Founding Fathers Debate -- Need Help

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 07:28pm

Ancalagon wrote:If you would bother to read the 'nitpick' you'd notice that it says:

"This is the date of the earliest recorded use in English, as far as it could be determined, of the sense which the date precedes"

And since it is attempting to dismiss a quote because it uses the word "carload" on that basis alone, it fails. Most words become slang long before they are officially recognized. Try again.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 07:31pm

Ancalagon wrote:I thought we were debating over about the religious leanings of the founders? When did placing God in the Constitution come into this?

Ask GC. He came in here claiming that the nation is based upon the Christian religion, and even tried to present various authorities in order to bolster this position. Only after having it soundly defeated did he suddenly start pretending that he was talking about something else.

And when did the influence of the Church come into this? I know i haven't and i haven't seen someone talk about what an influence the organized religions of the time had on the founders, so i really don't see the point of your responce. Feel free to clarify.

The lack of influence of the Church means that the Founding Fathers were either irreligious or were able to keep religious influences completely out of the Constitution. Either scenario means that the Founding Fathers were secularists, which is the only fact under dispute.

100% of these "founding fathers" arguments stem from the widespread claim that they did not really support separation of church and state, and if you concede that they DID, in fact, fully support separation of church and state, then I don't give a damn what they believed.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-05-09 07:43pm

Ancalagon wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:If we're going to nitpick about "carloads", I would remind everyone that ALL words start as common usage, BEFORE they are officially recognized. A word must, in fact, achieve widespread, consistent use BEFORE any dictionary will recognize its existence.

Most words start as slang, and will only be recognized as official words after a long gestation period.
If you would bother to read the 'nitpick' you'd notice that it says:

"This is the date of the earliest recorded use in English, as far as it could be determined, of the sense which the date precedes"

Well, there's first the possibility that Webster's made a mistake. Then there's the possibility that Webster's means the earliest recorded use in the mainstream. Finally, there's the chance that whoever transcribed the quote dropped a 't'. Of course, this would take brainpower of incredible magnitude, such as one who could figure out why a 50-mile river with five mills along it's course could become known as the Five Mile River.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-05-09 07:43pm

Darth Wong wrote:100% of these "founding fathers" arguments stem from the widespread claim that they did not really support separation of church and state, and if you concede that they DID, in fact, fully support separation of church and state, then I don't give a damn what they believed.

Which they did, in fact, support. Which is why all this quoting and counter-quoting is basically a sideshow. God, Jesus, and the Bible are never mentioned in the Constitution, despite the fact it would have been trivially easy for the Framers to do so had they wanted. It doesn't matter if they were raving hardcore fundies personally--the Constitution is the law of the land, not their personal opinions. Their opinions only come into play when one tries to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, but as I've said elsewhere on this board, the case for the accomidationist interpretation of the establishment clause is, in my opinion, is weak at best.

And here's one parting shot: even if the INTENT of the Establishment Clause is ambiguous, today, in 2003, the accomidationist interpretation is unsuitable for the United States of America. The only way for the government to avoid getting tangled up in religion is to be 100% neutral on the matter of religion--neither declaring belief or disbelief in God, just declaring the question is outside the government's sphere of concern.

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-09 07:53pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:I thought we were debating over about the religious leanings of the founders? When did placing God in the Constitution come into this?
Ask GC. He came in here claiming that the nation is based upon the Christian religion, and even tried to present various authorities in order to bolster this position. Only after having it soundly defeated did he suddenly start pretending that he was talking about something else.
And when did the influence of the Church come into this? I know i haven't and i haven't seen someone talk about what an influence the organized religions of the time had on the founders, so i really don't see the point of your responce. Feel free to clarify.
The lack of influence of the Church means that the Founding Fathers were either irreligious or were able to keep religious influences completely out of the Constitution. Either scenario means that the Founding Fathers were secularists, which is the only fact under dispute.

100% of these "founding fathers" arguments stem from the widespread claim that they did not really support separation of church and state, and if you concede that they DID, in fact, fully support separation of church and state, then I don't give a damn what they believed.

I have never argued against the separation of church and state, and have never claimed that the founding fathers were. What i am (and this thread) is about is the religious inclindations of the founding fathers. You (plural)have claimed that they were not Xians, i am saying that while some were not Xians the overwhelming majority were in fact Xians.

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-09 07:55pm

SirNitram wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:If we're going to nitpick about "carloads", I would remind everyone that ALL words start as common usage, BEFORE they are officially recognized. A word must, in fact, achieve widespread, consistent use BEFORE any dictionary will recognize its existence.

Most words start as slang, and will only be recognized as official words after a long gestation period.
If you would bother to read the 'nitpick' you'd notice that it says:

"This is the date of the earliest recorded use in English, as far as it could be determined, of the sense which the date precedes"
Well, there's first the possibility that Webster's made a mistake. Then there's the possibility that Webster's means the earliest recorded use in the mainstream. Finally, there's the chance that whoever transcribed the quote dropped a 't'. Of course, this would take brainpower of incredible magnitude, such as one who could figure out why a 50-mile river with five mills along it's course could become known as the Five Mile River.

Or C) The quote was false.

based on what i've seen of the other quotes in the piece i'll take C.

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-09 07:56pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:If you would bother to read the 'nitpick' you'd notice that it says:

"This is the date of the earliest recorded use in English, as far as it could be determined, of the sense which the date precedes"
And since it is attempting to dismiss a quote because it uses the word "carload" on that basis alone, it fails. Most words become slang long before they are officially recognized. Try again.

slang = use. Notice it doesn't say 'Date of official recognition' It says 'date of first recorded use'

Why does it take three posts for you to grasp that?

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-09 07:56pm

It's funny that they've revived this debate on their board (which, strangely, is almost impossible to register on) but won't discuss it here (Storm Rucker's self-imposed ban thus not only being side-splitting hilarity, but a convenient excuse for him to duck the issue.)

Chang, for his part, has no excuse; nor do a few others.

Who's been banned so far, besides, Rucker (by his own stupidity)? AFAIK, it's just faceman and zagnutboy, right? Or is that boy-man and zag-nutface? With the way these cretins lie and hide, there's no way to tell, really.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 07:59pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:It's funny that they've revived this debate on their board (which, strangely, is almost impossible to register on) but won't discuss it here (Storm Rucker's self-imposed ban thus not only being side-splitting hilarity, but a convenient excuse for him to duck the issue.)

Chang, for his part, has no excuse; nor do a few others.

Who's been banned so far, besides, Rucker (by his own stupidity)? AFAIK, it's just faceman and zagnutboy, right? Or is that boy-man and zag-nutface? With the way these cretins lie and hide, there's no way to tell, really.

I don't remember off the top of my head. I do know that Rucker deactivated his own account, CaptainChewbacca is still around, and the only people who seemed even briefly interested in actual discussion as opposed to mindless spam (GC and that Queen character) are both still fully active users.

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-09 08:01pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:It's funny that they've revived this debate on their board (which, strangely, is almost impossible to register on) but won't discuss it here (Storm Rucker's self-imposed ban thus not only being side-splitting hilarity, but a convenient excuse for him to duck the issue.)

Hey buddy, he gave you the password to his account, check it for yourself. It it is not self imposed. (or at least wasn't at the time... the admin might have lifted it after all the hoopla)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 08:02pm

Ancalagon wrote:I have never argued against the separation of church and state, and have never claimed that the founding fathers were.

Well, then who cares what they privately believed? Do you realize that it is impossible to ascertain with any precision what someone believes in his head through analysis of his behaviour? In the end, the Constitution does not look like a document written by devout Christians.

All we can do is ascertain what they ACTED upon, and when they created the Constitution, they defied church doctrine and failed to include even a single mention of God or Jesus in there, in addition to explicitly preventing the use of state resources to establish religion.

Whether you admit it or not, people who run around trying to "prove" that the founding fathers were Christian do so because they have an agenda to attack separation of church and state. Otherwise, it's a purely academic and downright trivial issue, very difficult to resolve with precision because one man's beliefs may change as he goes through life, change depending on what situation he's in, change depending on who he's talking to, etc.

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-09 08:05pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:I have never argued against the separation of church and state, and have never claimed that the founding fathers were.
Well, then who cares what they privately believed? Do you realize that it is impossible to ascertain with any precision what someone believes in his head through analysis of his behaviour? In the end, the Constitution does not look like a document written by devout Christians.

All we can do is ascertain what they ACTED upon, and when they created the Constitution, they defied church doctrine and failed to include even a single mention of God or Jesus in there, in addition to explicitly preventing the use of state resources to establish religion.

I am a devout Xian but i am strongly against any church and state relationship. Any involvement with the other is disastorious to both...

As to who really cares, you guys obviously do or you wouldn't have a thread *stickied* to the top of board about it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 08:06pm

Ancalagon wrote:Hey buddy, he gave you the password to his account, check it for yourself. It it is not self imposed. (or at least wasn't at the time... the admin might have lifted it after all the hoopla)

You obviously don't know how this software works. When you change your E-mail account, the software deactivates your account and then sends a reactivation message to your new E-mail, which you need to click on in order to restore the account.

This is intended to prevent people changing their E-mail accounts to nonexistent addresses. He DID deactivate his account. Whether he can reactivate it would depend on whether the new E-mail address he gave out is valid.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-05-09 08:06pm

The thread was stickied for use as a resurce against fundies who claim the Founding Fathers were themselves fundies, usually the cornerstone of an argument to dismantle the Establishment Clause.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 08:08pm

Ancalagon wrote:I am a devout Xian but i am strongly against any church and state relationship. Any involvement with the other is disastorious to both...

Then we agree. What's the problem?

As to who really cares, you guys obviously do or you wouldn't have a thread *stickied* to the top of board about it.

Which is there solely for the purpose of refuting lunatics who think that the Founding Fathers intended the US to be based on Christianity. If you agree that this is not the case, then it is not relevant (although the outright contempt for Christianity expressed by some of their number should make you sit up and take notice, since no Christian would ever say those things in that era).

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-09 08:10pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:Hey buddy, he gave you the password to his account, check it for yourself. It it is not self imposed. (or at least wasn't at the time... the admin might have lifted it after all the hoopla)
You obviously don't know how this software works. When you change your E-mail account, the software deactivates your account and then sends a reactivation message to your new E-mail, which you need to click on in order to restore the account.

This is intended to prevent people changing their E-mail accounts to nonexistent addresses. He DID deactivate his account. Whether he can reactivate it would depend on whether the new E-mail address he gave out is valid.

No i don't know how this software works (int studies, not comp sci

) Thanks for clarifying.

As to Storm Rucker, maybe he wouldn't have had to change his email, if the admins here didn't post the personal information of those they disliked?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 08:14pm

Ancalagon wrote:As to Storm Rucker, maybe he wouldn't have had to change his email, if the admins here didn't post the personal information of those they disliked?

Maybe if he wasn't the type of person whose reprehensible online conduct forces him to slink around in secrecy and jealously guard his identity, that wouldn't be a problem, would it?

Personally, I think the Internet would be a better place if anonymity were impossible.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-05-09 08:21pm

Ancalagon wrote: Or C) The quote was false.

based on what i've seen of the other quotes in the piece i'll take C.

I eagerly await your magic-bullet-philosophy proof!

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-09 08:31pm

Rucker's behavior at TrollKingdom, specifically his complicity in libel, is what got his information posted.

The fact that he tried to eliminate the trail of evidence only shows that he knew what he was going to do was actionable, and wanted to avoid getting caught.

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-09 08:40pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:I am a devout Xian but i am strongly against any church and state relationship. Any involvement with the other is disastorious to both...
Then we agree. What's the problem?
As to who really cares, you guys obviously do or you wouldn't have a thread *stickied* to the top of board about it.
Which is there solely for the purpose of refuting lunatics who think that the Founding Fathers intended the US to be based on Christianity. If you agree that this is not the case, then it is not relevant (although the outright contempt for Christianity expressed by some of their number should make you sit up and take notice, since no Christian would ever say those things in that era).

1) i disagree b/c some of the quotes are false and others are misquoting. To say those quotes represent the religious feelings of the founding father is a lie. I don't like lies, thus you and i are haveing this debate.

2) Not true. there were efforts to separate church and state in Europe much earlier.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-09 09:09pm

Ancalagon wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Ancalagon wrote: 1) i disagree b/c some of the quotes are false and others are misquoting. To say those quotes represent the religious feelings of the founding father is a lie. I don't like lies, thus you and i are haveing this debate.
Show us your evidence that the quotes were falsified. Demonstrate why the quotes do not mean what we think they do.

2) Not true. there were efforts to separate church and state in Europe much earlier.

This doesn't change the fact that the Founding Fathers seperated Church and State.

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-09 09:13pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: Show us your evidence that the quotes were falsified. Demonstrate why the quotes do not mean what we think they do.

2) Not true. there were efforts to separate church and state in Europe much earlier.
This doesn't change the fact that the Founding Fathers seperated Church and State.

1. See my posts on the last page about the first date of usage for the word 'carload' and my post on the blatant misquoting of Adams in his letter to Jefferson.

2. What the hell are you smoking. I know the founding fathers separated church and state... that isn't being argued here at all... wtf?!?!?!

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-05-09 09:18pm

So your argument that many of these quotes are not accurate is....

That carloads was used outside M-W's claimed time period. Of course, we'll leap from that, ignoring the three easily reconcilable options I gave, to your claim that most of the quotes must be bad.

....

I cannot express the contempt I feel right now.

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-09 09:32pm

SirNitram wrote:So your argument that many of these quotes are not accurate is....

That carloads was used outside M-W's claimed time period. Of course, we'll leap from that, ignoring the three easily reconcilable options I gave, to your claim that most of the quotes must be bad.

....

I cannot express the contempt I feel right now.

1) Do not put words in my mouth, prick. I have said what i have said.

2) ARE YOU BLIND?!??!

Ancalagon wrote:And sorry to 'nitpick' about another one of those quotes but maybe it should be read in context

[Adams is telling Jefferson about an arguement between Joseph Cleverly and Lemuel Bryant]:

Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not ft to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.

John Adams, Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1856), Vol. X, p. 254

Obviously whoever posted those original quotes hasn't learned about selective quoteing.

3) I have run a search trying to find documentation for the whole 'carload' quote. From what i have found it is a degredation of the quote:

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and the whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."
John Adams, U.S. President.

But i come to that conclusion only b/c that one comes up more. But i haven't found any documentation for either of two. I only spent a couple of minutes and i got tired of doing your (plural) job for you. You (plural) posted the quotes, its your job to prove they are true.

4) im sorry you feel disgusted

i really do....

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 09:55pm

You ARE aware that one of the Founding Fathers wrote an entire voluminous screed about his contempt for religion, right? Does "The Age of Reason" ring a bell?

When you look at the personal correspondence of Jefferson and Adams, they became more and more open with their contempt for Christianity as they got older. Whether this represented a genuine change of heart or merely a collapse of inhibitions is an open question, but one thing is certain: neither of those men, nor indeed any of the others, wanted America to be based on Christianity. And that is the ONLY reason anyone ever debates the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers, no matter how much you would prefer to claim otherwise.

As for the "lies", your version of the quote says pretty much the same thing, so what are you complaining about?