OT: Chiff & Fipple: Fair & Balanced

[Lorenzo]

Yesterday, I read the Wallbuilders material from their website and was interested in considering their point of view, but on recognition of David Barton as a graduate of Oral Roberts University in Okalahoma, and upon learning of the name Wallbuilders taken from the book of Nehemiah, I presumed that I should at least get a second opinion, which I did.

He makes some good points, but part of the problem I'd have with Barton's way of thinking is illustrated in his article above in which tries to group terms like "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist" as synonyms, all being alternative expressions. This is obviously a shallow legal tactic intended only for the purpose of quick persuasion (like "let's move on now that that is clear"). I'd say slow down and check the dictionaries from yesteryear. I find it difficult to assume that this one has changed much over the last couple hundred years. In older terms, like "deism", the older deffinition is often preserved even in today's dictionaries, as in the one below.

Just for clarity's sake, "deism is a belief, based solely on reason, in the existence of God as the creator of the universe who after setting it in motion abandoned it, assumed no control over life, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation" -The American Heritage Dictionary

If this one has changed that much, we have many scholars on board and we can sort this one out, perhaps not to the benefit of everyone, but more in line with a common quest for the truth.

And though there were many framers of the constitution, there are only a few that are commonly recognized, even in American households, and those are the more important leaders of the cause.

[The Weekenders]

Thanks for definition. It seems so applicable to Enlightenment thinkers, believers in science, yet who still feel that something "set the spark" in motion. [/i]

[chas]

Granted, but the majority of persons in this country are either Christian or Jewish, so , given that this country is founded on democracy, which means the rule of the many, what's the problem if Jewish and Christian symbols only are depicted?

The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The Constitution exists primarily for the purpose of preventing the "tyrrany of the majority.

[Celtoid]

Washington was also a member of the Masonic Lodge, which has its own unique view of the universe.

On the monument issue, I have to agree with the court that his intension crossed the establishment line, but I disagree with the court that his action did also. It, after all, is just a stone symbol. A symbol does not constitute establishment unless there is intent to do so, which apparently Judge Moore clearly intends. My money has religious symbolism and phraseology, my government opens every day with prayers. We are steeped in religious symbolism, but that still does not constitute establishment in the sense understood at least by the founding fathers who knew full well what an established church meant. It does tend in a larger sense to imply the establishment of theism, the belief in a higher power.

If symbols do not in and of themselves constitute establishment, well how about legally required religious acts? To me these cross the line in a much clearer sense. No individual church is being established by having to say "so help me God" when you take a federal oath, but THEISM itself is clearly being established over non-theism. You stand with your right arm raised high, the air is formal, speeches are getting ready to be made, the air becomes reverent,"raise your right hand and repeat after me" is formally intoned...and at the end, "so help me God" is said with profound emphasis. If you failed to repeat it there would have been a deep silence for all to hear. The speaker might have repeated it.."so help me God..." thinking you might not be paying attention. If you did not repeat it and lowered your arm signifying that you were done, you would not technically have taken your oath of office, and you would be public enemy number one.

And yet I have said "so help me God" on numerous occasions, and each time thinking I am in a foreign land somehow. All the symbolism is just irritating but understandable considering the tyrany of the majority is so strong. But that is why we have a Bill of Rights, to protect the few against the many. If not watched closely, there are plenty of good Christians who want to have an officially Christian nations, hunt Jews and Molslems, ferret out the Atheists, Agnostics and heretics like Mormons and have auto-da-fe on cable TV. I guess that is why us potentially hunted folks are just a bit tense even when it come to silly little issues like Moore's stone menu of things for Christians to do on weekends.

Majority rules is usually a good deal in a democracy. That is not what the founding fathers founded. They wanted a Republic because the idea of direct democracy would have given most of them a bad digestion. The founding fathers knew that majority often equaled MOB, a headless animal with thousands of legs. What if the majority wanted to hunt Jews today as they did for two thousand years, well, gee. majority rules! Get your pitchforks and light some straw. Men like Jefferson were sons of the Enlightenment and being literate in Greek, and Latin as well as French and English, they were remarkable men. And they read....books! We are luckier to have had this particular group than we can imagine.

[Chuck_Clark]

Granted, but the majority of persons in this country are either Christian or Jewish, so , given that this country is founded on democracy, which means the rule of the many, what's the problem if Jewish and Christian symbols only are depicted?

And there you have the problem. I was always taught that the primary purpose of the amendments to the constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

If we lose sight of that, and reach the point where the majority can impose whatever laws they want on any minority they choose to oppress, we will then become no better than another third-world Serbia. As we've seen far too often, the Executive Branch and the Congress often act ways that at least some would find oppressive. The Courts are our guarantee against that. Absent the protection of the courts, civil acrimony would quickly break down into more violent conflict and either anarchy or tyranny.

Which are you suggesting?

Cinead,

No offense, but your arguments might be viewed a little more generously if they relied on more sources than a single, highly biased website. As we've all seen far too often, its not always wise to believe everything that appears on the Internet.

[Ridseard]

I don't think the US should become officially a Christian nation. Christians like to fight too much. Hell, you can't even get two Presbyterians to agree on what color to paint the fellowship hall.

[cowtime]

I don't think the US should become officially a Christian nation. Christians like to fight too much. Hell, you can't even get two Presbyterians to agree on what color to paint the fellowship hall.

LOL!!!!!!

[Rando7]

As we've seen far too often, the Executive Branch and the Congress often act ways that at least some would find oppressive.

Of course, courts often act in ways that some would find oppressive, too. Maybe there was a time where courts were truly fair and impartial but it is clear that judges (both liberal and conservative) are appointed largely based on their political tendencies. Carried to an extreme this makes the courts essentially a tool of the parties that appointed them in effect negating the traditional executive-legislative-judicial balance. Clearly you get different decisions from a liberal Florida state court for example as opposed to a conservative federal court.

Maybe this is wishful thinking but I believe that law-making is best left to congress, as imperfect as it is. I wonder if there are not reasonable compromises on issues such as abortion that we will never know of, as they were not debated publically and voted on, but rather decided by a relative few with an all-or-nothing approach.

[Walden]

you can't even get two Presbyterians to agree on what color to paint the fellowship hall.

I have been in two Assemblies of God congregations that had originally been just one, but split over the issue of which hymnal to use. But musical differences I can understand. I'm with the Stamps-Baxter camp... no... the denominational book is good.... but I do love Stamps-Baxter.... err... both congregations have great music... honestly!

[energy]

Cinead,
No offense, but your arguments might be viewed a little more generously if they relied on more sources than a single, highly biased website. As we've all seen far too often, its not always wise to believe everything that appears on the Internet.

Well. Wow. I go off for a weekend and you guys say enough to summarize various books. Obviously, there has been a lot I could respond to, except I don't have enough time and any effort to be exhaustive would certainly be futile.

That said, I chose to respond only to this post...neither side has managed to make any sort of conclusive argument, quoting anything more than single sources. Seemingly conclusive arguments can be made for both viewpoints. Therefore, I think it would be wise for both sides to back off and seriously reconsider their own viewpoints and check their own sources. It has been stated various times already that just because a viewpoint is biased does not make it untrue.

Also, much as I personally regret it, Chuck is right; it no longer really matters what the founders believed. The nation has changed. I think that change has not and will not be for the better, but that change has occured.

Then, I'd like to respond to two comments of Lorenzo's that stuck in my head. The first is purely one of logistics: how do you get a 10%-20% for the number of Christians out of a population that existed 300 years ago? Any such figure must be looked on as very rough at best.

Secondly, even if the population were mostly non-Christian, all the founding fathers were flagrant deists, etc etc and so forth, that does not change the fact that Christianity controlled intellecual thought at the time. The influence that this would have exerted must not be underestimated. The ideas and beliefs of any political thinker of the era would have been heavily influenced by Christianity, whether they themselves were Christian or not.

Interesting how discussions about heavily-biased political commentators can lead to conversations like this. Or am I just confused, and that was another thread?

[Lorenzo]

Well energy, for my part of your questions...the 10-20% thing was a
quote from a source which I think I credited (I'm too lazy to go back and
look) but, it wasn't some "study" I had done.

Re. the Christian influence on the political thinkers of that era...I assume
you are versed in Christian things enough to know how a Quaker, for
instance, or Deist can believe in God, etc., but have no Christian outlook
on life or dogmas attached to his/her life. I also assume you know the
difference between Christianity and Judaism, for example, a belief in God
is Jewish/Hebrew, but a belief in the Gods (Trinity-Jesus, Holy Ghost, etc.)
is Christian. There is no reference to Christ in the preamble, in the
prayers and statements of concern, nor on any seals or coins, etc., so we
can only credit Judaism for those monotheistic statements.

I have presented the question in earlier posts on this thread, and I'll post
it again: where in the constitution, codes, treaties, etc., is there any
indication that a person, or his statements are "Christian?"

And also, what did any of the leaders of the foundations of our gov't
say that would give them away as Christian? (remember it would
have to be of a clear Christian nature, not Judaic).
____________________________________________________________________________________

Some G. Washington quotes:

"I know that Gouverneur Morris, who claimed to be in his secrets, and
believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington
believed no more in that system [Christianity] than he did."
-- Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal, February, 1800, quoted from
Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572

"I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the
public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a
believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have
done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more."
-- The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York,
in an interview with Mr. Robert Dale Owen written on November 13, 1831,
which was publlshed in New York two weeks later, quoted from Franklin
Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 27

"Unlike Thomas Jefferson -- and Thomas Paine, for that matter --
Washington never even got around to recording his belief that Christ was
a great ethical teacher. His reticence on the subject was truly remarkable.
Washington frequently alluded to Providence in his private
correspondence. But the name of Christ, in any correspondence
whatsoever, does not appear anywhere in his many letters to friends and
associates throughout his life."
-- Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion (1963) pp. 74-75, quoted
from Ed and Michael Buckner

"That he was not just striking a popular attitude as a politician is revealed
by the absence of of the usual Christian terms: he did not mention Christ
or even use the word 'God.' Following the phraseology of the philosophical
Deism he professed, he referred to 'the invisible hand which conducts the
affairs of men,' to 'the benign parent of the human race.'"
-- James Thomas Flexner, describing Washington's first Inaugural
Address, in George Washington and the New Nation (1783-1793) (1970)
p. 184, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner

"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the
presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson;
Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in
Christianity....
-- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New
York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831

[energy]

Yes yes, you have provided adequate evidence that the founders were not Christian for a persuasive argument; though a belief in some controlling Providence is certainly not Deism. Quotes, however, can be fabricated, and it certainly seems that one of the sides on this issue must be in fact doing so. I'm not accusing any of you of deliberately spreading lies, but it seems that someones sources are wrong.

Secondly, your claim about monotheistic statements in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, etc being of Jewish origin is 100% ridiculous, to be quite brash. Certainly you must know that Christians have always believed their religion to be monotheistic. To ignore this simply because you feel Christian doctrine doens't actually teach this is silly.

Thirdly, to completely ignore the context of their culture and smack down black and white, in-your-face questions such as yours is not a very reasonable way of trying to deduce truth. At that time, God was understood to mean the God of Chrisitianity. Therefore, when they said God, they meant the God of Christianity. Do you honestly believe they meant otherwise?

Finally, your claimed deists had very little influence on the Constitution itself anyway. Thomas Paine had nothing to do with it; George Washington only presided over the assembly at Philadelphia and added nothing in his own right; Thomas Jefferson wasn't even present; Ben Franklin could be the only one who gave any input that had influence on the document itself, and by that point there is evidence that he may have given up Deism: he forwarded the idea that the assembly pray at the opening of every meeting. The men who actually hashed out the Constitution there in Philadelphia were those who weren't household names.

So much for Steve's moratorium on American-specific political discussions. :roll:

[Caj]

Also, much as I personally regret it, Chuck is right; it no longer really matters what the founders believed. The nation has changed. I think that change has not and will not be for the better, but that change has occured.

I think the point is, it never really mattered what the founders believed, in their time or today. What matters is what they wrote in the constitution and bill of rights, after an enormous amount of debate over the exact wording thereof.

One occasionally hears talk about what the country's founders "really meant" by the first amendment, often accompanied with statements about them being religious men---the suggestion being that maybe they didn't want strict separation of church and state after all. Maybe we're misinterpreting their words, out of the context of their times, etc. But, the founders were painstakingly clear about what they meant. These things weren't written over a few beers, after all.

There was a proposal for a slightly weaker separation clause that would maintain separation but contain language recognizing Christianity, in general, as a belief upon which our country was founded. It was shot down. You couldn't ask for better evidence that our founders didn't approve of such an interpretation.

Caj

[Jerry Freeman]

This is completely off topic, but ...

Caj, I've always liked your avatar. What does it mean?

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Caj]

Thirdly, to completely ignore the context of their culture and smack down black and white, in-your-face questions such as yours is not a very reasonable way of trying to deduce truth.

I think we all easily forget the most important piece of that context: that very religious people in the colonies wanted a great deal of separation of church and state. This wasn't a matter of religious people who wanted weak separation vs a pack of raving drooling athiests who wanted strong separation.

After all, America is a very religious country for a reason: religious people were driven here from other countries, hoping to escape persecution. And any government involvement in religion was perceived as the first step towards more of that persecution. Hence we had baptists who wanted absolutely no endorsement of religion by the government.

This is important to remember because in today's topsy-turvy world, the "religious right" does not like the separation that allowed many of their religions to exist in the first place. Proponents of separation are now perceived as opponents of Christianity. In a way, the country's founders were too successful: having prevented religious persecution almost completely for hundreds of years, we have trouble really understanding why we need that very first sentence in that very first amendment.

Caj