Tim, I know that comes as an amazing surprise to you, but to be called
ignorant by an overweening asshole like you is a compliment.
Enjoy the rest of your life with the beliefs you now hold.
May they bring you all the joy you deserve.
Translation: I have absolutely no counterargument or meaningful
addition to this discussion, so I will revert to swearing
and personal invective in some vain hope no one will notice.
I am insecure and unwilling to admit when I am wrong.
Translation: I don't like being attacked for my person. Feel free
to argue with my ideas. I was wrong, though. I should never
have descended to this level of response, and for that I apologize.
Translation: PLEASE, please, please, take the lights off me.
Tim Daneliuk email@example.com
I have no reason to counter your arguments, nor does anyone else. Your
Jesuitical mouth has again over-run your peanut brain, so it is
pointless to respond. I had forgotten you and your continuing
asininities were the reason for filtering you before; unfortunately,
my present set up doesn't allow filtering, so I'll have to apply that
hardest to use of all filters, will power.
Uh, Charlie, would you care to define "deist" for us. I think it does
not mean what you think it means.
Seems that every time some politican has tried to cram intelligent
design down the taxpayers' throats he's gotten fired for his trouble.
Personally I don't care if somebody thinks that he's talked to by God
as long as God is telling him good stuff. Unfortunately Bush doesn't
seem to be getting advice of the same quality as that vouchsafed to
Jehanne du Lis.
Believers, sure. Christians? No. The majority of the founding
fathers had little good to say about Christianity and most of them had
pretty much nothing good to say about organized religion in general.
You need to go read some U.S. history. This paragraph above is
mostly wrong. It is true that Deists are not necessarily Christian.
It is false that the "majority" of the FFs had "little good to say
about Christianity". Most of them were steeped in it at some level.
And most of them were silent on the question of organized religion,
at least as near as I can tell. A good many were, in fact, quite
devout in their personal faith as their many letters and other
You are, of course, free to disagree with them, but rewriting
history to sanitize it of religious references because it makes
your rationalist hackles go up is at least bad manners, and verges
on outright fraud.
P.S. It is just as fraudulent for the religious right to claim the FFs
as their own and turn them all into orthodox Conservative
Baptists. I'd suggest we just let the FFs be what they were -
brilliant, all over the place, sometimes inconsistent, occasionally
wrong, etc. Jamming them into today's political and cultural
filters is foolish and betrays the truth of this nation's history.
P.P.S. Your "most had little good to say..." probably comes from
isolated readings of Paine and Franklin. You might want
to consider reading two books that will give you a far more
balanced and thoughtful view of those times: "Patriots" by
Languth and "John Adams" by McCullough.
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:18:29 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
It has been said that George Washington (an aristocrat at heart) was not
"the father of his country." Rather, the fathers(s) were a troika.
Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine. Without them, the country would have been
The "lesser lights" among the founding fathers may well have been devout
Protestant Christians, with the occasional Jew or Catholic thrown in. But
all of them together lacked the candlepower of the three deists who made
up the troika.
Go ahead then, pick out your arguments. Let's see your quotes, but
make sure you're providing the WHOLE quote, not taking things out of
context like so many God-Squaders do.
In other words, put up or shut up.
When Washington invoked spiritual belief in his speeches he
used the term 'Providence' rather than even any Deist term.
That's about as PC as one could get in those days.
Jefferson wrote whatever he thought would influence his
audience du jour. It was not unusual for him to privately
contradict, by word or action, his public pronouncements.
Contrast, for example, his scathing attack on the English
Monarch's support of the slave trade with his own ownership
of upward to 1000 slaves. That's like a crack house operator
damning the Columbian cocaine cartels.
Patrick Henry, OTOH, was not hesitant to invoke religion
and Christianity in his speeches.
It is also instructive to read the last paragraph of the
Articles of Confederation.
Several states already _had_ state sponsored religions. There was no
aversion to this. The concern was that the Federal government would
override those state religions and impose a different one.
And the authors of the 14th Amendment would likely have worded it very
differently if they had realized how it was going to be interpreted.
I've forgotten specifics of the timeline -- by the time of the
Constitutional Convention there weren't any who still a requirement for
membership/avowed following for rights though, were there (as opposed to
the earlier colonies that were definitely controlling in all aspects)?
That's a little later than I had thought, but not particularly
surprising. Yet still not in violation of "Congress shall..." as it was
state, not federal, of course.
Reading Grant, then Sherman I've been forcibly reminded of the strength
of state loyalties as opposed to national that we now no longer
consider. One state as opposed to another is little more than who one
roots for at the football rivalry as opposed to fervent independent
pride until after the Civil War and really didn't begin to fade until
during the two WW's wherein federal troops were no longer raised and
organized by state militias.
That was the whole point of the Establishment Clause, that Congress
could not interfere with the state churches. MA wasn't the only one.
Connecticut disestablished in 1829 if I recall correctly, and I don't
know the dates on other states that had state religions. In no case
was disestablishment forced by the Federal government.
Actually Federal troops were supposed to be independent of state
militias. The theory if I understand it correctly was that the state
miltias, together, could stand up to the Army at need, but that doing
so successfully would require that the states be in agreement that
such an action was necessary. One of the checks and balances that has
been lost with the National Guard being required to swear fealty to
the Union from the git-go.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.