From CL's best of:
This is incorrect.
The Constitution never once mentions a deity, because the Founding Fathers wanted to keep their new country "religion-neutral." Our Founding Fathers were an eclectic collection of Atheists, Deists, Christians, Freemasons and Agnostics.
George Washington, the Father of our country, and John Adams (Second President of the USA) CLEARLY stated in the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli: "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion.”
G.W. rarely attended church and instead followed a popular 18th century philosophy called Deism—a Star Wars-esque philosophy that believed in a cosmic energy or big-ass universal "Force." The dictionary says that Deism is "a system of thought advocating natural religion based on human reason rather than revelation," that had nothing to do with Christian principles.
James Madison, original mastermind of our Constitution, was an Atheist to the core who loved skewering Christianity. In 1785 he wrote, "What have been [Christianity’s] 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.”
Thomas Jefferson, who sat down and authored The Declaration of Independence, rarely missed an opportunity to laugh at Christianity. In a letter to John Adams in 1823, he wrote: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus…will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
More ammo: In 1814, Tommy J. wrote about the Bible's Old and New Testaments, "The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful -- evidence that parts have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds.”
In fact, it was President Jefferson himself who first wrote (to a Baptist church group in 1802), "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and State." Therefore, when Jefferson talked about “Nature’s God,” the “Creator” and “divine Providence ” in the Declaration that he wrote, he was being a hippie and referring to a general cosmic energy-- not the Christian God.
America is not a Christian nation. Period. Our Constitution derived from the post-Christian Enlightenment values of reason and truth...never from the paranoid yammerings of that otherwise compassionate cult leader who fucking died in the Middle Eastern desert 3000 years ago.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
In context (from wiki)
The Treaty is notable for Article 11, from Joel Barlow's English translation, which reads:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Article 11 has been a point of contention regarding the proper interpretation of the doctrine of separation of church and state. It is sometimes argued that this provision is confirmation that the government of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously neutral, or that the United States is not historically "Christian."
Supporters of this view argue that the treaty states categorically that the United States of America is not founded upon the Christian religion, and that this treaty, with that statement intact, was read before and passed unanimously by the United States Senate, and was signed by the President of the United States without a hint of controversy or discord. They also sometimes contend that it is the earliest and most definitive statement from what could be called a fair and representative sampling of the "Founding Fathers" regarding the secular nature of American government.
Opponents of this view downplay this assertion, arguing that the phrase was mere diplomatic window dressing, like the reference in the same sentence to supposed "harmony existing between the two countries," when relations between the two countries were actually very far from harmonious. However, if the phrase "harmony existing between the two countries" might be considered diplomatic language, the phrase "United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion" is not diplomatic language; had it been "mere window dressing", it is argued that it would have been stated in much less direct terms.
the paranoid yammerings of that otherwise compassionate cult leader who fucking died in the Middle Eastern desert 3000 years ago.
Typical lefty yammerings -- both puerile and spiteful, not to say historically inaccurate, and willfully offensive. As the proverb has it, the dogs bark, the caravan moves on.
Typical lefty yammerings -- both puerile and spiteful,
agreed - but the rest stands.
I am solidly with Pepe on this. Have you guys read my hero Edw Gibbon on Christianity? He was a contemporary of the Founding Fathers and ripped the Jesus freaks new ones before they were ripping each other new ones. Great stuff, dudes. All in the "Decline and Fall...".
So, JJ, you agree -- inter alia -- that Jesus died on the Cross 3000 years ago? Don't know what you guys learned in school, but that sounds wildly inaccurate to me. So much for the supposed superiority of the atheistic supermensch.
I thought is was in 4004 before Christ that Christ died on the Cross. Correct me if I am wrong.
So, JJ, you agree -- inter alia -- that Jesus died on the Cross 3000 years ago?
AI - if it wasn't for your uncanny ability to pinpoint the important element in the discussion we would have all missed that one.
Well, pardon my being picky about things, but right there and then, the whole "argument", whatever shred of plausibility it may have had, collapsed into a pile of crap. This is what typically happens with these smirky, jeery, know-it-all, juvenile, pinko-lefty so called arguments: they almost always self-destroy, for lack of inner coherence, mendacious reasoning, and all around non-seriousness. All that remains is a kinder-garten level sarcasm, and nyah-nyah-nyah type of discourse. In the meantime, the caravan keeps on sailing.
Caravan sailing? Hilarious, AI!
AI - I am concerned that, by systematically limiting your statements to TNPLBS and never attempting to debunk the merits of the opposing points of view, you come off as not having given any thought to your convictions. Now given the obvious strength of said convictions, I cannnot imagine that that could be the case. How about contributing to the debate and leaving aside epitets ?
This is what typically happens with these smirky, jeery, know-it-all, juvenile, pinko-lefty so called arguments: they almost always self-destroy, for lack of inner coherence, mendacious reasoning, and all around non-seriousness.
Could it just be a typo or do you really believe that the person who wrote this has enough of an understanding of history to have a grasp on the religious context of the founding fathers, but not enough to know why this is year 2006 (and not 232221) ?
AI - I am concerned that, by systematically limiting your statements to TNPLBS and never attempting to debunk the merits of the opposing points of view, you come off as not having given any thought to your convictions. Now given the obvious strength of said convictions, I cannnot imagine that that could be the case. How about contributing to the debate and leaving aside epitets ?
This is what typically happens with these smirky, jeery, know-it-all, juvenile, pinko-lefty so called arguments: they almost always self-destroy, for lack of inner coherence, mendacious reasoning, and all around non-seriousness.
Could it just be a typo or do you really believe that the person who wrote this has enough of an understanding of history to have a grasp on the religious context of the founding fathers, but not enough to know why this is year 2006 (and not 232221) ?
Again, Pepe, your points are correct, but only half correct. I would agree with you that the Founding Fathers were very different in their metaphysical outlooks. However, you're intellectually dishonest if you fail to recognize the polyvariant dimensions of each of these Enlightenment individuals, whether Continental, Great Britain, or provincial (the Colonies of America).
Jefferson sent Stephen Decatur to beat the shit out of Muslim Barbary Pirates (you remember that little Marine song when you were in your Navy research laboratory?). While very much an Enlightenment diest, Jefferson also commented on aspects that were beautiful within Christian holidays. It was ceremony that brought friends and family together and encouraged one man to share with another. ...if you would actually read Jefferson, you might know this.
But fuck it, right Pepe! That doesn't prove your point!
For some reason, this thread reminds me of those old arguments about how many angels can fit on a pin. Much of it is divorced from reality. And the reality for me is engraved on the greenbacks I carry in my pocket:
In God We Trust
Can you imagine such a sentiment engraved on the Euro? Nuff said.
mft - I don't see how the recognized beauty of christian holidays disproves the fact that the US started off as religiously neutral. France is as as atheist a nation as they come and still celebrate xmas, easter, etc... But am I missing your point ?
ai - you should read your own posts: Your link indicates that igwt was so designated [national motto] by an act of Congress in 1956 and officially supersedes "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One).
Later, it states that "The motto In God We Trust was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the American Civil War."
That would be later than the founding fathers' time.
mft - I don't see how the recognized beauty of christian holidays...
Thank you, Pepe. Here we have an account of Pepe recognizing the beauty of christian (or Christian, whichever you prefer) holidays.
...France is as as atheist a nation as they come and still celebrate xmas, easter, etc...
Today they may "officially" declare themselves athiest. Yesterday was a different story.
The point I made, and the point you acknoledged that I made, is found on so many levels within intelligent historical and contemporary actors.
Not long ago you dismissed my personal stories of conversations I had with two American soldiers as, paraphrasing, typical Conservative political rhetoric. What I'm saying is that humans are much more multi-dimensional than what politicians publicly tell us. If a soldier stubs his or her toe and has a grumpy look, and a photo-journalist snaps a shot of that moment, Liberals will say, "SEE! TROOP MORALE IS LOW!!! WE GOTTA GET OUT!!!" If a soldier is having a good chuckle with another soldier over a joke not even related to the Iraq war, and a photo-journalist snaps a shot, Hawks can say, "SEE!!! TROOP MORALE IS HIGH!!! THEY REALLY BELIEVE THEY ARE MAKING A DIFFERENCE!!!"
A picture just like a quote is worth a thousand interpretations and misinterpretations. Jefferson knew this too, believing today's news isn't good, worthy and factual enough to wrap three-day old fish in.
mft - i do not understand how the point you are making fits with the topic of the thread.
You want readers to believe the creators of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were single-minded in their approach to life. I've told you otherwise, using specifics of Jefferson's life.
If you aren't going to read what I post, that's fine, but then it's going to continue to be real difficult to have a conversation Pepe.
mft - there is no need to jump on your high horses. I did read your post. The point was never that the FF were single-minded, just that they weren't creating a christian nation. I didn't think your posts addressed that and still don't.
Post a Comment