The Founding Fathers

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
pookie wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

You are assuming that the politicians and leaders that aren’t out there pushing religious views are instead pushing pure science. Guess what, they aren’t. Instead they push for the legislation that enforces their own morals, world views, and politically biased “science”.

Is pushing religious legislation wrong? yes. But I don’t see it as any worse than the agendas anyone else in Washington is pushing.

This is more of an argument to keep the politicians out of the education systems altogether.[/quote]

Why I don’t think someone else should pay for my children’s education, and I should not pay for some half rate education for someone else’s children, if you can’t afford or don’t want to take the time to educate your children then don’t have them. People need to learn responsibility but if we don’t let them fall and try to get back up they will never learn this.

I don’t think government should provide education. It should all be private, when parents pay directly they will take more interest, for the most part.

The freakin entitlement mentality people possess these days is outrageous.

82

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Bill Maher: Do you believe in evolution?
Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor: You know, my, uh… first, I don’t know. Clearly, the scientific community’s a little divided on the specifics of that, and I understand that…
Maher: I don’t think they are.
Senator Pryor: No, no, I… well…
Maher: I think they pretty much agree.
Senator Pryor: I don’t know how it all happened, I mean, I’m perfectly willing to accept any…
Maher: But it couldn’t possibly have been Adam and Eve five thousand years ago with a talking snake in a garden, could it?
Senator Pryor: Well, it could have possibly been that.
Maher: Come on. See, this is my problem. You are a senator. You are one of the very few people who are really running this country. It worries me that people are running my country who think… who believe in a talking snake.
Senator Pryor: You don’t have to pass an I.Q. test to be in the Senate, though.[/quote]

Reason #4455 why I love Bill Maher.

Here’s the link to the video: - YouTube

83

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

You are assuming that the politicians and leaders that aren’t out there pushing religious views are instead pushing pure science. Guess what, they aren’t. Instead they push for the legislation that enforces their own morals, world views, and politically biased “science”.
[/quote]

Science, like anything else that produces statistics, can be made to fit a certain cause.

The difference is that at least they’re pushing something that has some kind of empirical proof, or has research behind it, as opposed to… oh I don’t know, made up shit.

Science is one thing. How it’s used is another, and often not the scientist’s fault. That’s not a good reason to say it’s on equal footing as religion.

I do, because religion shouldn’t be legislated. The country has made progress by eliminating such things as prayer in school, but the fact that people still try to push creationism to be taught in SCIENCE class is so far beyond me that I can barely comprehend it.

84

[quote]Why I don’t think someone else should pay for my children’s education, and I should not pay for some half rate education for someone else’s children, if you can’t afford or don’t want to take the time to educate your children then don’t have them. People need to learn responsibility but if we don’t let them fall and try to get back up they will never learn this.

I don’t think government should provide education. It should all be private, when parents pay directly they will take more interest, for the most part.

The freakin entitlement mentality people possess these days is outrageous.
[/quote]

Remember that the hordes of barely educated people that a purely private education system will inevitably create will have just as much voting power as you. Any democratic system of government requires there to be at least some equity in the education process. We’re seeing the middle east what democracy in a country where the majority of the voting population is undereducated and labors under dogmatic delusions produces. In order for democracy to work, the voting majority has have a reasonable level of intellectual competency.

And to the original point of the thread, while I am an atheist (I don’t believe in God, but I also don’t believe that God doesn’t exist), and believe that decisions based on research and logic consistently outperform those based on faith, I don’t really see why it matters what the Founding fathers believed. Sure, they were intelligent, but to analyze their motivations and beliefs that were not written in law is to commit the fallacy of appealing to authority. Whether or not Washington believed in God is irrelevant to both God’s existence and the proper place of religion in government. Washington died because he believed in the healing powers of mercury and bloodletting - while he is certainly an interesting man to study, his opinions are not sacred, and are subject to the same tests as any argument.

85

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

You are assuming that the politicians and leaders that aren’t out there pushing religious views are instead pushing pure science. Guess what, they aren’t. Instead they push for the legislation that enforces their own morals, world views, and politically biased “science”.

Science, like anything else that produces statistics, can be made to fit a certain cause.

The difference is that at least they’re pushing something that has some kind of empirical proof, or has research behind it, as opposed to… oh I don’t know, made up shit.

Science is one thing. How it’s used is another, and often not the scientist’s fault. That’s not a good reason to say it’s on equal footing as religion.

Is pushing religious legislation wrong? yes. But I don’t see it as any worse than the agendas anyone else in Washington is pushing.

I do, because religion shouldn’t be legislated. The country has made progress by eliminating such things as prayer in school, but the fact that people still try to push creationism to be taught in SCIENCE class is so far beyond me that I can barely comprehend it.
[/quote]

I’m not arguing that science and religion are on equal footing. I’m arguing all politicians are. I see things like wealth redistribution to “make things fair” and other social programs as the same thing. What about pushing to hand out condoms in high schools, is that science?

All politicians push morals through the education system. I certainly don’t think man made global warming should be taught to kindergartners. Some more secular politicians do. I hope you get as riled up about the scientific injustice in that.

86

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
pat wrote:

Well if your are worried over acts of evil, the good news is that no one group of people is absolved…Religious or otherwise. People kill each other all the time. Demonizing all organized religions for sins of it’s past is not necessarily fair.

I understand that. But a tremendous amount of blood is spilled over it, remarkable when you consider the origins of religion (that their initial teachers or prophets teach nonviolence).

That blood is not worth being spilt.
[/quote]
Most wars are stupid. Lot’s of blood has been spilt for a myriad of stupid reasons.

No they are not. Maybe some fundamentalists won’t let fact stand in the way, but religion and science are not the same thing. There are things about both that cross over, but religion does not advocate the stuff of science. Science is pure empiricism which is fine and useful but does not answer the stuff of religion. Empiricism can only take you so far, there are amny things that simply cannot be measured. If anything, I find science very complimentary to religion. I think we’re past the point of having to have a religious explanation for things.

People use it for control, but religion in it’s purest form advocates no controls. It’s an individual process ultimately. Organized religion, organizes the stuff of religion, but it’s job isn’t to control. It’s means by which to communicate with God. It’s people who mess up a good thing usually, but that will always happen. There is no perfect religion because there are no perfect people. People who advocate that they have the only right way are wrong. There are many paths that lead to the same place. Besides, God isn’t religious. He can’t worship himself.

87

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I don’t want governments corrupting my religious institutions.

And I don’t want religious institutions corrupting government, so we’re on the same page.[/quote]

The same page, though probably a different book…

I want credit for that one when it start’s showing up in famous quotes!

88

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I’m not arguing that science and religion are on equal footing. I’m arguing all politicians are. I see things like wealth redistribution to “make things fair” and other social programs as the same thing. What about pushing to hand out condoms in high schools, is that science?

All politicians push morals through the education system. I certainly don’t think man made global warming should be taught to kindergartners. Some more secular politicians do. I hope you get as riled up about the scientific injustice in that.[/quote]

No, I’m not for that either. I’m all for telling kids not to pollute, but I’m not for pushing the man-made global warming theory. Telling them that the Earth is warming? Yes, because it is. The causes, however, should be taught in a multitude of ways.

And I know what you mean about the other things.

90

[quote]Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson wrote:

“Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals–that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions–that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors.”[/quote]

My own sentiments about religion and government could not be put any more precisely nor succinctly.

92

[quote]Jefferson wrote:
<<< I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. >>>[/quote]

As I read through this thread I became more convinced than ever that these kinds of conversations cannot be had, at least by me, on an internet forum.

The sum of my comments regarding the founding fathers can be largely understood by the fact that in 1802 Jefferson saw no need to elaborate on the above quoted statement because there was a predominant social consensus and the vast majority living at that time knew what he meant. Today, natural rights and social duties are the subject of unceasing debate and division.

As long as that is the case no number or manner of laws can bring productive order and the division and discord will continue to escalate. It was that social consensus which while not religiously Christian, was undeniably built upon a Judeo Christian ethic that made limited government and individual liberty function.

93

[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< The twisting has occurred over the last 200 years. >>>[/quote]

There was a guy on the first page of this thread I almost responded to who mentioned something like the founders being hell bent on keeping religion out of government. It was actually the inverse. They were very concerned with keeping government out of religion. The establishment clause was for the purpose of protecting church from state.

95

[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< The language in most cases is fairly straightforward.[/quote]

This reminds me of a story that I don’t recall if I told here before or not.

We were in the Livonia library a few years back (very nice Library). They have a section dedicated to everything US legalese. On a large wooden stand in an aisle, like the ones you find cradling an unabridged English dictionary and looking strikingly like one, was a copy of the omnibus budget. Behind it, in a staggering number of volumes consuming floor to ceiling and about 15 feet wide was the current federal statute code. They have a subscription.

I stood there for a minute and told my son to wait there. I came back with a copy of our founding documents, which was about the size of a pamphlet and handed it to him. I said you see that it your hands. Those lying tyrants in our nation’s capitol somehow found aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall this in there, allegedly. Or they just didn’t care.

That is another major point where the founding fathers are concerned. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, is convincing me that whatever else they disagreed about, THIS is what they had in mind. No way. We have veered off the path and are over our heads in a jungle of insect infested poison ivy.

This present congress and administration especially, would have them in wide eyed horror at what we’ve done and are doing with what they left us.

96

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
pushharder wrote:
<<< The twisting has occurred over the last 200 years. >>>

There was a guy on the first page of this thread I almost responded to who mentioned something like the founders being hell bent on keeping religion out of government. It was actually the inverse. They were very concerned with keeping government out of religion. The establishment clause was for the purpose of protecting church from state.

I know. You are exactly right. I despise ignorance on matters like this. Historical ignorance. And whether you are a PWI poster or a state or federal judge, THINK, you sonofabitch, THINK! Examine the evidence. Study.

Believe what you want but don’t invoke some mystical, snatch-it-out-thin-air fabrication that somebody told you about our constitution. It is not a document that is difficult to comprehend. The language in most cases is fairly straightforward.[/quote]

Okay, since I think I mention separation of church and state first in this thread, I’ll bite.

You are insisting the protection only goes one way, but that makes 0 sense. Because a religion influencing the government and legislating it’s beliefs is the same thing as failing to protect other religious beliefs. If you are going to protect all religions from the power of the state you have to avoid and prevent and religion from projecting it’s beliefs through the state.

Please explain to me how you can protect religions from the state while simultaneously allowing the government to legislate the beliefs of a singular religion. It very much is a 2 way protection or it doesn’t work.

By the way when I speak of separation of church and state I’m personally referring the 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

To me this 100% means that a religion cannot legislate the individual beliefs that would contradict the beliefs of other religions or even the non-belief in a wrong. What I mean by a non-belief in a wrong would be say Judaism that doesn’t have beliefs against alcohol on Sunday (or probably most Christians even). Therefore, prohibiting alcohol sale on Sundays based on religious beliefs is a violation of the 1st amendment.

Would it make yall feel better to have me refer to the 1st amendment rather than separation of church and state? It 100% prohibits legislation of religious beliefs and in doing so forbids any religion from asserting their own.

97

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
<<< Therefore, prohibiting alcohol sale on Sundays based on religious beliefs is a violation of the 1st amendment.

Would it make yall feel better to have me refer to the 1st amendment rather than separation of church and state? It 100% prohibits legislation of religious beliefs and in doing so forbids any religion from asserting their own.[/quote]

Congress never made any laws prohibiting the sale of Alcohol on Sundays. Those were state laws which were not expressly prohibited by the federal constitution and hence left to them (har dee har har anymore).

The point is, the intentional misappropriation of the establishment principle riding on the back of public apathy with regard to our roots, has led to positively vicious and insane attacks on ANY public expression of religion whatever. We have after all sworn on a Bible to “tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help us God,” forever when testifying in court. A thing BTW Washington said without which the entire moral and legal authority of our courts would fall to the ground.

The social consensus of our early years I mentioned above is the final answer at the heart of your point. Nobody needed to have morality closely legislated beyond the obvious big ones because the vast majority of people agreed voluntarily on what was right and wrong.

The establishment clause was for the purpose of not legislatively enforcing or rejecting a particular theological system at the point of the Tower of London or the chopping block.

98

It seems absurd to me that people are arguing over the nuances of a phrase used in a letter more than 200 years ago. I know this seems sacrilegious, but it really doesn’t matter what the Founding Fathers thought. This argument is the intellectual equivalent of a bunch of kindergartners arguing over whether or not mommy meant that they couldn’t have any cookies or just the chocolate chip ones. It’s well past time we weened ourselves off of Ben Franklin’s sagging teats and actually starting using facts and research to achieve our goals.

99

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
<<< Therefore, prohibiting alcohol sale on Sundays based on religious beliefs is a violation of the 1st amendment.

Would it make yall feel better to have me refer to the 1st amendment rather than separation of church and state? It 100% prohibits legislation of religious beliefs and in doing so forbids any religion from asserting their own.

Congress never made any laws prohibiting the sale of Alcohol on Sundays. Those were state laws which were not expressly prohibited by the federal constitution and hence left to them (har dee har har anymore).

The point is, the intentional misappropriation of the establishment principle riding on the back of public apathy with regard to our roots, has led to positively vicious and insane attacks on ANY public expression of religion whatever. We have after all sworn on a Bible to “tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help us God,” forever when testifying in court. A thing BTW Washington said without which the entire moral and legal authority of our courts would fall to the ground.

The social consensus of our early years I mentioned above is the final answer at the heart of your point. Nobody needed to have morality closely legislated beyond the obvious big ones because the vast majority of people agreed voluntarily on what was right and wrong.

The establishment clause was for the purpose of not legislatively enforcing or rejecting a particular theological system at the point of the Tower of London or the chopping block.
[/quote]

I never actually said they currently prohibit sale on Sunday. It was an example of something federally prohibited by the first amendment. You assumed I was referencing currently active state laws. Though I would be willing to venture it is against many state constitutions too.

Also in reference to the founding fathers intentions, the oath you reference is not one of them. They took special care not to mention God, or Lord, or in any way insinuate a specific religion. You are referencing words like “god” as part of their intentions when it is absolutely not there. Careful to criticize people for warping their ideas.

I hear you with having to legislate basic morals nowadays, but it’s delusional to think there aren’t intended bounds on religious influence of the state.

100

[quote]George Washington said September 26, 1796 :
<<< 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 Men 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. >>>[/quote]

This is the sum and defining difference between then and now. Even Stalin said, in essence, that America would be not be defeated until she could be substantively pried from her traditional spirituality. To say that religious bodies should not be informing public policy isn’t the same as religious men representing religious people.

In other words, a state where the Southern Baptist Convention is a legislative body is not the same as one where Southern Baptists elect other Southern Baptists. If religious men are not permitted the conviction of their beliefs in the dispensation of their duty as public servants this nation would never have gotten past square one.

The establishment clause was a codified guarantee that Lutherans (for example) would never receive preferential treatment over Catholics (for example) or vice versa. That there would never be an American equivalent to the Church of England. That citizens would not be prosecuted, harassed or discriminated against in any way by virtue of one conviction over another.