Ok this one is real important for our discussions on the attitude toward God our founders had. Take this speech from Ben Franklin. I put both pages, but page two is really where Ben really goes religious. If you are in a hurry skip to page two. This is from the
One Nation Under God book
__________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 31 Aug 2007 04:52
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Great.....
and? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 31 Aug 2007 05:05
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
And what you need more. I'll get you more tomorrow. I can go on and on and on but the faith of our founders. The modern no God in government atheist rule would have never worked with those guys. You did read this right? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 31 Aug 2007 16:18
Captain America
Of course. Ben Franklin was a man of his time, a time in which religion held greater sway over day-to-day lives. And it had been like that long before the U.S. and before Christianity.
The founding fathers were Christians, some more than others. But, again, religion had a stronger role.
Some early towns required people to attend churches, and in towns that didn't, there were many social controls (gossip, exclusion, etc.). And remember, they weren't too long removed from people being burned at the stake and drowned for religious reasons. So, displaying your Christian faith also was very practical and pragmatic.
As I've said before, many were deists. But all were products of the Enlightenment, which can be considered the first mainstream liberal philosophical movement. Like I have said before, many of these men believed that the bible was a starting point of understanding of the creator of all, but it wasn't the end.
As well, the country back then was a lot smaller and more homogenized: It was mostly white protestants. They formed a country that mostly catered to them. The founding fathers believed that white male landowners were the only ones qualified to vote. Many of them owned slaves and many of them believed blacks and native americans were less than human; many found justification for that belief in the bible. They almost all believed women were subservient to men.
Now, I don't judge them by our standards: Again, they were products of their time. Times change, and looking at someone through modern lenses is unfair. All you can do is try to move forward.
As our country has grown, our laws and how we construe those laws has changed. We no longer consider blacks as chattel and most folks now think native americans got a raw deal. Most of us agree that women should vote and be able to hold jobs.
As well, religion doesn't play as large a role as it once did. There are many reasons for this: There are more religions in the country, for one thing. Agnosticism and atheism are more prominent. Many people of faith have grown tired of watch churches collude with business interests and government, so they celebrate their faith in private. But it doesn't as large a role, and as such, our politicians don't cite the bible at every chance they get.
The country has grown away from being a loosely knit set of smaller communities in which the church is the central unifying piece into a nation filled with giant cities populated with millions of disparate people, as well as rural stretches that may harken back to those hallowed times, but are still very different.
The founding fathers would be shocked at all the changes: They would marvel at some and shake their heads at others. But they were flawed men, and some of their beliefs and practices have been dismissed with prejudice.
So, would the (some of the) founding fathers condemnations about the be all that bad? Wouldn't that be cause for celebration, that we have progressed past some of their outdated ideas and methods, while retaining their better ones and even expanding on them?
If conservatives had had their way, there would still be slavery, no womens' rights, no civil rights. Liberalism always wins out. Conservatism's job is to help keep it in check, but that's it.
We will never return to those ways; it is impossible to: The nation has grown too big and too varied, and frankly, the people who are calling for a return to that ol' time religion are a small minority.
And that's a good thing.
Posted: 31 Aug 2007 16:51
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Change is good when it's the right move to make, but change for the sake of change is just dumb.
Slavery would still be going on in North America if the Founding Fathers hadn't laid down the ground work. The Second Great Awakening was also very instrumental in helping end slavery.
A lot of liberals like to lump the Christianity of the Fore Fathers and slavery together so they can say, "See see slavery was bad, slavery existed with the founding fathers, so Christianity must be bad too." It just doesn't fly. A person needs to look at history from a big picture stand point. It was the Christianity of the fore fathers that gave them inspiration to move forward with the constitution to begin with. Had they not had such a deep love for God I doubt they would have had the gumptian or faith to risk all for freedom. Faith in God motivated them and gave them the strength to do what needed to be done.
They never wanted an established church but they never wanted to create an atmosphere where people had to worry about what they said or displayed or wore in religious expression. That's why they put it first in the Constitution. If they thought that religion should be seperated to the degree the ACLU believes and some of the recent supreme court justices they wouldn't have referred to God so much or had prayers and so forth. These guys surely weren't afraid to tell it like it is from their heart and their mind. They risked their lives for what they believed. They didn't just throw God in to get votes like some modern politician. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 31 Aug 2007 17:24
Captain America
Quote: A lot of liberals like to lump the Christianity of the Fore Fathers and slavery together so they can say, "See see slavery was bad, slavery existed with the founding fathers, so Christianity must be bad too."
That's not what I said at all. I specifically said I don't think they were bad; they were products of their time. I don't like when people judge historical figures my modern standards.
Posted: 31 Aug 2007 18:31
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
That's good, I just hear that a lot from people of the liberal persuasion. They always want to down Christianity and blame Christians for slavery as if Christians had created it when a lot of Christians risked their necks to end it.
I wasn't for sure if you were going that way or not. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 31 Aug 2007 19:35
Captain America
But a lot of Christians also supported it and used the bible as a pretext for it. Again, any religion and religious text can be subverted for whatever reasons people want.
that's one of the reasons many people have rebelled against religion.
not painting all christians like that, of course.
Posted: 31 Aug 2007 21:09 Last Edited By: Tim
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
It's been said our founding fathers wished to incorporate religious education into the schools of the day to prevent the misuse of Biblical scripture. Their idea was that by understanding the Word of God it could not be mininterpreted and used for ungodly things or violent acts such as the Crusades.
The Crusades I believe occurred before England had a version of the Bible the common man could get his hands on. A time commonly referred to as the dark ages. The catholic or English church had the only Bibles really, and nobody could understand them anyway without a good translation. The fore fathers believed Biblical knowledge was the way to prevent atrocities, and unjust laws in America.
Now I don't know much other than that like how the Crusades started or why. Just that the muslims seem to point to it any time they want to be angry at Christians. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 31 Aug 2007 21:49
Captain America
well, the crusades were absolutely rotten. read up on them: crusaders attacked muslims and christians; they even sacked constantinople, which was the home the eastern orthodox church.
the dark ages came about after the long fall of the roman empire. nobody could match their infrastructure and organization. one the last vestiges went, all of europe and the near middle east went to hell.
it's funny because early muslim empires were far more advanced and more civilized than europe was at the same time. while europe was destroying all traces of greco-roman culture and history, arabs saved the classics (the works of plato, etc.), as will as making huge strides in mathematics and exploration. And Moorish Spain was for a time considered a height of arab civilization and culture (religious tolerance was in full swing, for instance).
as much as the radical muslims of today hate western civilization, their forefathers were the ones who managed to preserve large swaths of it from the then-barbaric europeans.
ancient history is really fascinating.
Posted: 01 Sep 2007 01:06
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
My question was not long enough and I apologize. Was there something you were trying to point out specifically? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 01 Sep 2007 21:41
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Was there something you were trying to point out specifically?
Just the fact that Ben Franklin who most claim was the least religious of the founding father had a lot to say about God including quoting scriptures. He obviously was a man that read the Bible.
The point is America was founded on Biblical principles. You can't escape that without rewriting history. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 02 Sep 2007 01:54
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: The point is America was founded on Biblical principles. You can't escape that without rewriting history.
You're entitled to your opinion and I completely disagree. We're here mainly for political reasons.
Quote: Just the fact that Ben Franklin who most claim was the least religious of the founding father had a lot to say about God including quoting scriptures. He obviously was a man that read the Bible.
Thats great. Does that mean by any chance that he became the least religious of the group because he read the bible? He wouldn't be alone there and I totally sympathize. Now you're finally getting somewhere Tim. Some atheists are actually created by wisdon and not all from ignorance like you thought.
I am so proud of you! __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 02 Sep 2007 13:39
Captain America
Alright, gentlemen, keep up the good fight. I'm leaving on vacation, and I'll be nowhere near a computer, for the most part.
Best wishes, s.
Posted: 03 Sep 2007 06:50
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
I'll let history speak for itself.
Pay attention.
__________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 03 Sep 2007 18:07
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Thats great. Does that mean by any chance that he became the least religious of the group because he read the bible?
Did you read what he had to say by any chance? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 03 Sep 2007 18:45 Last Edited By: Tim
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
On the video, very good clip. I love history. Thing is if you are hoping Kennedy was pushing seperation of church and state by today's definition of course you would be sadly mistaken.
He's obvously working on getting elected here. He was as he said the first Catholic to ever be elected. He had an uphill battle for that reason. His motivation was to get elected, and he wanted the public to look at his policies and not his religious affiliation. That's the heart of the speech. Look at what I hope to accomplish and not where I go to church on Sunday. Do you think he would have been able to be very effective with that speech had he been a atheist? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 03 Sep 2007 22:43
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
My response disappeared...??
Quote: I believe in an America where the seperation of church and state is absolute.
That is the heart of the speech. That is why he gives all those reason why he believes it. How is today's definition any different than it was then?
If he was an athiest running for office he would have probably lied like your conservative representatives. See Billary for more info. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 04 Sep 2007 00:37
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: That is the heart of the speech.
The heart of the speech is don't hate me for being catholic, and I want establish the catholic church as the head of the U.S. People weren't that crazy about the catholic church back then. Protestants were the majority.
Your idea of seperation of church and state is to have a panic attack any time some kid mentions Jesus at football game or a graduation. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 04 Sep 2007 02:03
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
He says his religion should be immaterial to everyone but him. Nowhere does he ask for forgiveness for his beliefs or for people to not hate him for being a catholic. Why are you bringing up what the majority was? That has nothing to do with the speech.
You're completely ignoring the entire speech. Not to mention missing the point of what happened at that graduation. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 04 Sep 2007 17:45
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
I'm just putting the speech into context. His mission was to get elected. To get elected he needed to get people's minds off of his catholic rearing and onto what he wanted to do policy wise. Let's be honest too, JFK was a good President all things considered, but he won because he was a great speaker, and he looked much better on television than Richard Nixon. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 04 Sep 2007 19:37
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Again, he supported the supreme courts decision 100%(hence the word absolute) and gave reasons backing that.
You're not putting it into context. Not really. You're giving excuses. The man said what he said. This was not an actor or someone else's writing. This was him saying what he believed. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 05 Sep 2007 17:16
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: This was him saying what he believed.
That was him trying to get elected, by taking away from his catholic background.
Besides one man's opinion doesn't change what went on before. Again reread my comments on the Constititution and it's founding. http://reallypolitical.com/article89.htm __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 06 Sep 2007 02:18
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: Besides one man's opinion doesn't change what went on before
I've got your opinion and I've got JFK's. Which one do i go with about what hemeant, what he was saying, and the issue he was talking about?
Guess. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 06 Sep 2007 15:29
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Oh ok then how do you explain ignoring what George Washington and the other founders had to say about God every time I bring it up.
Besides anybody that knows anything at all about history knows JFK from his own words had a hard road to travel to becoming President due to his Catholic upbringing. He was the first Catholic to ever be elected. Why is deductive reasoning so hard for you if it goes against the ideas that have been shot through your head by fellow atheists and other humanistic teachings? Be a man and admit when someone else is right for a change. When you're right I'll admit it no problem. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 07 Sep 2007 01:58
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
I haven't ignored anything Tim. I deny the validity of those statements because of the source reporting them, the motive behind that source reporting it, and the plain simple truth that even if it were absolutely 100% true about all the holy issues that you've shared with us from that book-IT DOES NOT CHANGE HISTORY OR ALTER REALITY.
Quote: Besides anybody that knows anything at all about history knows JFK from his own words had a hard road to travel to becoming President due to his Catholic upbringing
Which does not take away what he said about supporting the separation of church and state absolutely and totally by his words and not someone else's version of them like your biased book.
Quote: Why is deductive reasoning so hard for you if it goes against the ideas that have been shot through your head by fellow atheists and other humanistic teachings
What do you have against reality?
Quote: Be a man
Now we're just gonna insult each other? Fine.
Go **** yourself you self righteous deluded prig. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 07 Sep 2007 15:24
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: I haven't ignored anything Tim. I deny the validity of those statements
You have no reason to doubt it other than it goes against your ideas. Let's be logical a secular publication is not going to point out in great detail the information necessary to argue my point. In fact most secular media might try to go out of their way to avoid the religious nature of our founding fathers.
Quote: What do you have against reality?
That should be my question to you. You don't seem to want to delve right in and get into all the details. Just the details you like.
Quote: Go **** yourself you self righteous deluded prig.
Don't blow junk out of proportion you big girl. Whoops, seriously I'm just kidding. Chill. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 08 Sep 2007 01:09
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Unless discussing religious events in history, history is secular. Someone looking to profit on adding things to history shouldn't be considered a real historian and therefore, as far as I'm concerned. that sensationalism doesn't count toward fact or reality. Think of how much garbage has come out to sell books by blowing up scandals, bringing former presidents to light as closet homosexuals and cross-dressers, etc. That's not history to me at all.
As for that last statement....
As an administrative figure, if you had known that was going to be there beforehand, would you have requested it out? Be honest.
Whoops, seriously, you can be a total tool sometimes. Chill out yourself. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 08 Sep 2007 19:12
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Someone looking to profit on adding things to history shouldn't be considered a real historian and therefore
If they were adding things. That's a pretty big charge for someone with no proof.
Quote: Whoops, seriously, you can be a total tool sometimes. Chill out yourself.
What a geek! I'm always cool, dude. The Fonz used to take lessons from me. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 09 Sep 2007 01:16
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Just mentioning the Fonz makes you old, not cool.
Recognizing the reference makes me old too, so don't feel too bad. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
