DNA. Certainly, errors are evidence against creation: God’s system must be error free….true?

a. Hardly. If God has set in motion a process, as posited by Rene Descartes posited, in which his building blocks self-assemble, then errors that produce change are purposeful, in fact necessary. And disease and other adverse occurrences become explicable, e.g., “how could God let such things happen?”





5. Now, from the other side….science leaves much to be desired. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Lewontin on materialism - EvoWiki






a. And, yet, Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, and atheist-in-chief, has written "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
Perhaps he's not familiar with Professor Lewontin's admissions.

b. Peter Atkins, professor of physical chemistry at Oxford, denounced theology, poetry and philosophy and concluded that ’scientists are at the summit of knowledge, beacons of rationality and intellectually honest.’
Of course, he is an ardent atheist.






6. So, it seems that in our time, much of science is involved in an attack on traditional religious thought, and rational men and women must place their faith, and devotion, in this system of belief. And, like any militant church, science places a familiar demand before all others:
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Berlinski, Op.Cit.

I am really tired of people like you who have tried to cram your religion down my throat all my life and then turn arround and claim its sceince who is being unfair to religion.


No matter what you do you will not convince everyone to join you in your religious beliefs.


That does not mean the people who do not join you in your beliefs are evil.

It means they dont believe.


You want those who dont believe to PRETEND they believe so your life is easier for YOU.


I dont believe and I have as much right to talk about what I do and dont believe as you do.


Science is NOT attacking religion sceince in functioning as sceince which means it doesnt change the result of experiment and thought to FIT your religion.


Did you forget your church tried that in the past already?

It didnt work out very well did it

 

[Gadawg73]

"...you made the claim that the difference between the french revolution and the american was christianity. "

It was.

And that is why they don't teach this difference between the two revolutions in government schools.




1. Contrary to the assertions of Liberals, who wish our founding fathers were more like the godless French peasants, skipping around with human heads on a pike, our founding fathers were God-fearing descendants of Puritans and other colonial Christians.
Coulter, 'Demonic," chapter eight.

2. The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.”
David Limbaugh

3. "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were... the general principles of Christianity. ...I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." -
John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28th, 1813, from Quincy. The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The
Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, edited by Lester J. Cappon,
1988, the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, pp. 338-340.

Who our founding fathers were descended from is irrelevant to anything within this discussion. You seem to think this fact makes our founding fathers also puritans or of similar theological disposition: This is a genetic fallacy. Who our founding fathers' forebears were is utterly irrelevant to who they were, and even more so, to the constitution they forged. Your intention in using these facts escapes me. The actual reality of our history, not the one you wish, points to our founding fathers being largely deistic and not the god-fearing Christians you wish them to have been, as they were influenced by enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau and Voltaire. Quoting a contemporary author with the same Christian bias' as you does nothing to make your case, in fact, it just outlays the severity of your own bias.

That is absolutely incorrect. I think you need to do a little more reading of the FF's writings and educate yourself on the true history of their backgrounds.

Thomas Jefferson

Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States

Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. 5, pp. 82-83, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr on August 19, 1785.)

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383.)

I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Frequently Asked Questions

The Aitken Bible and Congress

What involvement did Congress have with the Aitken Bible – that is, the 1782 “Bible of the Revolution”?
Because English language Bibles could not be printed in America but had to be imported, when the Revolution began and the British began to blockade all materials coming to America, the ability to obtain such Bibles ended. Therefore, in 1777, America began experiencing a shortage of several important commodities, including Bibles. On July 7, a request was placed before Congress to print or import more, because “unless timely care be used to prevent it, we shall not have Bibles for our schools and families and for the public worship of God in our churches.” Congress concurred with that assessment and announced: “The Congress desire to have a Bible printed under their care and by their encouragement.” A special committee overseeing that project therefore recommended:


[T]he use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great, . . . your Committee recommend that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different ports of the States of the Union.
Congress agreed with the committee’s recommendation and ordered Bibles imported.

While those Bibles were ordered imported by Congress, there is no indication that any ever arrived.

Four years later, in January of 1781, Robert Aitken (publisher of the Pennsylvania Magazine in Philadelphia) petitioned Congress for permission to print an English-language Bible on his presses in America rather than import the Bibles. In his memorial to Congress, Aitken said “your Memorialist begs leave to, inform your Honours That he both begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools” and went on to say “your Memorialist prays, that he may be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of, the Sacred Scriptures, in such manner and form as may best suit the wants and demands of the good people of these States.” Congress appointed a committee that was to “from time to time [attend] to his progress in the work; that they also [recommend] it to the two Chaplains of Congress to examine and give their opinion of the execution.” The committee, comprised of Founding Fathers James Duane, Thomas McKean, and John Witherspoon reported back to Congress in September of 1782 giving its full approval. They also included assurances from the two chaplains of Congress that “Having selected and examined a variety of passages throughout the work, we are of opinion that it is executed with great accuracy as to the sense, and with as few grammatical and typographical errors as could be expected in an undertaking of such magnitude.” Congress gave Aitken a ringing endorsement in the form of a congressional resolution to “publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper” to help sell and circulate the Bible.

I can go on and on and on...

You need to.
You left out the support for a national religion at the Continental Congress and that was defeated.
And you left out the support for government funding of religious schools in the first budget of this great country and that was defeated.
Take a wild guess why the founders defeated those bills.
You good folks confuse the founding principles of this country which are the rights of THE INDIVIDUAL, not religion of any kind and the laws-THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY RELIGION to back up those rights of THE INDIVIDUAL who can pick, choose, AND PRACTICE any religion he/she wants WITH THE PROTECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT IN DOING SO and twist that basic foundation of this country to "this nation was founded on Christian principles"
Which is a gross distortion with no facts or foundation to stand on.
The Constitution IS WHAT THIS NATION WAS FOUNDED ON.
Not a religion. The LAW is not a religious belief as it covers EVERYONE OF ALL RELIGIONS.
If you need more kindly read the entire Constitution for 100% of the evidence.
You take for granted the very rights bestowed upon you by the Constitution, the laws that protect YOUR RELIGIOUS RIGHTS.
What other than THE CONSTITUTION protects YOUR freedom to practice YOUR religion?
NO religion does and that is the purpose of the LAW, not religious beliefs founding this country.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

 

[koshergrl]

Again, and still, the morons who seek the obliteration of Christianity and freedom of religion confuse freedom of religion with theocracy. They are not the same. You can (and we do) have freedom of religion, and yes, even reference God in the political arena, without having a theocracy.

Referencing a Christian God in political docuements, preambles, or holding prayer does NOT establish religion nor does it make a government a theocracy. A theocracy is when people are forced to ADHERE to a particular religion...when they are punished for not adhering to it, or violating religious precepts. That is not the same as violating secular LAWS that happen to have their root in religious principles. In a theocracy, it is a crime to take the Lord's name in vain, for example. It is a crime to be a Jew, if the theocracy is Islam. It is a crime to participate in full immersion baptism, if the state religion is, say, a form of Hindu.

But anti-Christian zealots won't acknowledge that. In their zeal to establish their own anti-theocracy, they demand that it is ILLEGAL to reference Christianity in any political discourse, to source laws in anything that could possibly hae origins in the Bible, and they insist that any politician who dares to declare their Christianity be barred from the political arena.

Which is, precisely, the definition of theocracy. The only difference is....they persecute Christians instead of non-Christians.

 

[koshergrl]

And in true fascist fashion they also attack educational isntitutions and scholars who dare to present studies that don't fall in line with their own demagoguery...see Hollie's attack on Oxford and well resepected scientists world-wide who present information that conflicts with the lies she wants to project. These are the same people who cleaned out the universities in Nazi Germany and Russia to replace them with seim-literate know-nothings whose primary objective was to teach students the lies of the current fascist state. They killed or threw the real scholars in prison.and replaced them with propagandist and quack scientists whose primary and only job was to spread lies that supported the fascists in charge..

 

[Underhill]

That's a lazy argument.

As is the argument I was responding to, so it just seemed fitting that I respond in similar fashion so as to be respectful.

Cop out. If you can't respond to the points made, dont bother posting. Attacking the messenger isn't a mature or intellectual response.

And yet I don't hear you applying the same standard to those you happen to agree with...

 

[Hollie]

And in true fascist fashion they also attack educational isntitutions and scholars who dare to present studies that don't fall in line with their own demagoguery...see Hollie's attack on Oxford and well resepected scientists world-wide who present information that conflicts with the lies she wants to project. These are the same people who cleaned out the universities in Nazi Germany and Russia to replace them with seim-literate know-nothings whose primary objective was to teach students the lies of the current fascist state. They killed or threw the real scholars in prison.and replaced them with propagandist and quack scientists whose primary and only job was to spread lies that supported the fascists in charge..

The rantings of the religiously insane.

I owe a debt of gratitude to the Founding Fathers who sculpted a constitution that protects me from religious fascists.

 

[Underhill]

"...you made the claim that the difference between the french revolution and the american was christianity. "

It was.

And that is why they don't teach this difference between the two revolutions in government schools.




1. Contrary to the assertions of Liberals, who wish our founding fathers were more like the godless French peasants, skipping around with human heads on a pike, our founding fathers were God-fearing descendants of Puritans and other colonial Christians.
Coulter, 'Demonic," chapter eight.

2. The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.”
David Limbaugh

3. "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were... the general principles of Christianity. ...I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." -
John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28th, 1813, from Quincy. The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The
Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, edited by Lester J. Cappon,
1988, the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, pp. 338-340.

Who our founding fathers were descended from is irrelevant to anything within this discussion. You seem to think this fact makes our founding fathers also puritans or of similar theological disposition: This is a genetic fallacy. Who our founding fathers' forebears were is utterly irrelevant to who they were, and even more so, to the constitution they forged. Your intention in using these facts escapes me. The actual reality of our history, not the one you wish, points to our founding fathers being largely deistic and not the god-fearing Christians you wish them to have been, as they were influenced by enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau and Voltaire. Quoting a contemporary author with the same Christian bias' as you does nothing to make your case, in fact, it just outlays the severity of your own bias.

That is absolutely incorrect. I think you need to do a little more reading of the FF's writings and educate yourself on the true history of their backgrounds.

Thomas Jefferson

Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States

Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. 5, pp. 82-83, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr on August 19, 1785.)

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383.)

I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Frequently Asked Questions

The Aitken Bible and Congress

What involvement did Congress have with the Aitken Bible – that is, the 1782 “Bible of the Revolution”?
Because English language Bibles could not be printed in America but had to be imported, when the Revolution began and the British began to blockade all materials coming to America, the ability to obtain such Bibles ended. Therefore, in 1777, America began experiencing a shortage of several important commodities, including Bibles. On July 7, a request was placed before Congress to print or import more, because “unless timely care be used to prevent it, we shall not have Bibles for our schools and families and for the public worship of God in our churches.” Congress concurred with that assessment and announced: “The Congress desire to have a Bible printed under their care and by their encouragement.” A special committee overseeing that project therefore recommended:


[T]he use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great, . . . your Committee recommend that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different ports of the States of the Union.
Congress agreed with the committee’s recommendation and ordered Bibles imported.

While those Bibles were ordered imported by Congress, there is no indication that any ever arrived.

Four years later, in January of 1781, Robert Aitken (publisher of the Pennsylvania Magazine in Philadelphia) petitioned Congress for permission to print an English-language Bible on his presses in America rather than import the Bibles. In his memorial to Congress, Aitken said “your Memorialist begs leave to, inform your Honours That he both begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools” and went on to say “your Memorialist prays, that he may be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of, the Sacred Scriptures, in such manner and form as may best suit the wants and demands of the good people of these States.” Congress appointed a committee that was to “from time to time [attend] to his progress in the work; that they also [recommend] it to the two Chaplains of Congress to examine and give their opinion of the execution.” The committee, comprised of Founding Fathers James Duane, Thomas McKean, and John Witherspoon reported back to Congress in September of 1782 giving its full approval. They also included assurances from the two chaplains of Congress that “Having selected and examined a variety of passages throughout the work, we are of opinion that it is executed with great accuracy as to the sense, and with as few grammatical and typographical errors as could be expected in an undertaking of such magnitude.” Congress gave Aitken a ringing endorsement in the form of a congressional resolution to “publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper” to help sell and circulate the Bible.

I can go on and on and on...

I could make the same list with quotes from modern presidents. Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1 and 2, Clinton, and yes Obama... They have all made similar statements about religion and god to one degree or another.

 

[Gadawg73]

Again, and still, the morons who seek the obliteration of Christianity and freedom of religion confuse freedom of religion with theocracy. They are not the same. You can (and we do) have freedom of religion, and yes, even reference God in the political arena, without having a theocracy.

Referencing a Christian God in political docuements, preambles, or holding prayer does NOT establish religion nor does it make a government a theocracy. A theocracy is when people are forced to ADHERE to a particular religion...when they are punished for not adhering to it, or violating religious precepts. That is not the same as violating secular LAWS that happen to have their root in religious principles. In a theocracy, it is a crime to take the Lord's name in vain, for example. It is a crime to be a Jew, if the theocracy is Islam. It is a crime to participate in full immersion baptism, if the state religion is, say, a form of Hindu.

But anti-Christian zealots won't acknowledge that. In their zeal to establish their own anti-theocracy, they demand that it is ILLEGAL to reference Christianity in any political discourse, to source laws in anything that could possibly hae origins in the Bible, and they insist that any politician who dares to declare their Christianity be barred from the political arena.

Which is, precisely, the definition of theocracy. The only difference is....they persecute Christians instead of non-Christians.

A few years ago my youngest graduated from high school and the graduation was going to be held at a large Baptist church where the county graduates all of their students for the last several years. My middle child graduated there. A national organization threatened to sue the school board for holding the graduation there on separation of church and state grounds as a local family did not want their child graduating from a public school in a church facility. A local lawyer I know volunteered his services pro bono in case the school board was sued and I, along with numerous other individuals in the county, pledged to pay his expenses of litigation if the school board was sued. Why?
Because all we were doing was renting a building and other than a cross on the wall in the building the graduation ceremony had nothing of any specific religion religious in it.
They backed down and never filed suit. We had support from all the congregations from every religion in the county for the graduation to be held in the Baptist church.
The big plus was the seating and the air conditioning!
However, I am not opposed to a prayer at the opening of it as we had that also and each year there are 7 graduating high schools that use that church for their graduations in this county so we have 7 different religious preachers, pastors, priests, rabbi, whatever come and give an opening prayer at each one.
Same with the football games.
But that is different than a coach rounding up his team and giving a prayer.
Political candidates reference God all the time in political documents. NEVER should God be mentioned in any law or government rule or regulation.

Your lack of legal knowledge and the application has you believe that one should be able to mention religious beliefs and the law in the same argument would open the flood gates in most all legal environment in this great country.
Why?
Because religious arguments are from MANY RELIGIONS.
So which one should we use?
Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christianity, Judaism, The Great Spaghetti Monster, Voodoo, Wican, Taoism, Shinto, Sikhism, Bahiai Faith, Seicho no le, Rastafarian, Chendoism?

Which one do we use? Where does THE CONSTITUTION distinguish which to use?
Which do we single out to acknowledge as THE TRUE WORD to use on government?
All of them?
We can't and you know it. That is why we rely on THE LAW to form every aspect of everything we do in this country from zoning, taxes, property rights, civil and criminal law.
That is what distinguishes us from the uncivilized countries.
They still use religion as their guide for society.
We go by THE LAW AND THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL.
And individuals come in all kinds of religions. The Constitution bans you from making your religion #1 and the authority of any kind in any shape, form or fashion in anything government.

 

[koshergrl]

And in true fascist fashion they also attack educational isntitutions and scholars who dare to present studies that don't fall in line with their own demagoguery...see Hollie's attack on Oxford and well resepected scientists world-wide who present information that conflicts with the lies she wants to project. These are the same people who cleaned out the universities in Nazi Germany and Russia to replace them with seim-literate know-nothings whose primary objective was to teach students the lies of the current fascist state. They killed or threw the real scholars in prison.and replaced them with propagandist and quack scientists whose primary and only job was to spread lies that supported the fascists in charge..

The rantings of the religiously insane.

I owe a debt of gratitude to the Founding Fathers who sculpted a constitution that protects me from religious fascists.

And I owe a debt of gratitude to the foundding fathers who sculpted a constitution that protects the religious from anti-Christian fascists, who seek to shut down churches, schools, and freedom of speech in order to replace them with brown shirt brainwashing *educators*.

 

[Hollie]

And in true fascist fashion they also attack educational isntitutions and scholars who dare to present studies that don't fall in line with their own demagoguery...see Hollie's attack on Oxford and well resepected scientists world-wide who present information that conflicts with the lies she wants to project. These are the same people who cleaned out the universities in Nazi Germany and Russia to replace them with seim-literate know-nothings whose primary objective was to teach students the lies of the current fascist state. They killed or threw the real scholars in prison.and replaced them with propagandist and quack scientists whose primary and only job was to spread lies that supported the fascists in charge..

The rantings of the religiously insane.

I owe a debt of gratitude to the Founding Fathers who sculpted a constitution that protects me from religious fascists.

And I owe a debt of gratitude to the foundding fathers who sculpted a constitution that protects the religious from anti-Christian fascists, who seek to shut down churches, schools, and freedom of speech in order to replace them with brown shirt brainwashing *educators*.

It was your brown shirt heroes who wore the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles.
I understand you're infuriated that your brand of religious fascism is throttled by a secular constitution, but your wish to plunge civilization back into the Dark Ages is not going to happen.

Yours is just more ranting of the religiously insane.

 

[Gadawg73]

And in true fascist fashion they also attack educational isntitutions and scholars who dare to present studies that don't fall in line with their own demagoguery...see Hollie's attack on Oxford and well resepected scientists world-wide who present information that conflicts with the lies she wants to project. These are the same people who cleaned out the universities in Nazi Germany and Russia to replace them with seim-literate know-nothings whose primary objective was to teach students the lies of the current fascist state. They killed or threw the real scholars in prison.and replaced them with propagandist and quack scientists whose primary and only job was to spread lies that supported the fascists in charge..

The rantings of the religiously insane.

I owe a debt of gratitude to the Founding Fathers who sculpted a constitution that protects me from religious fascists.

And I owe a debt of gratitude to the foundding fathers who sculpted a constitution that protects the religious from anti-Christian fascists, who seek to shut down churches, schools, and freedom of speech in order to replace them with brown shirt brainwashing *educators*.

You are an idiot.
No one seeks to shut down churches or schools and limit freedom of speech.
You are crazy.

 

[Newby]

Who our founding fathers were descended from is irrelevant to anything within this discussion. You seem to think this fact makes our founding fathers also puritans or of similar theological disposition: This is a genetic fallacy. Who our founding fathers' forebears were is utterly irrelevant to who they were, and even more so, to the constitution they forged. Your intention in using these facts escapes me. The actual reality of our history, not the one you wish, points to our founding fathers being largely deistic and not the god-fearing Christians you wish them to have been, as they were influenced by enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau and Voltaire. Quoting a contemporary author with the same Christian bias' as you does nothing to make your case, in fact, it just outlays the severity of your own bias.

That is absolutely incorrect. I think you need to do a little more reading of the FF's writings and educate yourself on the true history of their backgrounds.















WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Frequently Asked Questions

The Aitken Bible and Congress

What involvement did Congress have with the Aitken Bible – that is, the 1782 “Bible of the Revolution”?
Because English language Bibles could not be printed in America but had to be imported, when the Revolution began and the British began to blockade all materials coming to America, the ability to obtain such Bibles ended. Therefore, in 1777, America began experiencing a shortage of several important commodities, including Bibles. On July 7, a request was placed before Congress to print or import more, because “unless timely care be used to prevent it, we shall not have Bibles for our schools and families and for the public worship of God in our churches.” Congress concurred with that assessment and announced: “The Congress desire to have a Bible printed under their care and by their encouragement.” A special committee overseeing that project therefore recommended:


[T]he use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great, . . . your Committee recommend that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different ports of the States of the Union.
Congress agreed with the committee’s recommendation and ordered Bibles imported.

While those Bibles were ordered imported by Congress, there is no indication that any ever arrived.

Four years later, in January of 1781, Robert Aitken (publisher of the Pennsylvania Magazine in Philadelphia) petitioned Congress for permission to print an English-language Bible on his presses in America rather than import the Bibles. In his memorial to Congress, Aitken said “your Memorialist begs leave to, inform your Honours That he both begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools” and went on to say “your Memorialist prays, that he may be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of, the Sacred Scriptures, in such manner and form as may best suit the wants and demands of the good people of these States.” Congress appointed a committee that was to “from time to time [attend] to his progress in the work; that they also [recommend] it to the two Chaplains of Congress to examine and give their opinion of the execution.” The committee, comprised of Founding Fathers James Duane, Thomas McKean, and John Witherspoon reported back to Congress in September of 1782 giving its full approval. They also included assurances from the two chaplains of Congress that “Having selected and examined a variety of passages throughout the work, we are of opinion that it is executed with great accuracy as to the sense, and with as few grammatical and typographical errors as could be expected in an undertaking of such magnitude.” Congress gave Aitken a ringing endorsement in the form of a congressional resolution to “publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper” to help sell and circulate the Bible.

I can go on and on and on...

I could make the same list with quotes from modern presidents. Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1 and 2, Clinton, and yes Obama... They have all made similar statements about religion and god to one degree or another.

Except they didn't found this country, nor write the founding documents, nor establish in their writings on what precepts the country and its founding documents were based on. The idea that the founding fathers were not Christians is ludicrous and easily debunked. A good 30 to 40 of the founding fathers had theology degrees, the very first session of congress spent its first several hours in prayer. It's all fact and easily looked up in the National Archives for all to see.

 

[Newby]

The rantings of the religiously insane.

I owe a debt of gratitude to the Founding Fathers who sculpted a constitution that protects me from religious fascists.

And I owe a debt of gratitude to the foundding fathers who sculpted a constitution that protects the religious from anti-Christian fascists, who seek to shut down churches, schools, and freedom of speech in order to replace them with brown shirt brainwashing *educators*.

You are an idiot.
No one seeks to shut down churches or schools and limit freedom of speech.
You are crazy.

Hollie would do so in a heartbeat, of that I have no doubt after reading her idiocy.

 

[Hollie]

That is absolutely incorrect. I think you need to do a little more reading of the FF's writings and educate yourself on the true history of their backgrounds.















WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Frequently Asked Questions



I can go on and on and on...

I could make the same list with quotes from modern presidents. Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1 and 2, Clinton, and yes Obama... They have all made similar statements about religion and god to one degree or another.

Except they didn't found this country, nor write the founding documents, nor establish in their writings on what precepts the country and its founding documents were based on. The idea that the founding fathers were not Christians is ludicrous and easily debunked. A good 30 to 40 of the founding fathers had theology degrees, the very first session of congress spent its first several hours in prayer. It's all fact and easily looked up in the National Archives for all to see.

Yet, in spite of your insistence at assigning your religious beliefs to the Founding Fathers, these "devout Christians" still managed to frame a constitution that placed a muzzle on all government meddling in religious belief.

One only has to read the biographies of the FF's to understand that many were Deists, not Christian, and that they knew religions were poorly disposed toward competing religions.

Many of the FF's had direct experience with one specific Christian theocracy (the church of England), thus knew the danger of religious intolerance.

 

[Newby]

I could make the same list with quotes from modern presidents. Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1 and 2, Clinton, and yes Obama... They have all made similar statements about religion and god to one degree or another.

Except they didn't found this country, nor write the founding documents, nor establish in their writings on what precepts the country and its founding documents were based on. The idea that the founding fathers were not Christians is ludicrous and easily debunked. A good 30 to 40 of the founding fathers had theology degrees, the very first session of congress spent its first several hours in prayer. It's all fact and easily looked up in the National Archives for all to see.

Yet, in spite of your insistence at assigning your religious beliefs to the Founding Fathers, these "devout Christians" still managed to frame a constitution that placed a muzzle on all government meddling in religious belief.

One only has to read the biographies of the FF's to understand that many were Deists, not Christian, and that they knew religions were poorly disposed toward competing religions.

Many of the FF's had direct experience with one specific Christian theocracy (the church of England), thus knew the danger of religious intolerance.

What biographies? Who? What is 'many'?

And you're exactly right, they were devout Christians who understood the absolute necessity of liberty and freedom because of their beliefs and knowledge of God. And they designed a government and constitution to try to propagate that. Your inane comments about how Christians in the U.S. today are trying to turn this country into a theocracy are complete idiocy. Do you look under your bed every night as well?

 

[Hollie]

Except they didn't found this country, nor write the founding documents, nor establish in their writings on what precepts the country and its founding documents were based on. The idea that the founding fathers were not Christians is ludicrous and easily debunked. A good 30 to 40 of the founding fathers had theology degrees, the very first session of congress spent its first several hours in prayer. It's all fact and easily looked up in the National Archives for all to see.

Yet, in spite of your insistence at assigning your religious beliefs to the Founding Fathers, these "devout Christians" still managed to frame a constitution that placed a muzzle on all government meddling in religious belief.

One only has to read the biographies of the FF's to understand that many were Deists, not Christian, and that they knew religions were poorly disposed toward competing religions.

Many of the FF's had direct experience with one specific Christian theocracy (the church of England), thus knew the danger of religious intolerance.

What biographies? Who? What is 'many'?

And you're exactly right, they were devout Christians who understood the absolute necessity of liberty and freedom because of their beliefs and knowledge of God. And they designed a government and constitution to try to propagate that. Your inane comments about how Christians in the U.S. today are trying to turn this country into a theocracy are complete idiocy. Do you look under your bed every night as well?

There is nothing in the constitution that promotes or infers any propagation of Christianity.

I've made no comment about Christians attempting to turn the country into a theocracy. Are your delusions becoming reality for you?

Some of the FF's were Christian. Some were not. Why the need to force your religious beliefs on others?

 

[koshergrl]

Except they didn't found this country, nor write the founding documents, nor establish in their writings on what precepts the country and its founding documents were based on. The idea that the founding fathers were not Christians is ludicrous and easily debunked. A good 30 to 40 of the founding fathers had theology degrees, the very first session of congress spent its first several hours in prayer. It's all fact and easily looked up in the National Archives for all to see.

Yet, in spite of your insistence at assigning your religious beliefs to the Founding Fathers, these "devout Christians" still managed to frame a constitution that placed a muzzle on all government meddling in religious belief.

One only has to read the biographies of the FF's to understand that many were Deists, not Christian, and that they knew religions were poorly disposed toward competing religions.

Many of the FF's had direct experience with one specific Christian theocracy (the church of England), thus knew the danger of religious intolerance.

What biographies? Who? What is 'many'?

And you're exactly right, they were devout Christians who understood the absolute necessity of liberty and freedom because of their beliefs and knowledge of God. And they designed a government and constitution to try to propagate that. Your inane comments about how Christians in the U.S. today are trying to turn this country into a theocracy are complete idiocy. Do you look under your bed every night as well?

Who knows. She attacks me for my alleged belief that there should be no animal sacrifice..then when I say that if someone wants to perform animal sacrifice, so long as no laws are broken, I could give a shit...and she claims that makes me a scary fundy.

Cripes.