User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 52

  1. #21
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    The irrationalism that has griped much of the Protestant churches, Evangelicals at least, is largely a recent development in wake of the secularization of higher education.
    Frankly I think it's our own fault for giving the power to educate over to the state. I mean up to the end of the 19th century state education and protestant education were synonymous. I mean that's obviously why the catholics started their own school systems. Not to avoid secular education but to avoid protestant education.

    At the beginning of the 20th century, we had highly esteemed religious scholars like H. Richard Niebuhr. Going back further, many of the Protestant reformers were staunch advocates of a thorough education. Martin Luther, for example, condemned parents who neglected their childrens' education as "despicable dogs".
    Yeah I actually own Nienuhr's Christ and Culture, but I have yet to read it.

    Let's not forget the new england primer which sold 2 million copies in the 18th century. The level of grammar and understanding of english and theology that was expected of youngsters far exceeded the expectations of grade schoolers today that read the likes of "See Spot Run."

    kids were taught words like: Abomination, Gratification, Humiliation, Imagination, and Edification.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  2. #22
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I don't know what version of the constitution you're citing, but the version provided by the House of Representatives clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."


    Aside from you misquoting the Constitution, I also mentioned what the second principal author of the Constitution noted. If you don't believe me, you can read him yourself:
    My apologies for the misquote. This was indeed a clear error on my part.

    However, the quotes you've offered constitute the opinion of one author of the Constitution, and as you noted, not the principal author.

    If, however, we consult some of the writings of James Madison, widely accepted as the primary author of the Constitution, we can see clearly that he supported a clear separation between religion and politics:

    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison
    The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison
    Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822)
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison
    The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law...(Letter to Edward Everett, Montpellier, March 18, 1823)

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    This excerpt is from his 1791 lectures where he explains the reasoning behind the newly adopted Constitution. It is recorded that George Washington, our first president, attended these lectures.
    Evidently not every author of the Constitution shared the same view on the role of religion in government. Most of the founding fathers were deists or otherwise agnostic; in fact, a proposed vote to open each Congressional session during the drafting of the Constitution with a group prayer received only four votes in favor of the idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Another primary source to consult on this issue are Political Sermons of the Founding Era 1730-1805. As Ellis Sandoz notes in the Foreword:


    In 1982 Congress passed Public Law 97-280 acknowledging that "Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the constitution of the United States." This authorised then President Reagen to proclaim 1983 as "Year of the Bible".

    So there.
    I understand that Biblical teachings have had a tremendous influence on social and political policy through the nation's history; however, that does not justify intrusions upon civil policy from purely religion institutions. Many of the basic ideas on treatment of others (no stealing, murdering, cheating on spouses, etc.) predate the Bible in human law by thousands of years, so it is not fair to say that the Bible or Christianity is solely responsible for these most fundamental moral ideals.

    As I said above, there are clearly reasonable, secular justifications for many of the laws commonly credited as direct results of Christianity. Whether or not Christianity happens to agree with them is immaterial; the important question in considering any law is, can we show valid non-religious reasoning to support this law, and would this law still be desirable independently of religious influence?

    Please bear in mind that I don't propose any sort of restriction of the free exercise of religion, as that would indeed be unconstitutional; however, I don't consider "But lots of legal principles in US law happen to agree with religious principles" a reasonable justification for using religious criteria in the design of legislation.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #23
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Frankly I think it's our own fault for giving the power to educate over to the state. I mean up to the end of the 19th century state education and protestant education were synonymous. I mean that's obviously why the catholics started their own school systems. Not to avoid secular education but to avoid protestant education.
    In many ways I agree. It's not a good idea to give the state monopoly on anything really, not just education. That's why within the Western Christian tradition there was always this concept of the seperation of church and state, although to prevent the state from interferring with the affairs of the church.

    Yeah I actually own Nienuhr's Christ and Culture, but I have yet to read it.
    It's very well-written book, although I haven't read through it entirely. It explores the various perspectives concerning the relationshio between the faith and society as a whole.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Daedalus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    The irony of course being that your statement is quite irrational, especially in light of the fact that rational arguments for God's existence go back to Plato at the very least. The official term for this form of thought is Natural Theology. Whether you agree with those arguments or not is another matter.
    I do not agree with those arguments(those of natural theology). If my statement is irrational...pls oblige me with an answer for this

    "where is the proof?"


    It was through Christianity that America received those influences, so basically you're not making much of an argument here.
    Would you praise the messenger, rather than the inventor? how interesting!
    I guess the next time i get a cheque, i should thank the postman instead.


    Why are you so adamant in not giving credit where credit is due? probably because it will sink the false claim that "America" is based on Christian values.


    ps: on a side note

    People still think Pythogarous invented the pythogarian theorom first
    (he was preceded by the Babylonians, the Egyptians the Indians and the Chinese)

    and that Gutenberg invented the Movable Type printing
    (Again, the Chinese had one 500 years earlier)

    And that the Numerals are Arabic
    (they are not)

    etc
    etc


    people ought to update their beliefs when new information comes to light....unless they tend to be dogmatic.



    Quite the contrary actually, as I just remarked.
    false reasoning.

    Credibility for what? As the author of our Constitution?
    As one with rational thought process.

    That was the accepted scientific theory at the time, untill an ordained priest named Copernicus proposed otherwise.
    Actually, no....there were others who proposed this before him.
    Even then, the religious authority took centuries to accept this scientific invention.

    Now when am I going to see an actual argument from you?
    When i see some rational response

    maybe starting with a reply to some of the contentious points about the Texas textbook changes which i posted in one of my previous posts.


    ps: The same folks who got caught red handed trying to falsify documents (changing the term "creationism" to "intelligent design") are the ones who supported the Texas "step up" textbook reform.

    A good documentary on how religion tries to impose its worldview on education through any means, including underhand ones. Its a PBS nova documentary called "Judgment day: intelligent design on trial", and the court ruling that decreed that intelligent design is not scientific.
    (Kitzmiller v. Dover School District.)


    NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial
    Extraverted - 25 Introverted - 75
    Sensing - 0 Intuition - 100
    Thinking - 63 Feeling - 37
    Judging - 63 Perceiving - 37
    ______________________________________


    It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.

  5. #25
    One day and the next Rainne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    899

    Default

    Well this thread sure got derailed.

    As to the OP, I prefer natural checks.
    Weathergirl: District 38 is sunny. Slight rock showers this morning. Chance of rock showers into the afternoon—20 percent. District 39 is cloudy. Chance of rock showers this afternoon—10 percent.
    Edward: Bebop here here! Alright woo hoo!
    Weathergirl: Chance of rock showers today upgraded to 90 percent.
    Edward: Really.

  6. #26
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    However, the quotes you've offered constitute the opinion of one author of the Constitution, and as you noted, not the principal author.
    No, but as I said, Wilson was second only to Madison as the author of the Constitution.

    If, however, we consult some of the writings of James Madison, widely accepted as the primary author of the Constitution, we can see clearly that he supported a clear separation between religion and politics
    These quotes support the institutional seperation of church and state, and is very much in line with Hooker(whose work was about church-state relations btw) and much of the Western Christian tradition - which would make sense since IIRC Madison came from a devout Episcopalian background.

    I understand that Biblical teachings have had a tremendous influence on social and political policy through the nation's history; however, that does not justify intrusions upon civil policy from purely religion institutions. Many of the basic ideas on treatment of others (no stealing, murdering, cheating on spouses, etc.) predate the Bible in human law by thousands of years, so it is not fair to say that the Bible or Christianity is solely responsible for these most fundamental moral ideals.
    It was the Classical-Christian tradition that was the main source for these "basic laws" in not only American but Western legal thought as a whole. Harold J. Berman's two volume study Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition goes into great depths about this. Dance around it as much as you like, but you can't escape Christianity's key role here.

    As I said above, there are clearly reasonable, secular justifications for many of the laws commonly credited as direct results of Christianity. Whether or not Christianity happens to agree with them is immaterial; the important question in considering any law is, can we show valid non-religious reasoning to support this law, and would this law still be desirable independently of religious influence?
    This is largely a more recent interpretation of Constitutional law. Throughout the early Republic and in the 19th century, references to Christianity were found quite frequently in legal procedures. One famous example being that of Chancellor James Kent, who upheld a conviction for blasphemy on the grounds that "we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity."

  7. #27
    Senior Member Daedalus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    185

    Default

    The Us treaty of Tripoli(1797) was Unanimously ratified and signed by President John Adams. It Explicitly states in Article 11 that

    "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"



    Extraverted - 25 Introverted - 75
    Sensing - 0 Intuition - 100
    Thinking - 63 Feeling - 37
    Judging - 63 Perceiving - 37
    ______________________________________


    It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.

  8. #28
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Starsiege View Post
    The Us treaty of Tripoli(1797) was Unanimously ratified and signed by President John Adams. It Explicitly states in Article 11 that


    There's controversy over how authentic that passage is, as noted by scholar Hunter Miller:
    "As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point"

    Avalon Project - The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816 - Treaty with Tripoli 1796 : Hunter Miller's Notes
    At the very best, it reaffirms that there's no official religion of America, and also take into account the fact we were negotiating with Muslim powers at the time as well.

  9. #29
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Hey moderators, can we get a thread split?

  10. #30
    Senior Member Daedalus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    185

    Default

    my apologies for having played a part in hijacking this threat...albeit unintentionally.
    Extraverted - 25 Introverted - 75
    Sensing - 0 Intuition - 100
    Thinking - 63 Feeling - 37
    Judging - 63 Perceiving - 37
    ______________________________________


    It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 155
    Last Post: 08-03-2013, 12:41 PM
  2. Ideological Makeup of the Supreme Court of the United States
    By Jonny in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-27-2012, 01:11 AM
  3. What Is The Future Of The United States?
    By highlander in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 02-24-2010, 04:20 AM
  4. Separation of Church and State
    By G-Virus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 12-03-2008, 03:22 AM
  5. A World beyond Politics? A Defense of the Nation-State
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-01-2008, 07:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO