By popular demand

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

NapoleonGH
Jedi Master
Posts: 1090
Joined: 2002-07-08 02:25pm
Location: NJ, USA
Contact:

Post by NapoleonGH »

GC wrote: Oh, and about the spelling matter. You are mstaken.

Armenian as you spell it is one from Armenia.
That's not what he's talking about.
He is refering to a specific set of doctrinal beliefs credited to one Arminias Which stand in opposition to Calvinism on several major points.

It would be a stretch to say Catholicism is founded specificly on Arminiasm...but clearly it has very much more in common with it than with Calvanism which is a theology utterly forign to Catholicism.

I'm not sure what to make of this post, at some points you seem to understand that it's two different theologies, at other points ("being a half armenian") seems to indicate you are thinking of ethical distinctions.
But IF you are unfamiliar with the two different doctrines, I would suggest you are somewhat handicapped in this discussion, with all due respect.

See the thing is that the oldest Christian country is Armenia, and its religion is separate sect of christianity, refered to as Armenian Gregorian, often just Armenian Orthodox, or just plain Armenian Christianity. That is where the confusion came in i believe, i saw a form of christianity being refered to with only 1 letter different than the religion of my people, so i assumed that it was a spelling error, never was aware of that other form of protestantism that you were talking about.
Festina Lente
My shoes are too tight and I've forgotten how to dance
GC
Youngling
Posts: 109
Joined: 2003-05-06 02:56am

Post by GC »

A Short Treatise on Political Power

President John Adams credited this Calvinist document as being at the root of the theory of government adopted by the the Americans. According to Adams, Ponet's work contained "all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterward dilated on by Sidney and Locke" including the idea of a three-branched government. (Adams, Works, vol. 6, pg. 4).

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/Ponet1.HTM

[as you read keep in mind that one need not agree with this man's conclusions. It is enough to know that, according to Adams, he was a major influance on the thinking of the Founders.]

An excerpt:
Chapter I. From Where Political Power Grows, for what purpose it was ordained, and the right use and duties of the same: & etc.

As oxen, sheep, goats, and other such unreasonable creatures cannot for lack of reason rule themselves, but must be ruled by a more excellent creature, that is man: so man, although he has reason, yet because through the fall of the first man, his reason is radically corrupt, and sensuality has gotten the upper hand, he is not able by himself to rule himself, but must have a more excellent governor. Those of this world thought that this governor was their own reason. They thought that they by their own reason might do the things they lusted for, not only in private matters, but also in public. They thought reason to be the only cause that men first assembled themselves together in companies, that commonwealths were designed, that policies were well governed and long continued: but those of that mind were utterly blinded and deceived in their imaginations, their works and inventions (though they never seemed so wise) were so easily and so soon (contrary to their expectations) overthrown.

Where is the wisdom of the Greeks? Where is the fortitude of the Iberians? Where is both the wisdom and the force of the Romans gone? All have vanished away, nothing almost left to testify that they were, but that which declares well, that their reason was not able to govern them.
Therefore, such were desirous to know the perfect and the only governor of all, constrained to seek further than themselves, and so at length to confess, that it was one God that ruled all.
(Warning, the whole is deep tedious reading, and heavy on religion)
User avatar
AdmiralKanos
Lex Animata
Lex Animata
Posts: 2648
Joined: 2002-07-02 11:36pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by AdmiralKanos »

I notice that you are STILL attempting to appeal to tangential sources in order to evade the demand that you locate something, ANYTHING in the structure of the country's system of governance which can be derived from the Bible (or for that matter, to contradict Ben Franklin's claim that the Native American system was its model; does "caucus" sound like an English-origin word to you?)
For a time, I considered sparing your wretched little planet Cybertron.
But now, you shall witnesss ... its dismemberment!

Image
"This is what happens when you use trivia napkins for research material"- Sea Skimmer on "Pearl Harbour".
"Do you work out? Your hands are so strong! Especially the right one!"- spoken to Bud Bundy
GC
Youngling
Posts: 109
Joined: 2003-05-06 02:56am

Post by GC »

http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html

From an exibit of the United States Library of Congress
INTRODUCTION


This exhibition demonstrates that many of the colonies that in 1776 became the United States of America were settled by men and women of deep religious convictions who in the seventeenth century crossed the Atlantic Ocean to practice their faith freely. That the religious intensity of the original settlers would diminish to some extent over time was perhaps to be expected, but new waves of eighteenth century immigrants brought their own religious fervor across the Atlantic and the nation’s first major religious revival in the middle of the eighteenth century injected new vigor into American religion. The result was that a religious people rose in rebellion against Great Britain in 1776, and that most American statesmen, when they began to form new governments at the state and national levels, shared the convictions of most of their constituents that religion was, to quote Alexis de Tocqueville’s observation, indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. The efforts of the Founders of the American nation to define the role of religious faith in public life and the degree to which it could be supported by public officials that was not inconsistent with the revolutionary imperatives of the equality and freedom of all citizens is the central question which this exhibition explores.
The New England colonies have often been called "Bible Commonwealths" because they sought the guidance of the scriptures in regulating all aspects of the lives of their citizens. Scripture was cited as authority for many criminal statutes.
II. Religion in Eighteenth-Century America

Against a prevailing view that eighteenth-century Americans had not perpetuated the first settlers' passionate commitment to their faith, scholars now identify a high level of religious energy in colonies after 1700. According to one expert, religion was in the "ascension rather than the declension"; another sees a "rising vitality in religious life" from 1700 onward; a third finds religion in many parts of the colonies in a state of "feverish growth." Figures on church attendance and church formation support these opinions. Between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75 to 80 percent of the population attended churches, which were being built at a headlong pace.

Toward mid-century the country experienced its first major religious revival. The Great Awakening swept the English-speaking world, as religious energy vibrated between England, Wales, Scotland and the American colonies in the 1730s and 1740s. In America, the Awakening signaled the advent of an encompassing evangelicalism--the belief that the essence of religious experience was the "new birth," inspired by the preaching of the Word. It invigorated even as it divided churches. The supporters of the Awakening and its evangelical thrust--Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists--became the largest American Protestant denominations by the first decades of the nineteenth century. Opponents of the Awakening or those split by it--Anglicans, Quakers, and Congregationalists--were left behind.

Another religious movement that was the antithesis of evangelicalism made its appearance in the eighteenth century. Deism, which emphasized morality and rejected the orthodox Christian view of the divinity of Christ, found advocates among upper-class Americans. Conspicuous among them were Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Deists, never more than "a minority within a minority," were submerged by evangelicalism in the nineteenth century.
"Deism" is a loosely used term that describes the views of certain English and continental thinkers. These views attracted a following in Europe toward the latter part of the seventeenth century and gained a small but influential number of adherents in America in the late eighteenth century. Deism stressed morality and rejected the orthodox Christian view of the divinity of Christ, often viewing him as nothing more than a "sublime" teacher of morality. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams are usually considered the leading American deists. There is no doubt that they subscribed to the deist credo that all religious claims were to be subjected to the scrutiny of reason. "Call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion," Jefferson advised. Other founders of the American republic, including George Washington, are frequently identified as deists, although the evidence supporting such judgments is often thin. Deists in the United States never amounted to more than a small percentage of an evangelical population
III. Religion and the American Revolution

Religion played a major role in the American Revolution by offering a moral sanction for opposition to the British--an assurance to the average American that revolution was justified in the sight of God. As a recent scholar has observed, "by turning colonial resistance into a righteous cause, and by crying the message to all ranks in all parts of the colonies, ministers did the work of secular radicalism and did it better."

Ministers served the American cause in many capacities during the Revolution: as military chaplains, as penmen for committees of correspondence, and as members of state legislatures, constitutional conventions and the national Congress. Some even took up arms, leading Continental troops in battle. [/quote
IV. Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-89

The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government.
Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."
And these were EXACTLY the men charged with framing the permenent government and debating the first 10 amendments thereto.
In Virginia, religious persecution, directed at Baptists and, to a lesser degree, at Presbyterians, continued after the Declaration of Independence. The perpetrators were members of the Church of England, sometimes acting as vigilantes but often operating in tandem with local authorities. Physical violence was usually reserved for Baptists, against whom there was social as well as theological animosity. A notorious instance of abuse in 1771 of a well-known Baptist preacher, "Swearin Jack" Waller, was described by the victim: "The Parson of the Parish [accompanied by the local sheriff] would keep running the end of his horsewhip in [Waller's] mouth, laying his whip across the hymn book, etc. When done singing [Waller] proceeded to prayer. In it he was violently jerked off the stage; they caught him by the back part of his neck, beat his head against the ground, sometimes up and sometimes down, they carried him through the gate . . . where a gentleman [the sheriff] gave him . . . twenty lashes with his horsewhip."
The persecution of Baptists made a strong, negative impression on many patriot leaders, whose loyalty to principles of civil liberty exceeded their loyalty to the Church of England in which they were raised. James Madison was not the only patriot to despair, as he did in 1774, that the "diabolical Hell conceived principle of persecution rages" in his native colony. Accordingly, civil libertarians like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson joined Baptists and Presbyterians to defeat the campaign for state financial involvement in religion in Virginia.
This and many other passages at the site indicate it's not just a rosey depiction of Christians but a balanced view.
VI. Religion and the Federal Government

In response to widespread sentiment that to survive the United States needed a stronger federal government, a convention met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and on September 17 adopted the Constitution of the United States. Aside from Article VI, which stated that "no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification" for federal office holders, the Constitution said little about religion. Its reserve troubled two groups of Americans--those who wanted the new instrument of government to give faith a larger role and those who feared that it would do so. This latter group, worried that the Constitution did not prohibit the kind of state-supported religion that had flourished in some colonies, exerted pressure on the members of the First Federal Congress. In September 1789 the Congress adopted the First Amendment to the Constitution, which, when ratified by the required number of states in December 1791, forbade Congress to make any law "respecting an establishment of religion."

The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion--George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman, and John Adams described himself as "a church going animal." Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the third and fourth Presidents, are generally considered less hospitable to religion than their predecessors, but evidence presented in this section shows that, while in office, both offered religion powerful symbolic support.

When the Constitution was submitted to the American public, "many pious people" complained that the document had slighted God, for it contained "no recognition of his mercies to us . . . or even of his existence." The Constitution was reticent about religion for two reasons: first, many delegates were committed federalists, who believed that the power to legislate on religion, if it existed at all, lay within the domain of the state, not the national, governments; second, the delegates believed that it would be a tactical mistake to introduce such a politically controversial issue as religion into the Constitution. The only "religious clause" in the document--the proscription of religious tests as qualifications for federal office in Article Six--was intended to defuse controversy by disarming potential critics who might claim religious discrimination in eligibility for public office.
That religion was not otherwise addressed in the Constitution did not make it an "irreligious" document any more than the Articles of Confederation was an "irreligious" document. The Constitution dealt with the church precisely as the Articles had, thereby maintaining, at the national level, the religious status quo. In neither document did the people yield any explicit power to act in the field of religion. But the absence of expressed powers did not prevent either the Continental-Confederation Congress or the Congress under the Constitution from sponsoring a program to support general, nonsectarian religion.
VII. Religion and the New Republic
The religion of the new American republic was evangelicalism, which, between 1800 and the Civil War, was the "grand absorbing theme" of American religious life. During some years in the first half of the nineteenth century, revivals (through which evangelicalism found expression) occurred so often that religious publications that specialized in tracking them lost count. In 1827, for example, one journal exulted that "revivals, we rejoice to say, are becoming too numerous in our country to admit of being generally mentioned in our Record." During the years between the inaugurations of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, historians see "evangelicalism emerging as a kind of national church or national religion." The leaders and ordinary members of the "evangelical empire" of the nineteenth century were American patriots who subscribed to the views of the Founders that religion was a "necessary spring" for republican government; they believed, as a preacher in 1826 asserted, that there was "an association between Religion and Patriotism." Converting their fellow citizens to Christianity was, for them, an act that simultaneously saved souls and saved the republic.

There are lots of sidebar items which provide primary source evidence for the assertions in this work. I invite you to examine the entire site for more detail.
GC
Youngling
Posts: 109
Joined: 2003-05-06 02:56am

Post by GC »

AdmiralKanos wrote:I notice that you are STILL attempting to appeal to tangential sources in order to evade the demand that you locate something, ANYTHING in the structure of the country's system of governance which can be derived from the Bible (or for that matter, to contradict Ben Franklin's claim that the Native American system was its model; does "caucus" sound like an English-origin word to you?)
John Adams is a tangental source, hmm?

I'm finding more primary sources than I can find time to add here.

You just keep on ignoring them if you want, but they'll keep coming.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

In other words, you intend to completely ignore my request for you to stop appealing to authority and find me some source example of how the American nation is founded on religion, and simply appeal to yet more authorities. After all, repetition of the same fallacy makes it stronger, right? :roll:

PS. I liked the way one of your sources tried to say that even Thomas Jefferson supported religion in government, when he was the one who popularized the "wall of separation" phrase. If one needed any more proof of the way they're twisting facts to suit their purposes, look no farther than that.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
DPDarkPrimus
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18399
Joined: 2002-11-22 11:02pm
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Post by DPDarkPrimus »

I notice that several of your resources refer to the colonies, which had different laws regarding separation (or the lack thereof) of religion and state from the states formed after the ratification of the Constitution.
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest
"Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
GC
Youngling
Posts: 109
Joined: 2003-05-06 02:56am

Post by GC »

Darth Wong wrote:In other words, you intend to completely ignore my request for you to stop appealing to authority and find me some source example of how the American nation is founded on religion, and simply appeal to yet more authorities. After all, repetition of the same fallacy makes it stronger, right? :roll:

PS. I liked the way one of your sources tried to say that even Thomas Jefferson supported religion in government, when he was the one who popularized the "wall of separation" phrase. If one needed any more proof of the way they're twisting facts to suit their purposes, look no farther than that.
He "popularized" a saying which no one even refered to for almost 150 years after he wrote it?

Intresting.

And you refer to a private corispondence to support your assertions about an official document.

Also intresting.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

GC wrote:He "popularized" a saying which no one even refered to for almost 150 years after he wrote it?

Intresting.
Really! The term "wall of separation" lay completely unknown for 150 years, not mentioned by anybody? Fascinating. Oh wait, you're just taking the fact that no one did so officially, and acting as though this means the phrase simply did not exist anywhere until then. Gotcha :roll:
And you refer to a private corispondence to support your assertions about an official document.
Corresponce to a public group is not private.
Also intresting.
I see you still enjoy employing sophistry.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
GC
Youngling
Posts: 109
Joined: 2003-05-06 02:56am

Post by GC »

Sure. Most everyone who posts on BBSs enjoys sophistry.

you have a noteable perchent for it yourself.
It's hardly important.

Oh, and I have found one earlier reference to a use n the courts of Jefferson's letter.
I've not had time to find the details yet so this is nothing more than an aknoweldgement that my comment was in error.

In the case which went to the SCOTUS about the Mormons and poligomy {Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878)} the defense invoked the letter and the court, if my reference is accurate (and it's a site with an agenda so I need to verify this before I claim it as fact) but it seems the letter was raised, then rejected as not carrying the case and in doing so the court cited some religios practices connected with othere religions - such as a wife being burned on her husbands funeral pire - and denied that these recognized religious practices would be covered under freedom of religion.

This is, of course, an attempted application in the oppsite direction of the way it was applied in 1947. That is, an attempt to use it to protect a religious act from a governmental one rather than the reverse.

Nonetheless, my statement that it went unconsidered until 1947 is not accurate.
Post Reply