Hitchens falsely claimed that Clinton "suddenly decide[d] that she's a person of faith"
SUMMARY: On MSNBC's Morning Joe, columnist Christopher Hitchens asserted that "[t]he Democratic candidates are all pretending to be as pious as they possibly can be," and stated of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: "It can't be that she suddenly decides that she's a person of faith. She has never particularly mentioned it before." In fact, Clinton has publicly discussed her faith for years, including in her 1996 book and in interviews at least as far back as 1993.
On the September 12 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens asserted: "The Democratic candidates are all pretending to be as pious as they possibly can be. You see Mrs. [Sen. Hillary Rodham] Clinton [D-NY], looking like the dog being washed, and talking about how her faith got her through the impeachment crisis with her husband." After host Joe Scarborough asked him whether he thought that "Hillary Clinton is pretending to be religious," Hitchens replied: "It can't be that she suddenly decides that she's a person of faith. She has never particularly mentioned it before." Hitchens claimed that Clinton was feigning faith in order to "play to what are called the 'values voters.' " He concluded: "[A]s with everything Mrs. Clinton does, you can see the machinery working, you can see the wheels turning inside her head as she makes her maneuvers." In fact, contrary to Hitchens' claim that she has only recently begun asserting that she is a person of faith as part of her campaign for president, Clinton has publicly discussed her faith for years.
In her 1996 book, It Takes a Village and Other Lessons Children Teach Us (Simon and Shuster), Clinton discussed the role of her faith in her childhood:
We attended a big church with an active congregation, the First United Methodist Church in Park Ridge. The church was a center for preaching and practicing the social gospel, so important to our Methodist traditions. Our spiritual life as a family was spirited and constant. We talked with God, walked with God, ate, studied, and argued with God. Each night, we knelt by our beds to pray before we went to sleep. We said grace at dinner, thanking God for all the blessing bestowed. My brother Hugh had his own characteristic renditions, along the lines of "Good food, good meat, good God, let's eat!" But despite our occasional irreverence, God was always present to us, a much-esteemed, much-addressed member of the family. [Page 171]
Clinton also wrote in her book that "there is no greater gift that God has given any of us than to be loved and to love" [Page 178], and stated that "prayer allows us to let go of our children and to let them find their own ways, with faith to guid and sustain them against the cruelties and indifference of the world" [Page 181].
Additionally, in her 2003 book, Living History (Simon & Schuster), Clinton wrote that she could not describe her time in the White House without noting all that had shaped her life before she got there, including her "family upbringing, education, religious faith, and all that I had learned before" [Page IX]. Clinton went on to write about her faith throughout the book, noting that "what sustained me most through this time was what sustained me throughout our White House tenure: my family, friends, and faith. My religious faith has always been a crucial part of my life. ... I have often told audiences that if I hadn't believed in prayer before 1992, life in the White House would have persuaded me" [Page 167].
Moreover, the media have frequently reported about Clinton's religious faith. As Media Matters for America has noted, an article for the May 23, 1993, edition of the Los Angeles Times Magazine reported that Clinton said during an interview: "Faith is a wonderful gift of grace ... It gives you a sense of being rooted in meaning and love that goes far beyond your own life. It gives you a base of assurance as to what is really important and stands the test of time day after day, minute after minute, so that many of the pressures that come to bear from the outside world are not seen as that significant."
Similarly, in an October 31, 1994, Newsweek profile, reporter Kenneth L. Woodward wrote: "But long before she was a Democrat, a lawyer, or a Clinton, Hillary Rodham was a Methodist. And that, say those who know her now as well as those who knew her when, is the way the First Lady is best understood. She thinks like a Methodist, talks like a Methodist and wants to reform society just like a well-Sunday-schooled Methodist churchwoman should." Woodward also reported that during an interview with Clinton, she "even submitted to a brief examination of her faith." From the article:
Indeed, at one point in the conversation, the First Lady even submitted to a brief examination of her faith:
"Do you believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?"
"Yes."
"The atoning death of Jesus?"
"Yes."
"The resurrection of Christ?'
"Yes."
Woodward also reported that "In Arkansas, Mrs. Clinton taught Methodist Sunday school. She also attended church regularly and, in the Methodist tradition of favoring lay preachers, she spoke often at church gatherings on 'Why I am a United Methodist.' " Discussing the Clinton family's religious practices after President Clinton's inauguration, Woodward noted: "As long as they are in the White House, the First Family has elected to worship at Foundry United Methodist Church, less than a mile away."
Further, in direct contradiction to Hitchens' claims, it was widely reported at the time that her faith "got her through the impeachment crisis with her husband." Indeed, an August 19, 1998, Boston Globe article discussing Hillary Clinton's reaction to President Clinton's admission that he had had an extramarital affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, reported: "[Clinton's spokeswoman Marsha] Berry said Mrs. Clinton, a Methodist, also was relying on 'a strong religious faith.' The Rev. Jesse Jackson visited the White House Sunday night, reportedly at the request of 18-year-old Chelsea Clinton, to pray with Mrs. Clinton and her daughter for two hours." Similarly, an August 2, 1999, Los Angeles Times article about an interview Clinton gave to Talk magazine reported that Clinton "said she survived the Lewinsky episode and her husband's impeachment through 'soul-searching, friends, religious faith and long, hard discussions.' "
From the September 12 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: How do you think the success of your book and these other books, and you said the changing of the zeitgeist in America regarding faith and religion, is going to impact the 2008 election? Do you think that somebody like Rudy Giuliani, who's more of a secular candidate than, say, Mitt Romney, is going to have a leg up in the Republican primary because of this change of zeitgeist that you speak of?
HITCHENS: Well, it's actually -- at the moment I have to say, it seems to be having the opposite effect. The Democratic candidates are all pretending to be as pious as they possibly can be. You see this with Clinton, looking like the dog being washed, and talking about how her faith got her through the impeachment crisis with her husband. People forget, of course, that it was Billy Graham and Jesse Jackson who got Clinton through that crisis by allowing him to pretend that he too was a person of faith. It really is sordid. I think, actually, the Democrats are making a mistake by doing this, because I think people who genuinely are faithful in their hearts don't like to see religious hypocrisy, don't like people pretending to be more pious then they are.
SCARBOROUGH: So you think Hillary Clinton is pretending to be religious? You think Barack Obama is pretending to be religious?
HITCHENS: It can't be that she suddenly decides that she's a person of faith. She has never particularly mentioned it before. And all the Democrats seem to have concluded from the last midterms that, the finding is, that it goes down well if you play to what are called the "values voters," that's a code word for the evangelicals. It's so obvious, you can see, as with everything Mrs. Clinton does, you can see the machinery working, you can see the wheels turning inside her head as she makes her maneuvers.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, you know, Barack Obama and John Edwards also talking about Jesus --
HITCHENS: Well, actually, I know the Senator Edwards slightly, and I think actually he does have a genuine, rather uncomplicated faith, and I gather that Mr. Obama's been going to some rather rock-and-roll ethnic church in Chicago for some time. So for all I know, he believes that stuff. But I mean, if he does, then so much the worse.
Doesn't "the media" ever get tired of these old cliches, like "Democrats only pretend to believe in God" or "Republicans are strong on defense"?
Nope, they don't get tired of using them. If they didn't use them they would actually have to do their job and do some research before spouting off. So much easier this way.
yeah, that liberal media. Always pushing lies about liberals.
This is just one criticism of Hillary that really doesn't bother me, that she is calculating, clever, "the machinery working in her head", whatever. I don't find these qualitites particulary offensive when it comes to world leaders - in fact, I think they can serve our President well, as long as they're backed up with integrity. It is necessarily dishonest to be calculating and one step ahead of your critics, or your enemies - to me it shows street smarts and political savvy that is necessary on the world stage.
There are many policy reasons to be critical of Hillary for me, personally, this isn't it however.
I meant "it is NOT necesarily dishonest......."
"You can see the machinery working, you can see the wheels turning."
Sounds like a refreshing alternative to what we've had since January, 2001.
Hutchinson is essentially right in his assertion that all of the Dem's are now making more of their religious affiliation than ever before. It's just how you have to play the game. It makes me a bit uncomfortable because I think the separation between Church & State is the strength of this country: we are moving dangerously & fatally close to eroding that wall between. It will be the end of Democracy as we know it.
Just because candidates stress the importance of their personal faith is no reason to believe the church/state separation line is blurring. Their personal beliefs are their own, they are entitled to them, whatever they are. As long as they govern independently of those beliefs and respect all people, with or without faith - then it is of no concern to me.
but they don't "govern independently". particularly in the case of the republicans. they insist we're a "christian nation".
They can insist we are a "Britney Spears nation" for all I care, the constitution is the law, not agenda driven politicians whose personal crusades don't have a snowball's chance in hell against that. You can be scared, I am not.
the constitution is what the supreme court says it is. if they say no problem with prayer in school, then we will have prayer in school. which is what a lot of conservatives want, and they vote for the politicians who will install those judges. your reply is misleading at best.
The point is I don't buy into the overwhelming fear mongering that we are turning into a religious state, but you are free to have a different opinion. Bush and his cronies have been in office for nearly eight years, and just like my rights, my religious freedoms, as well as my atheist friend's freedoms, have been unaffected.
But no doubt, someone will link to some court case or politician who is out to impose his or her religious beliefs on others, save it - have seen it.
but the fact is that a large part of the republican party wants us to be a christian based nation. wants the ten commandments in the courtroom, wants prayer in schools. the fact that they have been unable to do it is not proof that that is not their objective. they just have not had the numbers, not for a lack of trying.
They had the WH, and the Congress - would've been a good chance for that name change back then - from the United States of America to the United Christian States of America. Guess CNN missed it.
you're being foolish again. it's not the matter of a name change. it's what they want to do. check the cosponsors of this "under god..." overwhelmingly republican.
http://www.undergodprocon.org/pop/hj46.htm#2
Look, you want to turn this into a discussion of the evil Republicans, or their minions, trying to turn us into a religious theocratic state, go ahead....it is a useless and irrelevant waste of time, for me.
For I don't share your fears, I am sorry. Try another poster who does.
another waste of time for tommy, after he's spent so much already wasting it.
I'm still waiting for somebody to show me how all the "fundamentalists" have been rewarded by this administration. The Republican Party gladly accepts their vote and largely ignores their agenda.
conservative supreme court justices are not a reward? and just because they can't get things through, a constitutional amendment takes 2/3 of congress, doesn't mean they don't try. but i guess you're saying the republicans are being dishonest.
"conservative christian groups" hold "pro-alito rally".
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/09/1456217
I do agree with you that putting in conservative judges is a reward. That much is true, although whether or not that leads to anything the Religious Right wants remains to be seen. And I also agree with you that Republicans are largely dishonest in their lipservice to the Religious Right because that's all it is, IMO.
i said that's what you were saying. i think a lot of them believe what they're spouting. i know a lot of people who are church goers who are the most intolerant, hateful judgemental people i know. i also know those who aren't, including my two sisters in law. but there are far too many who think because they park their ass in church, that they're better than me.
And I also agree with you that Republicans are largely dishonest in their lipservice to the Religious Right because that's all it is, IMO.
Sure. So which part of that should make someone MORE comfortable with voting for a Republican?
Perhaps you should ask a Democrat from the far left who gets paid his or her own lip service from some Democratic candidates; and then gets shafted by them when their candidate ignores them, either in the general election or if they win office, thus govern from the center.
i don't think democrats are quite as blind, tommy my lad. because in spite of the rolling disaster that is the bush presidency, most republicans still support him.
I could have sworn you were done with this thread.
I share your concern. It's one of the primary reasons I became a Democrat. Personally, I think the Republican leadership has made a Faustian bargain with Evangelicals. The Country Club Republicans pretend to support an agressive Christian Fundamentalist agenda...and in return, the Evangelicals support tax cuts for billionaires and endless war.
As you pointed out, our Constitutional rights are very fragile, and are ever at the mercy of whatever government happens to be in power. Fortunately, radical changes take time, and we have a chance to stop them before they can do too much damage...or so we hope.
I guess they need constant reminders of what the right thing to do is. Heck, I may even support the Ten Commandments being installed if Republicans would follow them, starting with not bearing false witness. The right wing echo chamber wouldn't have jobs if they followed the Ten commandments.
I was gonna say "Sure, as long as we drop the first four commandments" then I couldn't remember if it was four, or two, or one I was thinking about. So I looked it up.
Seems nobody can even agree on what the commandments even ARE. At least, in terms of numbering them.
Regardless, I'm totally uncool with our centers of justice or learning including anything about God, idols, holy days, or blocking of free speech.
Actually, those concepts are not new. Indeed, not allowing prayer in schools is a fairly new concept. Even newer is the abolishment of the Ten Commandments or other overtly religious monuments from state grounds. What else? The desire for the word God to be removed from our currency or the pledge of allegiance? The fact is that we are a Christian-based nation. We're not a Christian nation, but it's absurdly clear that our foundation is that of a monotheistic, Judeao-Christian ethic.
I don't understand why people continue to ignore the origins. Read the Declaration of Independence if you honestly don't believe in the basic spiritual philosophy of the founders.
The trick about being 'progressive' is not simply that you're progressing toward somewhere, it's that you're progressing from some place, too.
Cite the Declaration of Independence all that you want, and while it is a nicely written document, and proclaims loudly that the colonies wanted to be free from England, it holds no sway as it pertains to law. I beg you to go and read the Constitution, and show me anywhere in there where there is anything about being a Judeo Christian based nation. There isn't anything in there about religion at all, except for the separation of church and state and religious freedom.
Our laws in this country are based on a secular document. I believe that the founding fathers thought that it was entirely possible that making religion part of our laws would be bad, very bad, and so, they left it out. You want to be a theocratic nation? Take a look at Iran to see how that's working out for the people over there.
Under God was only put into the pledge of allegiance in the 50's, it wasn't always there. Same for our money. Basically, both of those were put there to prevent Congress from trying to pass amendments to the Constitution to change it INTO a religious based document, which it currently isn't.
Good post. Here is what the Declaration of Independence actually says:
"the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of..."
The statement "Nature's God" is not even Christian--it reflects the beliefs of Deists.
Thanks.
The Declaration is great prose, and essentially, it was a "press release" written by the Founding Fathers and sent out saying we've had enough. It has no force of law. It's more like a protest sign.
It is also my opinion that the Founding Fathers saw how a state based religion could impinge upon people's freedoms, and this is something that they didn't want at all. And we could get into the entire argument of when people say "Judeo Christian Principles", which ones are we supposed to espouse? Catholic? Baptist? Methodist? Protestant? Mormon? There are too many Christian sects, and they would never totally agree. I mean, if you go and check out the 10 Commandments as put forth by different Christian religions, a lot of those are different.
>>And we could get into the entire argument of when people say "Judeo Christian Principles", which ones are we supposed to espouse?
Ah, but breakerbaker didn't even say "Judeo Christian Principles," but:
>>We're not a Christian nation, but it's absurdly clear that our foundation is that of a monotheistic, Judeao-Christian ethic.
That statement of his is not even completely clear, because there is no ethics involved with monotheism. But breakerbaker loves to pad his posts with lots of verbosity, which he confuses with logic.
Let me assure you that I'm not speaking with regard to law. I didn't say the constitution established us as a Christian nation. I said that it was founded on basic Christian principles. As important a document as the US Constitution is, it is not where it all began. It's not the foundation, and to read it without accepting that it exists within a context that had already been established by the DOI, is just ahistorical.
I'm not arguing about whether we should be a Christian nation, I'm simply stating that inarguable fact that Christianity has always played a major role in our democrasy. And I'm not biased. I'm not Christian. I'm not Jewish. I'm not the least bit religious. I'm just speaking from the basic perspective of history.
I believe that the founding fathers thought that it was entirely possible that making religion part of our laws would be bad, very bad, and so, they left it out. You want to be a theocratic nation? Take a look at Iran to see how that's working out for the people over there.
Do I want to be a theocratic nation? Um...no? That's the right answer, right? Regardless, the separation of church and state was established not to protect the state, but to protect religion and the free practise of religion. And, by the way, I absolutely agree with the need to maintain that separation. I think politicians should refrain from giving political speeches inside houses of worship. I think moments of silent prayer, while not altogether harmful, could easily be argued to be alienating for any number of reasons, so probably have no place in public schools. I've always detested the notion of the pledge of allegiance which, by the way, was written by a Baptist minister. You're right though, it didn't originally contain the words under god or for that matter the 'Flag of the United States of America'. It was written in the 1890's but wasn't regularly recited until several decades into the next century. In the 1950s the phrase under god was added, and it's been recited that way considerably longer than it had been in any previous incarnation.
As for In God We Trust, that's also a late entry, but a much earlier one than the pledge. The phrase was added to currency during the American Civil War. In 1864, to be precise. This was only 76 years following the ratification of the Constitution. Just under twice that amount of time has passed since then. So it's a long time ago is what I'm trying to say.
But shall we go even further? To the various oaths of office? While it's not required by law, every president since Washington has taken their oath with their hand on the Christian Bible. Washington is said to have added the phrase 'So Help Me God' to the end of his oath (though it's not in the actual text) and the first president even kissed the Bible upon being sworn in. Additionally, all federal judges and executive officers have had the phrase included in their oaths since 1789. They have always said it. They have always been required to say it. 'Should they?' is another question entirely. My answer would be no. Irrespective of that, though, the country is very clearly Christian-based. Which in no way means it is or should be a Christian Nation. Don't misunderstand me on that point.
>>I'm not arguing about whether we should be a Christian nation, I'm simply stating that inarguable fact that Christianity has always played a major role in our democrasy.
If it is "inarguable" then why are you arguing it? In fact, what you said is "We're not a Christian nation, but it's absurdly clear that our foundation is that of a monotheistic, Judeao-Christian ethic."
Your two statements are not the same. In one of them you are saying that Christianity played a role in our democracy, but in the other you argue that Christianity is the "foundation" of our country, which is not at all absurdly clear, since the founding fathers were deists and did not base the constitution on Christianity.
I've already addressed the over use of the Deist rhetoric. It's terribly overblown.
Again, I am not the least bit religious, so I wouldn't ever suggest we are or should be a Christian Nation. My statement with regard to our Christian 'foundation' was coming from the previous poster arguing against us being Christian-based. Perhaps my statement lacked the necessary qualifier that would state 'much of our foundation' is derrived from Christian philosophy (or however I said it).
I honestly never meant to suggest that it was the only ingredient. But that it was an undeniable and fundamental one. Of course there's Deisism. There's secular humanism. There's Aristotilian philosophy, too. But there's most certainly a hell of a lot of Christianity in there, and while the historical contribution of Christian thought could be overstated with regard to the role it played in the foundation of the republic, it seems to be a lot of people's intent to understate it based on their own contemporary motives.
>>I've already addressed the over use of the Deist rhetoric. It's terribly overblown.
No, you haven't. You merely made an assertion that Deist rhetoric is overblown. You have done nothing to prove that. Now you are pretending to have proved something you didn't.
>>I honestly never meant to suggest that it was the only ingredient.
Okay, so you said something that wasn't accurate.
>>But that it was an undeniable and fundamental one. Of course there's Deisism. There's secular humanism. There's Aristotilian philosophy, too. But there's most certainly a hell of a lot of Christianity in there, and while the historical contribution of Christian thought could be overstated with regard to the role it played in the foundation of the republic, it seems to be a lot of people's intent to understate it based on their own contemporary motives.
But no. Your last sentence (as usual) lapses into Orwellian vagueness. More importantly, you haven't shown any examples of how Christianity was part of the foundation of our country.
More importantly, you haven't shown any examples of how Christianity was part of the foundation of our country.
Before I go on, I just want you to confirm for me that you do not believe Christianity played a role in the foundation of our country. Is that honestly what you believe?
Sorry, but you made the statement that "We're not a Christian nation, but it's absurdly clear that our foundation is that of a monotheistic, Judeao-Christian ethic."
That's what you are supposed to be showing. You have so far claimed that the DOI proves this, though the DOI does not contain the words "Christianity." And you further that acts performed in the civil war prove your point.
Are you serious?
Dude, I later clarified (to you, in particular) that statement to say that I was responding, perhaps clumsily, to the argument that we are not Christian-based. I shouldn't have been as absolute in my terms as I was, but I have since clarified what I meant to say--and should have said. So, no, it's not on me to prove what I didn't really mean. If you want me to prove my clarification, that Christian philosophy played a great role in the foundation of the Republic, then I would just like to be sure that I'm trying to convince somebody who doesn't believe this to be the case. So, again, do you believe Christianity played no role in the foundation of the Republic?
Dude! Right on!
>>So, again, do you believe Christianity played no role in the foundation of the Republic?
Talk about BS. So now you have reduced your original assertion that "our foundation is that of a monotheistic, Judeao-Christian ethic," to whether or not Christianity played any role at all?
What next, are you going to make the radical argument that the base 10 number system played a role in our country? Or that breathing in air played a role?
So the answer is yes, you do believe that this nation is at least in part Christian-based? Honestly, that's all I've been saying. I think Christianity played a major role. My question to you was meant to decipher to what degree you disagreed with me. That way, I could more easily frame my response.
As for monothestic, they were. Even the Deists. As for Judeo Christian, their philosophies with regard to the world were, in large part, grounded within that faith. Common sense suggests their philosophies with regard to the world greatly shaped how they determined to form the Republic.
>>Honestly, that's all I've been saying. I think Christianity played a major role.
Really? You have been saying so many different things, it's hard to keep track. Now you are saying yet something else. A "major" role? You haven't shown that in any way.
Now your argument is humorously vague. Their philosophies were "grounded in that faith" (really?) so common sense shows that Christianity shaped how the republic was formed.
This is absolute nonsense. You are just spouting any vague argument that kind of sort of supports your position.
So again, where is your belief on this matter so that we may have an actual conversation? I mean, you can be combative all day long if you wish. I'm quite certain that we'll all become bored of it sooner or later, and this thread will fade away. In the mean time, do you want to have an actual discussion? Or do you just want to be a dick?
>>In the mean time, do you want to have an actual discussion? Or do you just want to be a dick?
Can I write that down as the worst way to worst invitation to a debate ever? Here's what you said originally:
>>The fact is that we are a Christian-based nation. We're not a Christian nation, but it's absurdly clear that our foundation is that of a monotheistic, Judeao-Christian ethic.
Note your absolute position--which you had to then change. If you don't want a combative argument, then try not starting off with the implication that you are absolutely right, and those who disagree with you are absurd.
My position is simply that the US is not founded on Christianity. When people bring Christianity into a public debate and state they have a right to because of the origins of the country, they are wrong.
Correction (grrr):
Can I write that down as the worst invitation to a debate ever?
I never said the US was founded on Christianity. I'm pretty sure I've always been clear that it was Christian ethic, and not the religion itself. I used examples of how the religion has always played a role (at least in ceremonial terms) in government to reflect the ahistorical perception that religion is now being injected into government (as if it hadn't been there from the beginning). But I never said Christianity was the sole driving force behind the foundation of our nation. That's not what I said. That's not what I meant.
In fact, I really don't have much of a problem with the wording I used originally. If you think I'm equivocating, too much, it's more because I'm trying to greater explain what I mean by foundation and how something can be the foundation on which to build something entirely different from itself. I was trying to get as far away from the suggestion that we are or should be a Christian-nation. But that the foundation of our nation was still based in Christian thought.
I was trying to explain my point rather than prove it. There's no proof to be offered except snippets from diaries or letters, and they only offer circumstantial evidence. In the end, there's no way of knowing beyond that which is self-evident. The reason people go to the Deist argument is to muddy that which is clear: that a group of mainly Christian men are going to create a country that is founded in large part on Christian ideals. The problem is that to say they were all or mainly Deists is simply not accurate. And the inaccuracy to that statement underscores its misleading origins. I'm not arguing that it is your intention to mislead by injecting Deism into this discussion, I'm simply saying that it's here as a result of your having been misled at some point.
So now you are switching back to your original position again! Wow! Here's what you originally said:
>>The fact is that we are a Christian-based nation. We're not a Christian nation, but it's absurdly clear that our foundation is that of a monotheistic, Judeao-Christian ethic.
The orignial statment was nonsense. Your statment now is nonsense. You simply don't know how to use language precisely and honestly, but revert to Orwellian phrases (see "Politics and the English Language"), that mean whatever you want them to mean, depending on what post we are one.
Your newest tactic of trying to prove that you weren't wrong is now by throwing out a "well there is no way we can know."
Yes. It's called the constitution. Notice how the word Christianity isn't in it.
I know, you have a problem with logic; you claim the Declaration of Independence shows something when the word Christian isn't in it. You claim that an act passed in 1864 proves something about the founding of our nation.
So lacking logic, you revert to semantics, as you always do.
And then you accuse me of being a dick.
Why not just admit you were wrong? Why not just admit you don't care to argue here, but to play semantic games?
I have to say that it's a rare occasion where I'm told that I don't know how to use the English language properly. Regardless of that, though, I'm still unclear about where and why you disagree with me. I mean, you keep saying that I go back and forth, but I really haven't been. I've been trying to explain to you what it is that I mean. To this, you say that I'm changing my position. That's just a dishonest argument. I'd say that you were mistaken, but I have to say that no, you're just not being honest. You don't want to actually address anything that I've said, so you suggest I'm saying nothing. It seems like everything fell apart for you when the Deism thing fell by the wayside. Yeah, I called you a dick. I'm sorry, but that's definitely how you're acting. Hostile, combative. Self-important. And you misrepresent what I've been saying. So, unless you want to have anything resembling a civil discussion, one that involves you doing more than pretending to consider what it is that I've been saying, I think you and I are going to have to stop with all of these formalities and go our seperate ways.
Probably most people think that your bombastic style means you can use language well.
It doesn't. It hides your intention and allows you say one thing and mean something else. This is how you argue on these boards.
For exampe:
>>The fact is that we are a Christian-based nation. We're not a Christian nation, but it's absurdly clear that our foundation is that of a monotheistic, Judeao-Christian ethic.
(1) First, you claim to be stating a fact, though later on you change your argument when you state that you can't prove or disprove your statement. Of course, you are not arguing a fact.
(2) You state that your premise is "absurdly clear." But then later you admit that your statement was not perhaps well thought out. If it is so "absurdly clear" why did you have to retract it?
(3)You use such vague language that it can mean anything. What do you mean by "foundation?" Do you mean the laws? In the end, your vagueness just suits your dishonest intention, because if we point out that our constitution is not based on Christianity, then you can simply say you didn't mean the laws. You can use the vague language to mean anything, which is what you do. In the end, you make the incredibly weak argument that because Jefferson admired the ethics of Jesus, your point is proved, because somehow Jefferson must have included these beliefs in the formation of our country.
Likewise, what the heck do you meant by "Judeao-Christian?" Do you mean the old testament beliefs of a punishing God, or the forgiving Jesus, or the Jesus that spoke of the next world, or the Jesus that spoke against wealth? The terms are so vague that they can mean anything. It would be impossible to prove you wrong because your statement is so vague that you can come back and point to the vagueness and say "That is what I meant."
(4) You talk about the ethic of monotheism. There is no ethic of monotheism. Monotheism just posits that there is one and only one God. That God could be cruel and unjust.
You don't really want to argue a particular point, because you don't have a point. It is all about you defending a nonsensical statement and being afraid that you are being proven wrong.
And you need to call me a dick because name calling is always the last resort when someone is losing an argument.
It hides your intention and allows you say one thing and mean something else.
So what again is my intention? I ask because you clearly believe you're insight is so strong. I mean, really, what is it that you think my intention is? What am I meaning when I'm saying something else? Am I being ironic or am I simply being deceptive?
>>The fact is that we are a Christian-based nation. We're not a Christian nation, but it's absurdly clear that our foundation is that of a monotheistic, Judeao-Christian ethic.
(1) First, you claim to be stating a fact, though later on you change your argument when you state that you can't prove or disprove your statement. Of course, you are not arguing a fact.
Technically, facts needn't be proven to retain their status as facts. They needn't even be observable. What you seem to be doing is avoiding the issue by making the false assumption that something that cannot be verified cannot be expressed as fact. In your mind, this is a fundamental flaw to my argument, so you needn't even consider any substance short of proof to be substantive.
(2) You state that your premise is "absurdly clear." But then later you admit that your statement was not perhaps well thought out. If it is so "absurdly clear" why did you have to retract it?
I prefer not to think of it as a retraction. It was more of a clarification. A clarification that, once honestly considered is, yes, quite clear.
(3)You use such vague language that it can mean anything.
Actually, no. I don't.
What do you mean by "foundation?"
I mean the basis, the groundwork. The basic structure on which something is built. What did you think I meant?
In the end, your vagueness just suits your dishonest intention, because if we point out that our constitution is not based on Christianity, then you can simply say you didn't mean the laws.
What again is my dishonest intention? Again, from a much earlier post, the United States were not born out of the Constitution. They were born out of the Declaration of Independence. That was where the words United States of America first saw light. Still, I never said anything was based around Christianity. I said a Christian ethic. Again, there's an enormous difference.
In the end, you make the incredibly weak argument that because Jefferson admired the ethics of Jesus, your point is proved, because somehow Jefferson must have included these beliefs in the formation of our country.
I never said that I had proven my point. On the contrary, I've regularly said that the point is not provable. But as a point of fact, Jefferson did not simply say he admired Christ's ethics. He referred to himself as 'a true Christian' and a 'disciple' of Christ. In other words, he considered Christ to be his teacher. It's a profound thing to consider a man nearly 2000 years dead to be your teacher. It's a far cry from simply admiring his ethics, don't you think?
Likewise, what the heck do you meant by "Judeao-Christian?"
Judeo-Christian refers to the teachings of the old and new testaments. The two Bibles made one. Yes, there's a lot in there. And you can trivialize it all you want, but it doesn't help your argument to suggest there aren't any larger ideas coming out.
It would be impossible to prove you wrong because your statement is so vague that you can come back and point to the vagueness and say "That is what I meant."
Why are you so certain that it's not what I meant? Why do you have to assume I'm here to deceive?
(4) You talk about the ethic of monotheism. There is no ethic of monotheism. Monotheism just posits that there is one and only one God. That God could be cruel and unjust.
I believe I actually used monotheistic. An adjective. It was an unnecessary and redundant adjective seeing as concept is included within the realm of the Judeo Christian ethic, but an adjective nonetheless. Still, the definition of monotheism is, itself, the ethic of monotheism. The belief in one god and one god only was at one time a pretty profound shift.
It is all about you defending a nonsensical statement and being afraid that you are being proven wrong.
Why would I be afraid of being proven wrong if, as you've already stated, I can't be proven wrong? On the contrary, the only person to be proven wrong in this thread was you when you said all the founders were Deists. If you can prove me wrong, I welcome it, but you've so rarely spoken on the subject at hand that I tend to think the Deist thing really got you flustered. Since then you've been attacking because you don't like that my original statement wasn't nearly as provocative as you thought to begin with.
And you need to call me a dick because name calling is always the last resort when someone is losing an argument.
No, I don't need to call you a dick. I choose to call you a dick. And not because I'm not afraid of losing an argument. Personally, I don't think your capable of winning an argument when you're right. I'm pretty good at winning arguments whether I'm right or wrong.
>>I never said that I had proven my point. On the contrary, I've regularly said that the point is not provable.
Regularly? Really?
>>He referred to himself as 'a true Christian' and a 'disciple' of Christ. In other words, he considered Christ to be his teacher. It's a profound thing to consider a man nearly 2000 years dead to be your teacher. It's a far cry from simply admiring his ethics, don't you think?
No. And Jefferson is not a Christian.
>>Yes, there's a lot in there. And you can trivialize it all you want, but it doesn't help your argument to suggest there aren't any larger ideas coming out.
Yes, it does help my argument. You haven't done anything to clarify your point.
>>Why are you so certain that it's not what I meant? Why do you have to assume I'm here to deceive?
By the number of times you switch your argument; by your evasions.
>>I believe I actually used monotheistic. An adjective. It was an unnecessary and redundant adjective seeing as concept is included within the realm of the Judeo Christian ethic, but an adjective nonetheless.
>>Yes, and that changes my argument, how? Yes, you love to play semantic games.
>>Still, the definition of monotheism is, itself, the ethic of monotheism. The belief in one god and one god only was at one time a pretty profound shift.
Yes, that is what is called circular reasoning.
>>Why would I be afraid of being proven wrong if, as you've already stated, I can't be proven wrong?
Yes, you were proven wrong in stating that the US was based on Christianity. That is when you started defending your vague language.
>>If you can prove me wrong, I welcome it, but you've so rarely spoken on the subject at hand that I tend to think the Deist thing really got you flustered. Since then you've been attacking because you don't like that my original statement wasn't nearly as provocative as you thought to begin with
Um, but you used an act passed in 1864 to prove that the US was based on Christianity. I guess in your mind that is not being proven wrong. And you used the DOI to prove that the nation is Christian, when the word "Christian" doesn't appear in that document.
>>I choose to call you a dick. And not because I'm not afraid of losing an argument. Personally, I don't think your capable of winning an argument when you're right. I'm pretty good at winning arguments whether I'm right or wrong.
Wow. you tough man. You "choose" to call me a dick.
But anyway, non we know what this whole argument is about. You think you are pretty good at winning arguments, right or wrong. That is where the conflict comes from. You made and indefensible statement, and now you need to win th argument, so you just throw out as much verbal nonsense as possible. In your mind, verbal evasion and bombast are substitutes for logic.
But please, keep it up! It's fun to watch a master BSer at work.
This is amusing!
I thought you were done arguing with me?
Really, I can't read your intention, and either can anyone else, because you use language so vaguely. About the only intention you have is to say almost anything to not be proven wrong.
>>Technically, facts needn't be proven to retain their status as facts.
Yes, according to your bizarre logic. That is pretty ludicrous.
>>I prefer not to think of it as a retraction.
I'm sure you do. If I were in your shoes, and as dishonest as you, I would say the same thing.
>>Actually, no. I don't.
Actually, yes you do. I have taught English at the college level. You don't use any concrete nouns, but rely on abstractions.
>>I mean the basis, the groundwork. The basic structure on which something is built. What did you think I
Like i say, just keep up the humor. Do you think that explanation actually means anything? It just proves that you use vague language!
>>Again, from a much earlier post, the United States were not born out of the Constitution. They were born out of the Declaration of Independence.
Wow! you are slipping now! That was *your* earlier post. I didn't bring up the DOI--you did! And I neve said "from a much earlier post, the United States were not born out of the Constitution." Nice Orwellian phrase, though.
Really, you need to read "Politics and the English Language." When Orwell talked about the manipulative use of language, he had you in mind.
Keep up the posts, though. I am really getting a kick out of them.
If you teach English at the college level, I weep for the minds you may have touched. I sincerely hope it wasn't anything above the 100 level.
Wow! What a great argument! So now you are going to resort to pure insult!
Yes, you are amusing.
As a matter of fact, I don't even know what you're arguing. Besides your repeated assertion that I am entirely dishonest, you haven't offered much of anything to the conversation. The way I track your contributions to the actual substance to the argument, you said that the founding fathers were all Deists so it wouldn't make any sense to suggest their philosophical positions would be informed by the Christian ethic. The slightest bit of research puts an end to the notion that all the founders were Deists. It only takes a little more research to prove that even some of the more prominent Deists were actually quite affected by the teachings of Christ. When presented with this, you sort of buried your head, said it proves nothing (when it specifically goes to discredit your refutation), and started to focus instead on matters of style you found to be unpleasant. The problem with that is you don't seem to have even the most basic ability to read beyond your own preconception, so you've again and again accused me of regularly changing my position. You even claim I haven't said things that I've said repeatedly from the original post onward. In short, as a critical reader you've shown yourself to be either dishonest or incompetent. Either way, I don't envy the kids you were appointed to teach.
Further, it's not an insult so much as it is a statement of my own opinion based on personal experience. Notice how I said that 'I weep' and 'I hope'. It's a description of my honest thoughts presented as exactly that. Not everything you find insulting qualifies as an insult.
"Technically, facts needn't be proven to retain their status as facts. They needn't even be observable. What you seem to be doing is avoiding the issue by making the false assumption that something that cannot be verified cannot be expressed as fact."
And here's you a few weeks ago:
"You can't make the argument that people are born gay. The only argument you can make is that gay people believe they were born gay (which isn't even always the case). If you cannot identify a genetic connection to homosexuality, you cannot find proof of people being born gay."
For you, facts don't need to be proven...they don't have to be observable...but I can't make common-sense arguments as to why people are born gay because there's no scientific proof.
And intellectual honesty is important to you? Wow.
For you, facts don't need to be proven...they don't have to be observable...but I can't make common-sense arguments as to why people are born gay because there's no scientific proof.
From a very technical standpoint, facts don't need to be proven. The better argument would be that I am identifying something as a fact when I don't know that to be the case. That's actually true. I'm actually doing what you were trying to do: presenting something as fact based on common sense. The problem with what you were doing is that you were invoking common sense, to describe far more mysterious. You were actually invoking common sense to make a scientific argument when the actual science of your argument fell short.
You are right, though, I don't know these facts to be true. My point about facts not needing to be proven was purely a semantic exercise; funnyman doesn't know that I'm not using facts anymore than I know for sure that I am, yet he insists that because they are not proven facts that they are not facts at all. My point was that facts are facts whether we can prove them or not. My argument with regard to whether or not people are born gay was based around the notion that too much emphasis was being put on that as the only reason for equal rights to be granted. That if the contrary was ever proven to be the case (either in some or all cases), then there would be a backlash the gay community would not be prepared for. I was then pointing out how weak a scientific argument is when the most compelling proof is anecdotal testimony.
Still, with regard to the facts of this board, you're right, I've presented an idea as fact when its status as fact is most certainly in question. The thing is, I'm totally willing to own up to that. So, to answer your question, that's where intellectual honesty comes in.
"The problem with what you were doing is that you were invoking common sense, to describe far more mysterious. You were actually invoking common sense to make a scientific argument when the actual science of your argument fell short."
"To describe far more mysterious"...? You left something out there.
No, I was invoking common sense to show that it could be a common-sense argument, not just a scientific argument which had to be "proven" in order to be made at all. Furthermore, the point wasn't that being born gay was a "fact", it was that there were solid reasons to justify my own belief in that concept, which could be used as arguments. And besides, I think you disqualified yourself from commenting on the validity of scientific arguments when you said you knew there were no scientific studies that supported the point.
If you're going to say now that facts are facts whether we can prove them or not, then you shouldn't have said then that such an argument couldn't be made because there was no proof. Really, if you can't be reasonably expected to provide some evidence of your assertion here, which should have some obtainable proof in the words of the Founding Fathers, then you can't demand scientific proof to argue that people are born gay when there may never be any such proof (no matter what your concern is).
Is that fair?
"To describe far more mysterious"...? You left something out there.
Yeah, that was a bad example of rewriting the sentence by starting in the middle and neglecting to delete.
No, I was invoking common sense to show that it could be a common-sense argument, not just a scientific argument which had to be "proven" in order to be made at all. Furthermore, the point wasn't that being born gay was a "fact", it was that there were solid reasons to justify my own belief in that concept, which could be used as arguments.
This was a while ago, and while I'm not certain this is the place to discuss it, I feel like I need to give you the respect of a reply. Anyway, if memory serves, the question was with regard to the 'solidity' of the reasons to justify the belief and to the wiseness of relying on that belief as the sole justification for the granting of rights. You said again and again that you were using common sense, and then you would accuse me of rejecting science. I didn't reject the science, I rejected the conclusiveness of the studies you were citing.
And besides, I think you disqualified yourself from commenting on the validity of scientific arguments when you said you knew there were no scientific studies that supported the point.
Again, we're going to have to go with my memory (unless you want to dig up this purpoted assertion), but I find it hard to believe that I suggested there were no studies that supported your point. I think I questioned the single interpretation of the findings in the studies you presented as being narrow and quite possibly informed by bias, but I don't think I would ever say no studies could be found to support anything. I think the opposite is true.
If you're going to say now that facts are facts whether we can prove them or not, then you shouldn't have said then that such an argument couldn't be made because there was no proof.
Again, I don't thing that's what I said. I said that it was an unwise argument. That it relied too heavily on the notion that an unknown was a given. That presenting an inherently scientific argument when your most compelling evidence comes from anecdotal testimony, is just not a winning game. My whole argument was that it was a weak argument. Not that it couldn't be made. But that it couldn't be made as well as some other, more compelling ones.
Really, if you can't be reasonably expected to provide some evidence of your assertion here, which should have some obtainable proof in the words of the Founding Fathers,
I've actually provided numerous quotes from the letters and words of the founders that openly express a devotion or admiration to the teachings of Christ. It's not proof, and it never will be, but it's most certainly circumstantial evidence.
then you can't demand scientific proof to argue that people are born gay when there may never be any such proof (no matter what your concern is).
I don't think I ever demanded proof. That just doesn't sound like me. I said that proof in the affirmative was probably terribly unlikely what with the genetics argument dead and all, and that maybe there was a better argument on which to rest their hopes for equal rights. One that didn't rely on an illusive proof to be substantiated.
"Okay, you ready? You can't make the argument that people are born gay. The only argument you can make is that gay people believe they were born gay (which isn't even always the case). If you cannot identify a genetic connection to homosexuality, you cannot find proof of people being born gay."
So you can't reasonably make such an argument because there's no proof. You said it was dishonest, not just "weak". You went to great lengths to explain the dishonesty and trickery of it.
"...but I find it hard to believe that I suggested there were no studies that supported your point."
Do you?
"There's no science to back up the assertion of gay at birth."
"I just happen to know that there's no scientific evidence now. I'm using that understand to presuppose the scenario in which no scientific evidence is never uncovered. That's not an assumption."
It's true, the lack of a genetic identifier makes it very difficult for one to ever comprehend proof of the gay at birth scenario, so the argument that people are obviously born gay is more of an emotional and less of a reasoned argument.
The trickery and dishonesty that you speak of was with regard to the original question in which Gov. Richardson was given the option of determining whether gays were born that way or chose to be that way. The dishonesty was in presenting the scenario as a cut and dry choice between the only two possible acts of causation. The dishonesty was in presenting it so that there was a choice between picking the 'right' choice and the 'bigotted' choice. The dishonesty was in limiting the parameters of the question rather than allowing for more than two options.
Making the argument that people are born gay isn't dishonest. I really challenge you to find where I repeatedly said that. On the other hand, claiming that there's compelling scientific evidence that points only in that direction is pretty dishonest--or at the very least, misleading.
All of that aside, I still haven't gone back to the debate of a month or so ago. I'm not sure why it's so fresh in your mind. I suggest that you reread all of what I said rather than decontextualizing fragments. I'm fairly certain it wasn't all crazy talk.
Moving the goalposts? You said you didn't demand proof to make the "birth" argument. You did. You said "you can't" make that argument, whether logically or honestly or reasonably or whatever. That is demanding scientific proof (or some potential for it) for me to make that argument. And you did indeed claim that there was NO scientific evidence to support the "birth" theory. Your quotes suggest you are unfamiliar with your own methods and/or character. Interesting.
Oh, and as for never saying the "birth" argument was dishonest? "Besides, the point isn't what's compelling, it's what's honest." That's you defending your "it doesn't matter" argument, suggesting by contrast that my argument was not honest, or less honest, than yours.
The argument was fresh in my mind because I have a memory. Considering I remember it, why don't you read through it? I'm not changing your meanings by taking you out of context. That's what you did when talking about when I said "beating down".
christians always like to think that "judeo-christian" teachings are unique. there are many religions and teaching through history that pretty much said the same things. don't murder, don't steal... it's common sense.
I'm not Christian, but most of the founders were, so while your point about similarities among religions is well-taken, it doesn't take away from the notion that, for the founders, these ideas were specifically related to the Christian ethic.
>>it doesn't take away from the notion that, for the founders, these ideas were specifically related to the Christian ethic.
Specifically doesn't mean what you think it does. What ideas are you talking about? You have yet to name any except that most of our presidents swore their oat on a bible (though a few did not).
"I'm not Christian, but most of the founders were, so while your point about similarities among religions is well-taken, it doesn't take away from the notion that, for the founders, these ideas were specifically related to the Christian ethic." - BreakerBaker
I'm sorry my man, but you are just a little short of enlightenment. Fortunately for you I'm here to help. I'm assuming you don't mind reading. If it comes at the topic from a little different slant, you might still learn much that you didn't expect to learn...
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
And for those who just like to read a final sentence and then believe everything has been absorbed that matters, once again I am here to help:
"The United States is not, by any stretch of the imagination a Christian nation today, nor has it ever been, nor was it ever intended to be. The Religious right (or left) would do well to stop looking for the Kingdom of Heaven here on Earth."
Thanks. I read it through. I knew about the treaty of Tripolli, but I couldn't think what treaty it was during our debate.
Okay, the absurd notion that the founders were not Christian by any stretch of the imagination aside, my argument has never been that we are a Christian nation. Nor has it been my argument that that was the intent of the founders.
There were Christians among the founders. Many. Thomas Payne, who's one of my favorites, was most assuredly not one of them. John Adams was a Unitarian Christian. One needn't believe in the Trinity to be Christian. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist but he was very profoundly affected by the teachings of Christ. Of course, there were a lot of other founders.
>>Okay, the absurd notion that the founders were not Christian by any stretch of the imagination aside
Yes. Great refutation of the article. You say it is absurd, so it must be!
"There were Christians among the founders. Many. ... One needn't believe in the Trinity to be Christian. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist but he was very profoundly affected by the teachings of Christ. Of course, there were a lot of other founders." - BreakerBaker
Well you know, BreakerBaker, there are those who just like to say stuff, maybe pick a position that's hard to defend but rolls easily off the tongue...and there are other people who bring in a reference which handily defeats the stuff sayer's position. Ah, yes, "a lot of other founders".
Way down on this page you'll see, "Number of America’s nine 'Founding Fathers' who denied the divinity of Jesus: 7".
http://www.harpers.org/subjects/FoundingFathers/SubjectOf/Fact
Perhaps you should tell us just how exactly you define a "Christian". There's a good chance we might find it amusing. Of course, there's a strong possibility that actual Christians will be amused as well.
Great post!
Of course, BreakerBaker will say "I never said there weren't any founding fathers who weren't Christians. I said there were a lot of others as well, which means others in the sense that there were others, as I clearly wrote. Just because you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus doesn't make you a non-Christian, even if Jews do believe in Jesus but not his divinity, because in the realm of religion one's affinities cannot be sharply delineated."
"There were Christians among the founders. Many. ... One needn't believe in the Trinity to be Christian. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist but he was very profoundly affected by the teachings of Christ. Of course, there were a lot of other founders." - BreakerBaker
Way down on this page you'll see, "Number of America’s nine 'Founding Fathers' who denied the divinity of Jesus: 7".
As a point of fact, my word was founders. I'm sure it works quite well to your point to argue that there were only nine men involved in the founding of our nation, but that's sort of a limited, story-book sort of view of history. The founders include no less than the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, the 74 Generals in the Continental Army, the 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation, and the 39 signers of the US Constitution. But if you want to focus on the nine, okay.
Perhaps you should tell us just how exactly you define a "Christian". There's a good chance we might find it amusing. Of course, there's a strong possibility that actual Christians will be amused as well.
Personally, I choose not to define a Christian. I'm not a Christian, so I don't give it a ton of thought. Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, referred to himself as a 'real Christian' and a 'disciple of the doctrine of Jesus Christ.' Whether he's a Christian by today's standards is really neither here nor there. But to address your specific questions with regard to Trinity and Christ's Divinity.
There is a thing called Nontrinitarianism. While it's still around today, it was very popular during the Enlightenment. Rather than go through all of the different versions of those who reject the Trinity, let's focus on the Unitarians (since they are the ones that we're really talking about).
Unitarians reject the Divinity of Christ, but accept Christ as a prophet of God (Like Moses to the Jews and Mohammad to the Muslims). They are followers and disciples of Christ. They are, in other words, Christians.
Lets talk about the people most involved in our nations foundations and what THEY had to say about it
George Washington
After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."
Thomas Jefferson
Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."
John Adams
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination."
In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
James Madison
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
Benjamin Franklin who famously said lighthouses are more useful than churches
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist."
Thomas Paine
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. "
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
No this country was founded on ENLIGHTENMENT principles. Just because most eithical systems have a lot in common doesnt mean that because thou shalt not kill for example is in the ten commandments AND law that it CAME from the ten commandments. The statement it is inarguable is laughable. It is ABSOLUTLY debatable. I say it is a much better argument that we were founded on enlightenments principles than Judeo Christian principles exactly as the Treaty of Tripoly says
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...
You are repeating conventional wisdom but the historical record doesnt really back that up.
No this country was founded on ENLIGHTENMENT principles.
One of the major principles of which you speak was Nontrinitarianism. It's a rejection of the Trinity and, in most cases, a rejection of the Divinity of Jesus Christ. That should not be considered a rejection of Christianity. And certainly not what has been called the Judeo-Christian ethic.
As for Washington:
In his Speech to Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779, Washington said: You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.http://watkins.gospelcom.net/foundingfathers.htm
I'll let you read some of the other quotes therein.
Your first post was about how the separation of church and state was some new thing done by court decisions in the 60's and now you are merely saying the ETHIC of judeo christianity is what you were talking about. Well so what? That ethic is pretty much universal. Do unto others, care about one another, dont steal or murder. If THAT is all you are saying it is meaningless. Its like saying America was set up on a foundation of being good not eviiiiil. If as it certainly seemed at the time you were trying to say that Christianity was the basic foundation that the founders were using for their conceptual framework that cannot be supported. Also arguing that denying the trinity is fine with Christian principles that is ludicrous. ONE of that trinity IS Jesus. You so often take the arguments to a level of semantic parsing the debate no longer has meaning. As long as you are NOW admitting that the courts in the 60's were NOT taking some new course antithetical to what the founding fathers wanted then I dont care what level of eithical guidlines which could be attributed to Bhuddism, Christianity, or Zoroastrianism for that matter influenced their thinking. What of those ethics you are now talking about are limited to the JudeoChristian ethic?
Aren't you splitting hairs here FP? Here is what Thomas Jefferson said:
"I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deist, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected(Christian religion and Jesus in particular). I do not know that it would reconcile the gennus irritabile vatum who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened." TJ in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush on this very subject.
Clearly the founding fathers approached our laws with religion in mind.
In Jefferson's cover letter to Dr. Rush (on his forthcoming book: The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, he elaborated further, "the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity, I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself." TJ
Don't misinterpret Jefferson's scorn of Evangelists to mean that he was a Deist in it's purest form. I think a cursory view of his letters can put that to rest.
The statements in parenthesis are mine for clarification.
one more omission, I did not close parenthesis after Jesus on Nazareth in the second quote. :)
>>Don't misinterpret Jefferson's scorn of Evangelists to mean that he was a Deist in it's purest form. I think a cursory view of his letters can put that to rest.
A "cursory" view of his letters can't prove anything. A cursory view is the same as cherry picking. One shouldn't use a cursory view at all, but should take all of his letters in sum.
Nor does this quote prove that our country was founded on Christianity.
Look, if you accept that Christianity played a major role in shaping their worldly philosophies, and since it only stands to reason that they framed the country using their worldly philosophies, then it goes without saying that the nation's foundation (it's base) is largely informed by basic Christian philosophy.
I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.
Thomas Jefferson, 1816
Why do these quotes always come out so small? Sorry about that.
I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful of precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of Jesus.
Thomas Jefferson, 1816
No this doesn't say he was a Christian. It simply says he was a follower and student of Christ.
No, I don't accept that Christianity played a major role in shaping their philosophies. I state just the opposite below. Jefferson did not believe Jesus was the son of God--does that sound to you like any Christian? That is the definition of a non Christian.
Even if they were all Christians that still wouldn't mean that Christianity shaped how they set up government. You could get a bunch of Christians together who might think (as the founding fathers did) that their own faith should not play any role in what they were doing. For example, you could get a bunch of umpires together before a game who were all Christians. Does that mean their judgement was informed by Christianity?
At least we're finally approaching a recognision (albeit a passive aggressive one) that they were not all Deists. Progress!
And no, Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian in the sense that he did not believe in the divinity of Christ. He did, however, describe Christs teachings as the most 'beautiful and precious morsel of ethics' he had ever seen. Do you think he would not incorporate those ethics into the great experiment? Do you think the founders who were traditional believers honestly left all of their religious teachings at the door when confronted with how to best form a government of the People? Where does that logic come from?
Don't make this into whether they were forming a Christian Nation. It's not that at all. It's a question of where their system of ethics which enabled them to create this wonderful country came from. If the ethics are the foundation of the nation, where do those ethics come from? What's their foundation? They didn't develop in a vacuum, so where did they come from? Aristotle? Maybe. Locke? Sure. Jesus Christ? Without a doubt.
>>At least we're finally approaching a recognision (albeit a passive aggressive one) that they were not all Deists. Progress!
No! Jefferson was a deist. He simply like the ethical teachings of Christ. Jefferson was not a Christian in any sense of how the word is used. If you think that Jefferson (and others)were not forming a Christian nation, then you have presented yet another position. You are not arguing that Jefferson simply used Christian ethics (which mean what, by the way?).
One could easily argue that Jefferson was inherently moral, and that is why he accepted Jesus's ethics. So Jefferson wasn't influenced by Jesus (as most Christians are), but that he merely was attracted to Jesus's teachings.
If you don't want me to be combative, why don't you actually try to make one argument instead of trying to switch what you said to look like you weren't wrong?
The fact is that we are a Christian-based nation. We're not a Christian nation, but it's absurdly clear that our foundation is that of a monotheistic, Judeao-Christian ethic.
Look! It's exactly what I said. In the first post, no less! I said both that we were not a Christian nation (which you just said I hadn't been saying) but that the foundation was that of a Judeo Christian ethic. It's not the best worded statement, but I actually don't have a problem with it seeing as I know what it was intended to mean.
No. That is not what you are arguing. But really, it is hard to keep track with all your sematics.
The US was not founded on "Judeao-Christian ethic" as you claim. You have yet to prove that. I know. You love to play semantic games. Jefferson was not a Christian, and he did not base the nation on its ethics.
Are you actually arguing that because Jefferson believed in the ethics of Jesus, that this is your proof? Are you serious?
No. That is not what you are arguing. But really, it is hard to keep track with all your sematics.
That's not really a proper use of the word semantics which actually refers to the study of the meanings of words. Not the words themselves. When something is a question of semantics, it's a question of the meaning of words. Just because I used the word doesn't mean you get to use it however you see fit.
Honestly, though, do you want to have this conversation with yourself? You know what I mean better than I do apparently.
The US was not founded on "Judeao-Christian ethic" as you claim.
Why not? Really, I'm not interested in proof. I just want to know why you believe so fervently that this is the case.
You have yet to prove that.
Never said I was going to prove anything.
You love to play semantic games. Jefferson was not a Christian, and he did not base the nation on its ethics.
I never said Jefferson was a Christian. I quoted him saying that he was, but I accepted that in the context of him being a believer in the teachings of Christ absent the divinity of Christ.
Are you actually arguing that because Jefferson believed in the ethics of Jesus, that this is your proof?
No. I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying that it's relevant to the discussion. You suggested earlier that all the founders were Deists. I said that argument was largely overblown. I told you that many of the founders were Christian, and then showed that even genuine Deists like Jefferson was a great believer in the Christian ethic. That's not proof. It's evidence. There's no such thing as proof. But there's a ton of circumstantial evidence if you're willing to do a thorough study of the letters and diaries of the founders. Not just the ones that support your thesis.
>>That's not really a proper use of the word semantics which actually refers to the study of the meanings of words.
Okay, you are playing semantic games.
>>Why not? Really, I'm not interested in proof. I just want to know why you believe so fervently that this is the case.
Because the founding fathers did not include that language in the constitution, as I've stated again and again.
>>But there's a ton of circumstantial evidence if you're willing to do a thorough study of the letters and diaries of the founders. Not just the ones that support your thesis.
Oh really? Look at Solon's post above. More to the point, merely pointing out that some of the founders admired Jesus is not proof that the country was founded on the Judeao-Christian ethic--whatever that phrase is supposed to mean. Nor is it really evidence.
>>There's no such thing as proof.
See, here we go with your sophistry. In fact, there is proof in math. There may not be proof in science. But of course, I mean it in the way that is clear, that is, you haven't shown enough evidence (or really any evidence) to back up your argument.
I like your insults from the other posts. I am a dick and you pity the students I taught. That really strengthens your argument.
You're the one who presented the Deist argument a refutation of my original point. That refutation was immediately shown to be weak. I've pointed to just a couple of quotes that show some of the Nontrinitarian types to be devoted to the doctrines of Christ (the Judeo-Christian ethic), I've also pointed to a number of the founders who were believers in Divinity of Christ, and you claim this is evidence of nothing at all. What it's evidence of is a profound relationship many or most of the founders shared with the philosophies and teachings of Christ. What it's proof of is that your refutation is terribly weak.
The proof you apparently seek now is an acceptance of Christ as the human embodiment of God the Almighty in the language of the US Constitution. A concept that in no way represents accurately any of what I've said. All I've said from the beginning is that the foundation of the country was grounded in principles derrived from, among other places, the teachings of Christ. And if your only understanding of what Christianity is or can be, relies entirely on the Trinity and Divinity of Christ, then you will never recognize this to be a possibility. Likewise, if you think the United States of America didn't exist in any form before the signing of the Constitution, then your view of history is as limited as your view of Christianity.
Aren't you cherry picking your argument here? They were all Deist's, not a Christian among the bunch. Religion did not play a part in the hearts and minds of the good men that penned our most important documents and laws?
Is this your argument?
>>Religion did not play a part in the hearts and minds of the good men that penned our most important documents and laws?
That is BreakerBaker's argument--that is, he is arguing that the US is based in Christianity because religion "played a part in the hearts and minds of" our founding fathers. That is a bizarre reason to say the US is based on Christianity. Look at the link in the preceding page, which includes a link to the treaty of Tripoli, which outright states the US is not a Christian nation.
Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative.
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
Jefferson didn't believe Jesus was supernatural. That makes him a non Christian.
Funnymanpants posted:
'Jefferson didn't believe Jesus was supernatural. That makes him a non Christian. "
______________________________
In our born again world I think your assertion would hold water, but Jefferson was not taken with Evangelicals. He considered them ignorant and uneducated. He was by definition Unitarian.
I would not define him as non-Christian though. Here are Jefferson's thoughts on that:
"I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be(Jesus); sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other" -TJ in a statement of his faith to Dr. B. Rush.
Further in his Syllabus of an estimate of the merit of the Doctrines of Jesus, compared with those of other; Jefferson gives some more insight to his thoughts:
5. "They have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of schismatising followers, who have found an interest in sophisticating and perverting the simple doctrines he taught...
...a system of morals is presented to us, which, if filled up in the true style and spirit for the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man" - T Jefferson
Christian by our definition or Christian by his definition?
You have to use language how it is commonly used. So to answer your question, Christian by our definition. The context of the original argument was that the nation was founded on Christian ethics. Today, when someone says Christian, he means the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God.
To say that the nation is Christian because Jefferson (who is just one of the founding fathers) liked the ethics of Jesus, and nothing else, is a false argument.
In addition, in the modern context, when someone says that the US is founded on Christianity, they almost certainly mean that it was founded on religion, and that therefore religion should play a role in the government.
To say that the nation is Christian because Jefferson (who is just one of the founding fathers) liked the ethics of Jesus, and nothing else, is a false argument.
And that's a strawman.
Really? is there any reason for me to take you seriously after your little outburst, where you say I'm a "dick" and that you pity the students I taught? So much for your facade of intelligent discourse.
But, no, it's not a strawman. You have been arguing that Jefferson's admiration of Christ influenced him so that he founded the nation on Christian ethics--or however you vaguely like to put it.
He might not have been a Deist in its pure form whateve that might be. It would be hard to catagorize his beliefs however he stating that he didnt agree with any ideal of ANTI Christianity is no claim he wanted a Christian nation or that he thought our country was based on Judeo Christian religion he was certainly averse to any Religious hand on our government that cannot reasonably be denied he had a hostility to the CHURCH of Christianity whatever his personal beliefs that is clear
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
>>As for In God We Trust, that's also a late entry, but a much earlier one than the pledge. The phrase was added to currency during the American Civil War. In 1864, to be precise. This was only 76 years following the ratification of the Constitution. Just under twice that amount of time has passed since then. So it's a long time ago is what I'm trying to say.
I missed this. This is funny to see you dance around this issue. You said our country was founded on a "a monotheistic, Judeao-Christian ethic." So something that happened *76* years after the founding of the country is proof of that?
Do you have any links proving that federal judges are "required" to say "So help my God?"
That is true, it was inserted by civil war era lawmakers. The intent was to ensnare traitors. That is, the lines just before "so help me god".
Why would I lie? Here's the statute and oath of office for Federal Judges:
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
And here's the link:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/federal.judges.htm
>>Why would I lie?
I never accused you of lying. But you have provided one bad argument after the next, for example using the Declaration of Independence as proof of Christianity in it when the document does not contain the word "Christianity."
Snoopy says that the words ("So help me God") for this oat were inserted during the civil war. I am just asking. Did I understand his argument correctly?
I don't believe you do. I believe his argument was with regard to In God We Trust on currency. If he was making the argument that that oath was altered during the civil war to include So help me god, he would be wrong.
Not necessarily. It is true that the term is added customarily, and it is equally true that the constitution says it cannot be required to say. But the oath of today was drafted during the civil war.
This oath is also taken by the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, and all other civil and military officers and federal employees other than the President. While the oath-taking dates back to the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted by Civil War-era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors.
You can find the history of the oath here.
While I'm by no means a government scholar, here's what my non-Wikipedia-based research led me (By the way, I love Wikipedia, I think it's oftentimes a good source).
http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/federal-judiciary-act/
This is the Judiciary Act of 1789. It includes the oath and the phrase. It also includes the verification of your assertion that the final sentence may be omitted. But the oath, unlike that of the president, does, and has always included the phrase 'So Help Me God.'
The wikipedia entry shows the same act word for word. The telling point is the interpretation of the constitutional language that says there shall be no religious test, which is why all legal aspects say the term "so help me god" can not be mandatory. So yes, the words were there pretty near the beginning of this country, but the defining moment - the constitution, which was created during the creation of the country - says you can't force people to say it.
I would agree with your argument in part because it is clear that most of all our legislative bodies were christian, so yes, you can say that their christian beliefs probably did play a role in building this country. But that doesn't make it a requirement to continue the practice, does it?
I'm not Christian. I'm actually pretty secular in my thoughts. The only thing that prevents me from referring to myself as an atheist is the secure belief that there are aspects and possibilities inherent in this universe that I will never begin to understand. I don't believe in God. But I don't believe there is no God, either. Still, by any standards, I certainly do not believe in the virtues of religious tyranny. Or tyranny of any kind, for that matter. If any of my posts led some down that path to think that of me, I just have to say that it's not the case.
By the way, sorry about that Wikipedia thing. I was putting my son to bed, and didn't give it a thorough once-over. You're right, it did say essentially, everything the Judiciary Act said.
You don't have to apologize to me. Debate doesn't mean having to say you're sorry! I have enjoyed this discussion, I learned a bit, I hope you did as well.
An inarguable fact MY BUTT. We were founded on ENLIGHTENMENT Principles. Its that simple
>>The fact is that we are a Christian-based nation.
Like I always say, whenever anyone says "the fact is" you can almost bet with certainty that no facts are coming. Our nation was not based on Christianity.
Our founding fathers were Deists. And, oh, the word "Christianity" does not appear in the Declaration of Independence.
FMP, That is my understanding too. Everything I have read points to the founding farthers as deists. I am not sure where this myth started that we are a judeo christian country founded on judeao christen beliefs. We aren't and it wasn't.
Actually, the founding fathers were not all of a single faith. While they were all white men and land owners, they were not all the same in every way. The Deist card is a bit over played. It's a good card though, if you're looking to ignore how often so many of the founders spoke of God and how, from the very first oath of office, a Bible has always been used to swear in government officials. Deists, after all, don't have much use for holy texts.
The Deist card is overplayed? Really? Then maybe you should tell that to historians. It really doesn't matter how often the founding fathers spoke of God. You said they were "Christians." And it is pretty laughable that a bible has always used to swear in a president. That is proof that the country was founded on Christianity?
This might be a good time to talk about swearing in on the Quran...
I think the senator was absolutely right to wish to have his photo op with the qu'ran. Technically, congressmen do not take their oath individually, so there's no book present. They just raise their hands.
Which, to be clear, doesn't prove your original statement.
I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was drawing a distinction between oaths taken by members of congress and federal judges. I mean, they don't even take the same oath, so the connection isn't entirely apt.
Did I say they were Christians? I mean, many of them were. But did I say that? I don't think that I did. I certainly didn't say they were all Christians. I said they most certainly were not all Deists. But even if they were all Deists (which they weren't) this would not prevent them from looking to Christian philosophy to inform the foundation of the Republic. Again, there's a difference between being a nation which is Christian-based and being a Christian Nation. This may seem like semantics, but it's just not.
Here's a short list: John Adams (Unitarian), Samuel Adams (Christian), Benjamin Franklin (Deist), Alexander Hamilton (Episcopalian), John Jay (Christian), Thomas Jefferson (Deist--but a self described 'real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus'), Washington (it's apparently unclear because unlike some recent politicians, he didn't make common reference to Christ).
http://watkins.gospelcom.net/foundingfathers.htm
>>his would not prevent them from looking to Christian philosophy to inform the foundation of the Republic. Again, there's a difference between being a nation which is Christian-based and being a Christian Nation. This may seem like semantics, but it's just not.
Yes, it is semantics with you. All your arguments are semantics, and all semantics, which is why you keep changing your position.
Having their "Christian Philosophy..inform the foundation of the Republic" is
(1) much different from what you said originally
(2) a classical Orwellian phrase. (See "Politics and the English Language.") Whenever anyone uses as vague language as you do, he is not interested in honest debate, but in pushing fourth an argument by nonsense.
Having their "Christian Philosophy..inform the foundation of the Republic" is
That's actually pretty close to what I said originally. I said that it was quite clear that the foundation was grounded in a monotheistic, Judeo-Christian ethic.
I actually don't have a problem with that at all. I honestly am not sure what your problem is. Is it that you simply don't want to believe it? I'll tell you right now that while they did talk about Christ a lot, it's not something one can prove, so you'll likely never be satisfied. I'm just not clear on why the concept is so distastful for you.
What is distasteful to me is the way you argue, in vague, general phrases, that you disown, then claim again, and which mean whatever you want them to mean.
If you can't prove your original statement, then why did you call it "absurdly clear?"
Talk about dishonest!
I never disowned anything. I've clarified (FOR YOU) a statement that I admitted to be a bit clumsy. You don't like the clarification, so you say it's me changing my position. Look, I don't care if you have any respect for me, but give me break. Honestly, I've done all I can to make a very simple concept clear to you. And you've done all you can to resist the idea without having even the most basic understanding of what it is. You've acted as a child would. You've clung to what you see as a flaw, but that style of debate doesn't work with me because I accept and work through my flaws. I'm not afraid of them. I don't deny them. I embrace them. You stopped being able to address the subject at hand hours ago. Now you present arguments to me that I never made, or misrepresent arguments I've already clarified. Good work.
Do you honestly not recognise the difference between being Christian-based and being a Christian Nation? If not, this very well be the cause of a lot of our disagreement.
When I say that the country is Christian-based, I mean it in the way a movie is 'based on a true story.' That doesn't make it an accurate retelling of that story. It may be drastically different, but the resulting movie was still derrived from that story. Essentially, what I'm saying is that the founders were profoundly affected by the teachings of Christ, and they therefore used those lessons in the creation of the union. They most certainly used other teachings, but Christ was assuredly of primary importance to many if not most.
There is a huge difference between that and a Christian Nation which implies a one-religion state. One in which the church is indistinguishable from the state. That's obviously not what this nation is, was, or ever will be.
Yes, I understand the difference. We are not a Christian nation and the nation was not based on Christianity. You may want to consult some main stream historians if you don't believe me.
I doubt most of our founders were profoundly affected by the teachings of Jesus Christ. Certainly you have not shown this. But even if they were, that doesn't mean they based our nation of Jesus's influence. In fact, the opposite is true. They were distrustful of religion in politics.
Just to be clear. when you say "Christian-based" nation, that means much more than that some of our founding fathers agreed with Jesus's teachings. You should know that. Christian based nation is almost always used by religious people who want to argue that Christianity has a place in our government and often falsify history to back up this belief.
Christian based nation is almost always used by religious people who want to argue that Christianity has a place in our government and often falsify history to back up this belief.
It's not my fault that somepeople misuse the language. Christian-based means the base or foundation was heavily influenced by Christian thought. That's what it means. It can certainly mean more than that, but it doesn't have to. That's sort of the point.
Why would one have to ignore that the Founding Fathers spoke of God? When I was a Deist I would speak of God. Perhaps you meant to phrase that differently?
The trick about being 'progressive' is not simply that you're progressing toward somewhere, it's that you're progressing from some place, too.
That's right. And where we progressed from were different religious sects who came here to escape the religious persecution they endured under the hands of european zealots. They wanted to create a country where no one religion could rule and dictate to others.
Again, I didn't say we were a Christian Nation. I said the country found a lot of its foundation within Christian philosophy (ie Christian-based).
>>I said the country found a lot of its foundation within Christian philosophy (ie Christian-based).
No, you said:
>>We're not a Christian nation, but it's absurdly clear that our foundation is that of a monotheistic, Judeao-Christian ethic.
Many of the founding fathers were masons and masonic symbolism is clearly evident in the great shield as well as our money.
No such thing is obvious in ANY way. Rather what is obvious is our country was set up on ENLIGHTENMENT principles. And that our founding fathers didnt want religion anywhere near government. Many of them were not Christians in any meaningful sense rather Deists. This is clear. It also is NOT clear this country has any such Judeo Christian base. Rather the basic ethical precepts common to MOST religious or ethically philosophy are the basis for our country. Jefferson said DIRECTLY that the common law had NO basis in Christianity nor are more than TWO of the 10 commandments illegal. No, you may WANT to believe this but there is no other reason TO believe this.
Enlightenment is not synonymous with atheist. Nor would a country whose founders clung to the ideals and philosophies of a religion they were raised necessarily have a state sanctioned religion. I don't understand why people think in order to be based in, or founded on Christian principles, people believe that would equal religious tyranny. Yes, there are many similarities within the principles and teachings of various otherwise unrelated religions, but that admission doesn't prevent a Westerner from being affected more by a Western religion in which they were raised, and often praised.
People get so tripped up by the separation of church and state, and misapply it to the separation of church and man.
I dont know where the concept of atheism is relevant in ANY way. IF you try to make any argument based on it that would be a strawman.
Enlightenment principles of that day were about reason, not dogma, ethics and universality of ethical standards. A vast oversimplification but good enough for what we are saying. No one is saying they are mutually exclusive to JudeoChristian ethics. You have gone far away from your first post which seemed to posit that the idea of a seperation between the Church and the state sprang whole cloth from the sixties. THIS cannot be supported by historical scrutiny. Many ethical standards are pretty much universal. To say that such standards were the BASIS of our country when 7 of the 10 commandments have NEVER been part of the law. Cannot be supported. Those parts of Judeo Christian precepts more unique to them like punishment for Idolotry or making graven images or even most importantly according to any real JudeoChristian standard the FIRST commandment. I am the Lord they God thou shalt have no other God before me NEVER being enshrined and in fact the first amendment being aboslutly contrary to it is prima fascie evidence that it was NOT a JudeoChristain ANYTHING beyond the universal ethic that could be ascribed to any standard morae religious or not.
Just because the Constituation draws a line between state and religion doesn't mean that our polices in the US are free from the influence of religion. The debate on gay Rights and the abortion come to mind when I think about policies that would be better served if people left religion out of the argument.
That's true. The only reason to oppose Gay Marriage is based either in Religion or raw bigotry...period. Personally, I don't think we should base our laws on either.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Bush and his cronies have been in office for nearly eight years, and just like my rights, my religious freedoms, as well as my atheist friend's freedoms, have been unaffected.// Tommy
Either your not paying attention, or you don't care as a number of societies have until they found themselves stripped of their civil liberties, stripped of thier voice over government, and embroiled into a transformed government, a Fascism.
To believe by acting as though it's not happening in plain sight, is to be a part of the process of dissolving our Democracy in the very same way as the Germans did in the 30's, the Italians with Mussolini, Franco in Spain, Pinochet in Chile! I'm sure these people thought little of the day to day politics in their country, and paid the price.
So, Tommy thinks we're conspiracy theorist as though standing up for a democracy undersiege needed an excuse other than freedom is won on the blood of citizens, and lost in the back rooms of power when it's same citizens are not paying due attention.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
You say "As long as they govern independently of those beliefs and respect all people, with or without faith - then it is of no concern to me.: Well, don't look now the last six years our tax money has been given to faith based groups to spread doma. Look at the bogus abstinence only programs (religious based) this administration has put forth telling kids condoms are not reliable, dangerous hogwash! Look how science has been pushed to the background in favor of religious faith! Look at the Terri Schiavo debacle; if you think the religious right hasn't been running the Republican party then you better wake up.
when you have a country where half the population thinks eve ate the forbidden apple and we're all suffering for it....speaks for itself. no wonder we can't get anything done on things like global warming.
Considering your Democratic candidates also buy that age old apple theory, they won't be much better on the global warming religion either, I guess?
Vote for your favorite atheist, whoever that is. ;)
a belief in christianity is not always a belief in the literal old testament. and global warming is not a religion. it's not some bible story that an area of arctic ice the size of florida melted in the last week.
Either Karl Rove or Karl Marx. Or maybe Christopher Hitchens.
I had the misfortune of seeing this Hitchens segment. He's always so pompous and disrespectful. He made the statement that Obama has attended some "rock and roll ethnic church" . for many years. What a description of someone’s place of worship.
Lynn, I think that was Hitchens trying to be flip. To me, a candidates brand of religion should be as big a factor as what type of music they like. Unfortunately, it matters.
Hitchens is usually drunk so who cares what this doofus has to say except that the doofus is on the TV.
He was on C-Span over the week-end on the show that dedicates like three hours to mix of interview and taking caller questions. The host actually asked Hitchens if he had had a drink that day and if he drank every day.
I agree HBL, but I still wish that religion could be left out of the political sphere. I agree that many of the Democratic candidates have been well wearing the religion pretty obviously this time around, I speculate that's because they are attempting to dispel the right wing lie that Liberals are all atheist. There are Progressive atheists and there are Progressives that are very religious. Now I don’t for one minute believe that Hilary Clinton , Obama, or Edwards believe that by talking about religion that they are going to woo the extreme religious right but they can certainly thwart the Republican Party’s stereotypical characterization of what a Democrat is.
While Hitchens is no friend of the right, he clearly didn't do his research on this one. I applaud candidates like Hillary and Giuliani for being persons of faith without having numerous altar photo-ops.
While Hitchens is no friend of the right, he clearly didn't do his research on this one.
I agree Dex. Hitchens did no research. I watched Joe Scarborough the other morning and he said that Hillary is the extremely honest in her faith, she's just not public about is. She has attended morning prayer since she was elected to the senate and during her White House years prayed each morning with a group of Republican wives.
Look, I don't care if an elected official bases their opinions on lessons learned in Dr. Seuss books as long as they make good decisions that don't violate the public trust. Religion is a personal thing, and the media does everybody a disservice when it automatically assumes Hillary isn't religious because of her party but never bothers to ask why George W. Bush doesn't attend church.
I always found that extremely interesting since many Church people and evangelicals are indeed the churchiest of people tend to live at church, even their social lives are planned around church events because there is this belief that too much interaction with non-church attending people may be corrupting. They generally tend to question the devoutness of people who do not attend church regularly, but they have always seemed to give Bush a pass on their usual litmus tests of piety. That said I personally do not question the sincerity of one's Christian beliefs based on their church attendance record. I attended church regularly for a large portion of my life, but I don’t now and generally just go on the big holidays or when the spirit hits me I go.
That's an interesting interpretation. My small town experience was that the self proclaimed civilian leaders of the crowd you mentioned were usually pretty corrupt themselves. They were pretty influential with the crowd.
Lynn, my momma always said people who attend church each and every Sunday need to make up for all the sins they commit Monday through Saturday. ;-)
That's funny, pearl! My daddy called them Sunday Christians, said you could spot them in church - just look for the loudest prayers and singers!
Pearl, I was raised in the church. Now my Momma was the sweetest and kindest person I ever met and she attended church every Sunday barring vacations or work. She was a good Christian but she witnessed by example. She was very loving and giving and her actions and her demeanor said it all. But you know what Pearl if you came to my mother’s house you were sure to have fun. You could dance and even though she didn’t drink or smoke she didn’t mind social drinking and at that time smoking in her house. We had lots of parties. You brought the kids and flopped them down and my teen relatives babysat. Now my aunt my Mom’s sister was a stick in the mud. According to her everything fun was going to send you strait to hell. I sure am glad I got my Mom for a Mom and not one of those what I so fondly call Christians from Hell. Some of the meanest people I ever met I met in church.
Some of the meanest people I ever met I met in church. Lynn
Actually those were the type of people my momma was talking about. Church each and every Sunday, Never practicing an ounce of Christianity while constantly preaching. Snoopy's dad had the right description "Sunday Christians".
A large portion of the Methodist apparatus here in Dallas is trying to overturn the decision to have Bush's Presidential library built at SMU. They have said he doesn't deserve the endorsement because of all the lies and crimes he has committed. They send me a newsletter every week because they don't want Methodists to be associated with this guy.
They send me a newsletter every week because they don't want Methodists to be associated with this guy. JJ
Actually that should have read they send me a newsletter every week "saying" they don't want Meothodists to be associated with Bush. Paraphrasing of course.
The Methodists might want to snub
The Bushie that Molly called "shrub"
While he wants a library
He might need some bribery
Only way he can win--with a club.
I love Molly Ivins, it's true
Her passing has left me so blue
She told it real straight
But without any hate
The truth stuck to her like glue
Be of good cheer, jj, she's lighting up the pearly gates, & still bringing us lots of laughs.
Hillary doesn't wear her faith on her sleeve [like some do], but that doesn't mean she's not religious or a person of faith.
Hitchens is just plain wrong here.
I agree with part of what Hitchens is saying...that the Democrats would be making a mistake by pandering to the Evangelicals. Far better to be honest and try to make religion a non-issue. Pandering to the Evangelicals only increases their political influence, and that is perilous to our Constitutional freedoms. We can't ignore them, but if we can beat them in enough elections, maybe they can be relegated to the sidelines where extremists belong.
Find a different tool Chris...
I agree with many of Hitchens' views on mythology (a.k.a. "religion"), but I don't believe in using one's faith (or lack of) as a tool to attack them or to promote them.
Hitchens actually does a disservice to atheists by his attack-dog style of writing and speaking on the subject.
But then, it does help him get face time on the tee-vee.
Draft I always thought so; I think Bill Maher does this as well. They both come off seeming very intolerant of people of faith and consequently they are behaving as badly as the people of faith who want to use their religion to control and to feel superior to others. I think we ought to put the militant atheist and the militant religious people somewhere and just let them fight it out. They should leave us peace loving and tolerant Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Athiest.....people the heck alone.
LYNN,
I think there's a "wheat from the chaff" thing that often happens when religion is the topic for Maher, Hitchens and others. Focusing on religion's impact (good and bad) while not making it personal is a delicate balancing act.
I understand how deep rooted people's religious beliefs are and how strong a hold they have on societies.
That said, I firmly believe that we humans will fall short of anything close to our full potential until we understand that the original purpose of religion (peace of mind from the unknown) is best achieved through knowledge and not through mythology and dogma.
A popular response these days is I'm spiritual but not religeous. The conservative and overbearing religious voices are tending to drive people away from the churches.
The Evangelicals should actually embrace Separation of Church and State. There is good reason to believe that it is partly responsible for the proliferation of churches in this country. Church attendance is much lower in England, where they have an official state religion.
I like your ideas on separation of Church and State, but I believe that more stoic, "higher" service churches are really the problem, not the "officiality" of the particular religion. US Mega-Churches that are really just mass feel-good conventions are doing quite well.
This is just my theory, but I think that when you grow up with an "official" religion, you're more likely to become cynical about it. In my own case, I grew up reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with "under God" in it, praying in school, and reading the Bible in school. Far from inspiration, these were just ho-hum drudgery...part of the school day that we endured with extreme indifference...but maybe that's just me.
Due to the courage of my parents, and the "don't tread on me" spirit with which the Appalachians were (then, at least) still infused, I grew up skipping the words "under God" in the allegiance, even after the law was beginning to cause expulsions among some of my schoolmates (who also refused, but whose parents hadn't already been to the school board several times to protest). My siblings and I were quite visibly just shutting our mouths during that awkward phrase inserted into the pledge - although my siblings did relent after we moved to Michigan, and started making the noise. They were too young, I suppose, to bear being any more ostracized than for simply being a "hillbilly" in a semi-urban (NOT urbane) area. I never did, even though I continue to flirt with the notion of God, and memorized a ton of Bible along the way.
Eweston that's basically my position. I have faith but I am no fan of organized religion.
While I enjoyed his book God Is Not Great, I will have to say that Hitchens could reasonably be described as a radical atheist. He is likely to ridicule anyone's professions of religious faith. This is certainly information that furthers a dishonest agenda of the right, so there is no doubt that it belongs in here.
Personally I'd be more interested in hearing the rest of this interview than anything Hillary Clinton or anyone else has to say about Jesus or church or resurrections. There are a great many of us to whom "never particularly mention[ing]" being a person of faith is not at all a bad thing.
Religious views tackle such topics as hate, envy, lust, greed, love, forgiveness.. the whole list of virtues and vices. Science does not.
Many religions lay out what they believe to be correct ways to lead lives. They provide a genuine construct for morality and provide millions with hope for eternal life. Much of mainstream Christianity have faith that Jesus shows them the way to that eternal life. Of course there are many different interpretations as to the teachings of Jesus. Whether one believes in Jesus or not, we all have the same rights to elect people who we think share not only our political views, but our religious ones too.
A political candidate does not have to belong to the same religion or any particular religion at all to convince voters to vote for them. However having a paticular religious tradition may make them more appealing to some in the same way some people automatically vote Democratic every election. Those people have a political orientation that drives their voting. I have seen it expressed here many times.
So religious views of the candidates are for some as important as political views and therefore candidates do take pains to try to be attractive to those voters.
Religious views tackle such topics as hate, envy, lust, greed, love, forgiveness.. the whole list of virtues and vices. Science does not. - AA
You couldn't be more mistaken. Those traits are all well within the field of science. There have been a huge number of discoveries as the result of scientific research into every single item you list. Every one of them is biochemical in nature, entirely within the realm of science. There has even been a great deal of progress toward discovering the evolutionary bases of those traits.
You have a lot of company in your delusion that there is something mystically special about the characteristics you mention. But there isn't.
I also think the Democratic Party has put itself on the other side of the fence in many issues of personal morality with regards to many Christians.
As has been stated before, many Christians think abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. Many Christians believe a candidate who is 'pro-choice' is pro-abortion.
Many Christians believe marriage is sacrament between a man and a woman. Some feel same sex unions do not honor this sacrament.
Many Christians feel that freedom of speech includes freedom of religion. They are put off by many Democratic party candidates that argue for taking every instance of religion out of the public sphere.
Therefore for a Democratic candidate to support "pro-choice", "same sex marriages" and removing the word God and any reference from the public sphere runs counter many Christian's views. Therefore many Democratic candidates make an effort to proclaim their Christianity in order to woo Christian voters who might be offset by the politicians political views on these subjects.
You make some good points. I would add that teaching real science in public schools also runs counter to many Christian's views. And...religious people have all the freedom of speech that anyone else has. Where the problem arises is when they want to plaster their religious tenets on government buildings which are paid for with tax dollars. I don't know of any mainstream Democrat who wants to remove ALL reference to God from the public square. This is a classic conservative Strawman.
That's true, but you have to admit that there are christians who take it too far. Take stem cells for a good example. Arguing that every cell is a viable lifeform is extreme.
That's amusing, since AA believes exactly that. But that's a perfect example of where Democrats have no reason to cater to such people. "That side of the fence" is called "reality", in such circumstances.
Let me rephrase that, he believes that every stem cell has a soul, or the "spark of life", and therefore should be protected.
I think most of what you said there rings somewhat true. The only thing i really take umbrage with is that you made statements regarding some democrats who want to take God out of the public sphere. I don't see this is as being true. What they want to do is to take God out of the State or Government controlled public sphere, therefore abiding by the Constitution for the State to not show a preference for a certain religion.
Example. 10 Commandments in a courthouse. No good, take them out. This could be a sign of government taking the side of Christianity, and could also give the feeling to some when in court that they might think that they can't get a fair hearing because maybe they're not Christian.
And many of them have nothing to do with the law anyway. "Thou shall not covet..."? What the hell does that have to do with any law?
I've never really understood that one anyway, to go off-topic completely. What's wrong with wanting something of someone else's, as long as you don't lie, steal, or murder to get it? Any practical problem with such a desire is already covered by another commandment.
I know what you mean. I want my neighbor's wife, and the woman across the street is hot too. And then there's the babe at the office. <Drool>
Oops. Was that TMI?
TMI? No, just the opposite. Please list phone numbers.
:)
If there were a law against coveting, our consumer-driven economy would implode within a week.
I wonder...how many Christian supporters of posting the Ten Commandments everywhere can even list them? How many know that there are actually two different lists of Commandments in the Bible? They swear up and down that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments, but four of them deal strictly with religious practices, and actually contradict our First Amendment.
Did anyone see that Stephen Colbert show where he ask the guy who wanted the Ten Commandments posted what they were. He could answer about 3. It was pretty funny.
And AA, as do many Christians, implies that the 10 Commandments issue revolves around free speech. This is simply not the case. Every Christian in America has the absolute right to post the 10 Commandments...on his or her own property.
Exactly. Why do some think that freedom of religion means freedom to force their god on me in public?
Of course freedom of speech includes religion. Short of indoctrination in the classroom your delusional take on this issue is stupid and insulting. No, the Democratic Party has never advocated not allowing free religous speech anywhere including in the public sphere. The amount of times I hear candidates speak of their religion alone makes any such assertion flatly ridiculous.
Hitchens just seems to have an issue with *faith*--in general. He openly and unapologetically views ALL religion as an abomination and likes to use it to humiliate people. Particularly women.
I can't believe how the mainstream media kiss his cynical ass.
"He openly and unapologetically views ALL religion as an abomination and likes to use it to humiliate people. Particularly women. "
You can't have possibly read any of his work if you really believe that. Hitchens makes very strong arguments about one of the main problems with so many religions is how they treat women.
Hitchens might be a little terse, but all he does in "god is not Great" is break down how religion is man made, there are no such thing as miracles and that religion does not make people behave better. Among other arguments.
I suspect the idea of freedom of religion probably links more with a lack of a national denomination. European churches were, at least within the germanic States, defined by the Peace of Westfaila (sp?) that defined a nation-states authorized church by the faith of the head of state. Britain has its own church. The lack of faith, however, might not have been considered. John Locke, who was intellectually influential, wrote In Praise of Tollerance, which praised tollerance, but assumed some type of faith.
John Locke was an empricist and certainly influential. However it is hard to argue he was more influential than David Hume, who I myself heard the chair of Philosophy at Harvard call the greatest philosopher ever to write in the English language and there is no question he DID in his writings question faith. I am not sure what this has to do with the topic. I just was never as impressed by Locke as I was with Hume whose brilliance when you read him takes your breath away.
Sorry, the title was A Letter Concerning Toleration. A copy might be found at:
http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm. Thanks.
That both Democrats and Republicans pander to the religious sensibilities of the electorate is no surprise. The fact is that this sort of emotional appeal sways many voters, in spite of the fact that there is no more evidence that religious faith improves job performance than there is evidence that God exists.
The delusional masses would better serve themselves, their communities, and the nation if they stopped looking for their candidates to claim a non-existent divine connection. In other words, I long for the day candidates' religious leanings are considered little more than personal quirks, a subject for post-electoral autobiographies.
We don't need people who think Jesus is coming to have access to the big red button.
Too many on the right claim that people on the left are pandering without evidence.
Politicians pander. It's part of the job. But if you say that they're pandering, you need to show proof of that. All the evidence available about Hillary Clinton says that she doesn't pander on this topic, because she's never hid her spirituality and has been consistent in her behavior. Panderers aren't consistent. Absent that evidence, Hitchens is making a false claim, like Media Matters said.
Her faith is that Democrat loyalists will eat all the BS she shovels.
Oh, I say ... jolly good, what? Professor Hitchens, the Great Contrarian/Philosopher is at it again, belching up his anti-Clinton bile in between tumblers of Johnnie Walker Red. (His eye colour, usually, when he's on TV!) So much flatulence, so little time. Please folks, don't light a match around him!
The right-wing, and all who have their tongues up their asses (like ol' Chrissie), are unparalled in their audacity. But one can always be amazed that this cartoonish, boozy, atheistic slob can question anyone's faith or character. Like his masters, he has had a Clinton fixation for years. He has earned big bucks speaking to right-wing toilets, such as Judicial Watch. He has offered only the most venomous commentary on Mother Teresa! And if you want insight into the characters of Hitchens and his wife, read Sidney Blumenthal's fabulous book, "THE CLINTON WARS". You'll find lessons on how to suck up to power (i.e. Ken Starr), and sell out a old friend in the process. (And how to be a deadbeat, sticking the same friend with a hefty restaurant bill!)
And don't forget David Brock's excellent book, "BLINDED BY THE RIGHT: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative". Downright chilling!
Hitchens should pray for a Clinton victory in'08 -- he'll get even more TV time with Chris Matthews (someone else who sounds like he needs detox) and his buddies at Fox News.
-- Thomas Chacko.