Loading ...Yep, the man’s a Washington Republican alright…
To any of those who may have doubted Mitt Romney’s “Republicanism”, he removed it today; at least to this listener…
An excerpt from the Mitt Romney for President 2008 website (no link — Google it yourself if you care to):
Excerpts Of Governor Romney’s “Faith In America” Address
… “There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adam’s words: ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.’
“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.” …
Sounds reasonable enough, right? After all, everybody’s entitled to give their opinion. The problem is, RELIGION is as dangerous as it is good. Forget not, the fact that most, if not ALL wars throughout history have had their roots in RELIGION. Consider the fact that Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, al-Qaeda’s Osama (“I, I, I don’t know where he is. I don’t care…” Bin Ladin and our very own President Bush are all a bunch of far-right, fundamentalist BLOCKHEADS who would not hesitate to begin WW-III in the name of RELIGION. Looks like we can expect the same from a “President Romney”. Frightening when you THINK about it — stubbornness… bullheadedness… the ONLY traits these men share in common, but dangerous enough.
On the other hand, SPIRITUALITY is different. It’s personal. Spirituality leads to war much like religion does, but the wars caused by spirtuality tend to involve the battles of good and bad within… the INDIVIDUAL versus those who disagree with the spiritual individual. BIG DIFFERENCE there. “Good” usually prevails again “evil” and the body count is far smaller than those left in the wake of battled based upon RELIGION. “Religion” is ceremony. “Spirituality” is TRUTH. And while one can be both spiritual AND religion, we are talking about a rare individual indeed.
No thanks, Mr. Romney. You said a lot of good things in your speech, but the snippet above ALONE is more than enough for you to become disqualified to lead the Beacon of Liberty and Freedom in these treacherous times. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for adding trillions of pounds of flammables to a raging fire in treacherous times, I fear. The LAST thing we need is more Authoritarianism (hear that, Hillary?) in this country and world today.
***
Other bloggers weigh in, courtesy (in part) of MemeOrandum: Shakesville; Democrat Taylor Marsh; Drudge Retort; PoliBlog™; The Daily Dish (Andrew Sullivan); The Mahablog; Captain’s Quarters (Right)
Yeah, the LAST thing we need is a President who recognizes and understands the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.
I have to disagree with this one; “while one can be both spiritual AND religion, we are talking about a rare individual indeed” — I think MOST if not ALL TRULY RELIGIOUS people are very Spiritual as well. I’m not talking about the people who sit in Church and go through the motions, but the true believers in the religion of their choice. Religion is all about spirituality.
Someone whose actions are tempered by a belief in a Higher spiritual Power will likely demonstrate greater compassion and wisdom than one who does not believe.
The Constitution guarantees us Freedom OF Religion, it does not propose Freedom FROM Religion. (As Gov. Romney’s quotation illustrates.)
Rather than being offended by demonstrations of the religion of others, we should all embrace the diversity and enjoy the varied expressions of religious and spiritual beliefs of all our brothers and sisters. That is what America is about. Not the absence of religion, but the acceptance of all religions.
I would say that most wars historically have been economically/politically motivated. Religious overtones are useful to inflame natural tribal animosities between populations that might ordinarily ignore their differences and live in a state of civility.
Further, in the name of Atheism, not God, the Soviet Union violently suppressed religious faiths. By bringing this up, I am not trying to be cute, I am merely pointing out that a believer in no God can be as fanatical as a fanatic of any other belief.
Any dogma a candidate might have should be exposed for the voters to examine, not just those dogmas based on God-centered religions.
I’m sorry, but I can’t vote for anybody who does not do the bidding of the Flying Spheghetti Monster, may those who mouth his/her/it’s name in vain perish in piles of excrement. Matter of fact, I expect my diety at any moment now to instruct me to bring death to all those who do not believe. I am sure I shall be rewarded with 72 meatballs in the afterlife dinner should I martyr myself.
There, I have proven that I am just as religious as any of you Baptists and Islamists, and candidates should court my vote accordingly.
i love how everyone complains about the 72 virgins…
what would christian guys want in heaven?
or, rather, could a better deal possibly exist?
It would be difficult to imagine what would be heaven to a soul liberated from the flesh. That is probably part of the reason why Christ spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven in parable.
The promise of 72 virgins or a grand feast every night appeals to the carnal desires of the flesh. The soul is different and it is unlikely that it would want the same things after being freed from the influence of the body’s wants and needs.
I agree with Alfred West. It is quite difficult for anyone to completely separate their thoughts from the material to the spiritual. This is something that several of the Eastern religions strive to do.
Along those lines, I think the ’72 virgins’ ( Wow
), and the feasts, etc. were also meant to be symbolic. As much as many Christians may disagree with Mohammed’s teachings, he was knowledgeable in spiritual matters.
How disappointing it must be for all the radical Islamic jihadists who die while destroying Americans, or Christians, etc. and not only find there are no virgins waiting for them and they haven’t even gone to ‘heaven’ but have ended up in a much different situation than they expected.
In response to DaveM’s last question: YES.
In response to the conspiracy theorists out there… I CAN’T use my real name, if I did, THEY could find me !!!
i really wonder the ages of the people who frequent this site…seems like i’m one of the younger folk.
that aside, my question is not as dumb as it sounds, i’ve studied philosophy and literature…
serious intellectuals in greece 2000 yrs ago used to debate thing like ‘how many angels could stand on the tip of a needle’. has our sophistication really progressed so much that there are those among us who can even pretend they know anything about death and ‘god’ and the afterlife/ nirvana etc…? don’t you realise you’ll sound insane 1000 yrs from now?
also, show me a christian and i’ll show you a hypocrite.
egocentric hypocrites who can’t live up to even half of the goddamned 10 commandments. keep criticising islam, after all,that’s what real godfearing christians have always done- attack. blue eyes=attack.
Hey DaveM, having studies philosophy I’m sure you must be familiar with Pascal’s Wager…
As for your comment; “show me a …” – that works both ways, y’know. Show me a non-Christian and I’ll show you a hypocrite.
i was not, i had to wiki it, and, right off the bat i’d say some people might thrive under nihilistic beliefs, agnosticism etc… while for others, most people i think, it is true that it’s a ‘better’ outlook on life and existance. i agree with pascal, in general.
i also agree with you, we’re all hypocrites.
yet being a hypocrite doesn’t seem to be much of an indictment anymore.
right, because we all are hypocrites
if you’re serious, i think we’ve finally found some common ground.
I’ve got no problem with religion, even though I’m not religious. I do, however, have a problem with religion in the government. This country was founded on the idea that church and state would be separate, with neither meddling in the affairs of the other. As to the sentiment that freedom of religion doesn’t encompass freedom from religion, I say that’s bullshit, plain and simple. Couldn’t it be said that having no religion is a religion in itself? Weak, yes, but so is claiming that the founder’s didn’t mean to include atheists, especially considering a few of them were as non-religious as you can get.
In all honesty, though, I really don’t mind a president who is religious. But if he even thinks about basing laws on that religion…this isn’t a theocracy and if I have any say in the matter, it will never be.
Just wondering, about the founding fathers– A great deal of them were Deists, not Christians, believing not in God and Jesus, but in one unknowable overarching figure, with no relation to the bible. Also, I think Romney took John Adam’s quote out of context, and *especially* Jefferson’s quote about “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world” and “the protection of divine Providence”.
Ben Franklin: “. . . 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 thorough Deist.”
Episcopal minister Bird Wilson of Albany, New York, protested in October 1831: “Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.”
First, I think we can all agree that anything John Adams signed personally probably does not directly conflict with strongly held beliefs, correct? Well, in 1796, in order to end the conflict with the pirates of Tripoli, John Adams signed a treaty– that still is used as a part of common law today– stating that “As the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion– as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen….” In other words, John Adams gave his direct approval to a widely read, public, international document that stated “The United States is in no way founded on the Christian religion.”
Quotes from John Adams: “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 whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.”
“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”
Now, on to Jefferson! Jefferson sought the blessings of the “Supreme Judge of the World”, as well as “divine providence”. However, the appeal was neither a great part of the declaration (only mentioned twice), nor is it relevant to Christianity alone. In fact, his statements could be applied to any religion with one specific judge– from Zeus and Ra to Allah and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
However, that was not Mr. Romney’s point. His point was that religion is necessary to government. Again, let’s focus on the quotes of our founders.
Jefferson: “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot…. ” –to Horatio Spafford, 1814
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law.” -Jefferson’s letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814
Ben Franklin: “When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, ’tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.” (I guess that religions that ask for government assistance (you know, like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism…) aren’t good religions…)
Thomas Paine, Common Sense: “All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
James Madison: “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
Madison: “Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.”
Seems to me like Mr. Romney needs to check his facts.
http://xkcd.com/285/.
I think that Molotov’s comments greatly mis-represent Benjamin Franklin’s religious views, that so to the point that I feel compelled to correct them. The quotation referenced removed a section of Franklin’s words, here are the missing words; “Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them…” Franklin wrote this in 1771 and was referring to an event that occurred when he was around 15 years old. Like most people, Franklin’s point of view changed from his teen years and through his adult life. About twenty years later, Franklin wrote;
“Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
“As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and His Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubt as to his Divinity; tho’ it is a question I need not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm in its being believed, if that belief has the good Consequence, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the world with any peculiar Marks of his Displeasure.”
Even later, Benjamin Franklin wrote; “wonderful…change soon made in the manners of our inhabitants. From being thoughtless or indifferent about religion, it seem’d as if all the world were growing religious, so that one could not walk thro’ the town in an evening without hearing psalms sung in different families of every street.”
Those are the words of one of the Founding Fathers. His message is clear. Maybe Benjamin Franklin was not quite so opposed to Christianity and religion as Molotov’s comments would attempt to lead us to believe.
Seems to me like Mr. Romney isn’t the only one who needs to check his facts.
Interestingly enough, I searched for the Ben Franklin quote “I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubt as to his Divinity” as the search words on both yahoo and google, and I’ll tell you the results: There were 4. 1 from Yahoo Answers, 2 from ConservaPedia, and 1 from RationalWiki. Am I the only one who thinks that these are not trustworthy sources?
On the other hand, my quotes from Ben Franklin: a search for “When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself” Ben Franklin on Google will turn up 480 articles.
Searching for “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 thorough Deist” turns up 270 articles.
Admittedly, the second quote that f&b uses is valid; searching turns up 85 articles. However, it is extremely vague; he does not say anything about being Christian in and of himself, rather he says that it is good that the world around him is becoming more religious, without specifying any sect or religion. While it can be interpreted that he did mean that it was good people were becoming more active Christians, it does not reflect upon his own character; one can admire the religiousity of another without converting.
It seems to me that f&b’s contention is false; and, if it is not false, then at the very least, Benjamin Franklin was *not* a Christian in the sense that we normally think of one. Due to the well known quotes by Franklin scorning churches and the current state of Christianity, he would undoubtedly be extremely alien to the normal Christian community, spurning church based traditions and theological thought.
I’d also like everyone else to know that F&B has not challenged any of my other quotes.
First, the reason for the second quotation (the long one)is to demonstrate Franklin’s view of Religion and Christianity as he, himself stated it in his later years.
I make no pretense that Franklin was a Christian, per se. He clearly was not. Most of the “spurning” I believe was from his youth. I believe the passage that Franklin identified as his “Creed” carries the most weight in defining his views.
“I’d also like everyone else to know that F&B has not challenged any of my other quotes.” — I haven’t had time . . . yet!
Benjamin Franklin was a prolific and incredible writer. Don’t rely so much on wiki’s and internet sources. Libraries are full of Franklin’s actual writings.
I have never maintained that our country was in any way based on Christianity. Yet many of the Founding Fathers, and the Citizens were Christians, so their inherent values crept into the philosophy. That very well may be why we have been so successful. We are a moral country (for the most part) with standards that were formed by the best parts of the worlds great religions, while at the same time promoting tolerance for all religions and separating it from the laws (but not the law-makers).
When I said “…not freedom from religion” in an earlier post, I did not mean that the government should or does encourage religion, only that the government cannot discourage it (e.g. as in the Soviet Union). And that this is also guaranteed by the Constitution.
“I have never maintained that our country was in any way based on Christianity. Yet many of the Founding Fathers, and the Citizens were Christians, so their inherent values crept into the philosophy. That very well may be why we have been so successful. We are a moral country (for the most part) with standards that were formed by the best parts of the worlds great religions, while at the same time promoting tolerance for all religions and separating it from the laws (but not the law-makers).”
The problem with this is that the main philosophy that has really continued on to this day can be found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both of which are grounded for the most part in prior documents, almost all of them secular.
The Declaration:
Locke’s Two Treatises on Government, Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws, the Magna Carta (which has religious overtones, but 63 or so of the 67 clauses are about due process rather than religion, and even the religious ones are simply separation of church and state), the English Bill of Rights, the Petition of Right, Aristotle’s Treatise on Government…
Nothing that much that was too religious, really.
The wording of the Declaration is similarly unambiguous. There are 3 mentions of the supernatural; one, “nature and nature’s god”, is simply a reinforcement of the natural rights theory and social contract established in the second paragraph, giving a reason that the common people could understand why they must respect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of every white man. The other two, “divine providence” and “supreme judge”, are simply saying that “We hope God will support us in our endeavour.” The Declaration is a collection of secular ideas and principles.
The Constitution is also such a collection. First, the establishment of government is more based on Emperor Justinian I’s codification of Roman Law and the Magna Carta than of the Bible. Second, it does not include any mention of religion except that “there shall be no religious test” and “Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof”. Both of these, completely contrary to the current standards of the time and completely radical, were put in place by the founders. They obviously weren’t too religious, or at least did not believe that the government should have anything to do with religion.
Not to mention that, though most of the people were Christian, most believed that (1) religion should not become a significant part of government (because they were from minority sects), and (2) that most Christians had great differences between each of them.
Perhaps I am getting off topic. Christian values are not ingrained fundamentally into the Constitution because the founders were not religious.
Also, they did not base the Constitution on morals or principles, but on previous laws and documents. Montesquieu, Justinian, Magna Carta.
The changes in the Common Law that have occurred have mainly happened since the founders, and so they don’t affect this argument.
Remember, we are not a moral country. We are a country based on Rule of Law, not any particular moral philosophy. The closest you can get to that in the Constitution would be “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” in the 5th amendment, where property, life, and liberty are held to be intrinsic parts of a free society, taken away only as consequence for wrongdoing. Religious beliefs, like “And no man who kills shall live” or some such nonsense, “Thou shalt not covet…”, “Thou shalt honor thy mother and father”, “Thou shalt have no other god than I…” “Thou shalt keep holy the Sabbath day”, and “Thou shalt not take my name in vain”; each of these have no representation in the Constitution or later laws. The places where the religious beliefs of law and the actual laws meet are not because the founders were religious, but because those few things are necessary to a free society and happen to be in the Bible as well. Take note of the great number of things in the Bible specifically left out of the Constitution.
Yeah.
Summary: You’re wrong, and I can prove it. I think.
correctio, Mr Molotov, F&B is never wrong, get used to it.
Sorry this took so long. Busy with work, Christmas stuff, end-of-semester, etc…
Signers of the Declaration of Independence and their Religious Affiliations:
Summary:
Episcopalian/Anglican 31 56.4%
Presbyterian 16 29.1%
Congregationalist 8 14.5%
Quaker 3 5.5%
Catholic 2 3.6%
Methodist 2 3.6%
Lutheran 2 3.6%
Dutch Reformed 2 3.6%
Hmmmm… No atheists??? Alrighty then.
Of course there were a few Deists. Funny thing that the revisionists always highlight the Deists as if they were the majority, which in fact they were not.
Daniel Carroll Maryland Catholic
Thomas Fitzsimons Pennsylvania Catholic
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Langdon New Hampshire Congregationalist
Nicholas Gilman New Hampshire Congregationalist
Abraham Baldwin Georgia Congregationalist; Episcopalian
William Samuel Johnson Connecticut Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Madison Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Read Delaware Episcopalian
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Maryland Episcopalian
David Brearly New Jersey Episcopalian
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Sr. North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Gouverneur Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Pierce Butler South Carolina Episcopalian
George Washington Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
William Blount North Carolina Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyteran
Rufus King Massachusetts Episcopalian; Congregationalist
Jacob Broom Delaware Lutheran
William Few Georgia Methodist
Richard Bassett Delaware Methodist
Gunning Bedford Jr. Delaware Presbyterian
James McHenry Maryland Presbyterian
William Livingston New Jersey Presbyterian
William Paterson New Jersey Presbyterian
Hugh Williamson North Carolina Presbyterian
Jared Ingersoll Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Alexander Hamilton New York Huguenot; Presbyterian; Episcopalian
Jonathan Dayton New Jersey Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Blair Virginia Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Dickinson Delaware Quaker; Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker; Episcopalian
Thomas Mifflin Pennsylvania Quaker; Lutheran
Non-Signing Delegates:
Oliver Ellsworth Connecticut Congregationalist
Caleb Strong Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Lansing, Jr. New York Dutch Reformed
Robert Yates New York Dutch Reformed
William Houstoun Georgia Episcopalian
William Leigh Pierce Georgia Episcopalian
Luther Martin Maryland Episcopalian
John F. Mercer Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
George Mason Virginia Episcopalian
Edmund J. Randolph Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
James McClurg Virginia Presbyterian
William C. Houston New Jersey Presbyterian
William R. Davie North Carolina Presbyterian
Alexander Martin North Carolina Presbyterian
Anyone who maintains that our country was not founded by religious people is simply spouting revisionist history. Anyone who believes that people can separate themselves from their life experiences is delusional. (Maybe delusional people can actually do it, I didn’t look into that) The decisions made by people are heavily influenced by their upbringing and experience. Our nation was created by people who believed that ALL PEOPLE are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights… The belief in the existence of a Creator defines religious belief.
The Laws that the Rule of Law is based in come from people, these people were and are religious for the most part, their religion influences their decisions,therefore their religions influence the laws they write.
If you look at the relationship of our laws to those that preceded them, you can continue the trail all the way back to Hammurabi. That point is certainly valid, as is the idea that laws are influenced to some degree by the basic philosophy of the period of time in which they are written. The Magna Carta, Locke’s treatises, even Aristotle’s works were influenced by each individual’s religious experiences.
Of course, DaveM, you are correct.
OK, let’s suppose that there WAS a creator to begin with. The document proclaims that we are endowed by OUR creator with these particular inalienable rights. Not yours….no theirs….but OURS. Or MINE. Which means it’s a personal thing. Not the majority’s God, but whichever God that particular individual happens to believe in, and according to the method chosen by THAT particular INDIVIDUAL. So, in order to protect that individual and insure his RIGHT to worship HIS diety in whatever way floats HIS boat, then NO ONE MAN OR GROUP can dictate what or who or where or why any of this religious dogma is practiced. To lend credance to any ONE automatically oppresses any of the others, and that’s not what we came over here and dumped tea in a harbor and blew away redcoats for.
AND, in extension, in order to promote the right to believe, the right to DISbelieve must also enjoy equal protection, or you are right back to where you started, and let the bloodletting begin!
So, do not claim that this nation was founded by Evangelical Conservative Christians who intended to make this some sort of mild theocracy favoring their sensibilities over all others. It was founded by sane men who sadly assumed that learned men that came after them would understand what had been given them.
Lee: “So, in order to protect that individual and insure his RIGHT to worship HIS diety in whatever way floats HIS boat, then NO ONE MAN OR GROUP can dictate what or who or where or why any of this religious dogma is practiced.” — Agree, absolutely.
“AND, in extension, in order to promote the right to believe, the right to DISbelieve must also enjoy equal protection” — Again, agree, absolutely.
“So, do not claim that this nation was founded by Evangelical Conservative Christians who intended to make this some sort of mild theocracy favoring their sensibilities over all others. ” — Never did, not once, never intended to, and I don’t believe that the statement is true in any way, manner, or form.
However, the country was founded by men who held some degree of religious beliefs of various types, and their ingrained belief systems affected their decisions and judgments, either directly or indirectly, consciously or subconsciously. Therefore, the laws these men wrote in some way reflect those beliefs.
And just as some would argue that you cannot put Christianity, or any other religion, above atheism, I would argue that the reverse is ALSO true and you cannot put atheism above any other religion, including Christianity. As you said yourself, the RIGHT to believe must receive equal protection as the right not to believe.
True.
Then the “controversy” as to whether or not Romney is a “true” Christian is rather moot, and should never have been brought up to begin with.
Lee, at this point in time, the controversy is not over whether Romney is a true Christian or not. The controversy is over whether the country was founded as a Christian, moral nation or not.
Now, F&B, I see you have a list. This is very good. However, this list tells me nothing. I go to Catholic church every sunday (when able). Does this mean I am catholic, with catholic beliefs? No, I am an agnostic.
People can be religious and not be a part of a sect; people can be irreligious and be a part of a sect.
My contention is not that the founders were not Christian, but that they were not religious. They may have believed, but it was not a major part of their life.
Also, if you look, Hammurabi’s Code and Justinian’s Law are two separate things, mostly unrelated. I don’t see a logical connection leading from Babylon to Constantinople.
If we can agree on that, then we can also see that most every Constitution in Europe except the UK is based directly off of the Roman Law of Justinian rather than Hammurabi’s Code. America and hte UK take much from Justinian’s work as well.
The philosophy of the time does not always impact the writings of the time; or, rather, it is more difficult to determine the philosophy of the time. The writings of the Declaration and the Constitution were in a time of religious backflow. The colonists had seen the horrors of religious war since the 1600s. They had been forced to the English Church before they came to America (or Catholic in France, or Protestant in Sweden, or burn and die in the Holy Roman Empire). They had seen men and women killed unfairly in Massachussetts. The founders were not alive during the Great Awakening, they were alive in a Great Depression of Religion. With that as the context for the “philosophy of the time”, we can see that the Constitution and the Declaration, while written by nominally and technically Christians, were not created with Christian principles, but with deliberately non-Christian principles. It was made to be as secular as possible to avoid the problems that the colonists had seen when government and religion mixed.
Again, take the Declaration. This mentions religious ideas, of course– “nature and natures god”, “endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights”, “we appeal to the Supreme Judge of the World”, “by Divine Providence”. However, that is because 1) the justification that the philosophers of an earlier age gave to the natural rights theories was that only and all humans have souls, so the idea of a God was a part of the mainstream idea of natural rights, and may or may not have been how Locke, Rousseau, and Burke originally construed it. Also, Divine Providence was seen as an important factor.
However, the Declaration, despite its religious references, actually is nondenominational; by which I mean, not just “not a particular sect” of Christianity, but not necessarily Christianity at all. This opens the way for other things; Judaism, Deism, Christians (of course), and Musselmen (as the Muslims were known at the time).
The Constitution can be in no way construed to have anything religious in nature.
“No religious tests shall be administered.”
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof.”
Additionally, the Constitution creates the opposite of the established organisations.
First, the established organisations of the churches were (for the Catholics) a dictatorial government, with one branch, and one branch only: the executive.
Then there was the Protestants, which were basically like the Greek city-states; no real organisation, and rather divided at that.
The other types of governments, the ones that were based on Divine rule (or whatever… the word that comes to mind is Mandate of Heaven, but that would be China. The European equivalent of the Mandate of Heaven)– these were autocracies and monarchies, and the one that was not, the Netherlands, was basically a republic of the clergy.
In no way, shape, or form was the Constitution based on anything religious in nature beforehand.
Look at the established doctrine of the Catholic church (before the Protestant revolution, so it was part of their doctrine as well)– Thomas Aquinas. This man, following Aristotle, believed that 1) governments were formed naturally, so there was no need for a social contract, and 2) all power comes from God, and so any government that rules has the authority of God.
The Constitution created something completely separate from anything religious in nature: 1) governments were deliberate creations, instituted by the people for the people. So, there was a social contract, and governments did have to have the ultimate goal in mind of the people. 2) All power therefore comes from the people, not God or authority, and so the government need not obey any religious principles, but instead must develop according to the needs of the people (as seen by judicial review).
F&B, I look forward to your response.
Just wondering; should the right to believe and the right to disbelieve be held in equal proportions, neither should force itself on each other, correct? At least, neither should force its views on the other using government.
Now, if you look at the current crop of religious topics, they all have one thing in common: religious people are trying to force their religious beliefs on other people.
Gay marriage: neither should force its views on the other. Gays should be able to choose what they want to do, either marry straight or gay.
Abortion: neither should force its views. People should be able to choose whether to get one or not. If Jane gets an abortion, it has no bearing on evangelical Christian John’s life. However, if John forces Jane to not have an abortion, he is forcing his beliefs upon her.
“I don’t see a logical connection leading from Babylon to Constantinople.” — At least you admit that it is just your opinion, because I see a clear connection.
“My contention is not that the founders were not Christian, but that they were not religious. They may have believed, but it was not a major part of their life.” — That is fine, but this is not a position that has been supported.
“the Constitution and the Declaration, while written by nominally and technically Christians, were not created with Christian principles, but with deliberately non-Christian principles. It was made to be as secular as possible to avoid the problems that the colonists had seen when government and religion mixed.” — I agree that they may have consciously attempted to avoid religious principles, but it is inherently impossible for them to avoid inserting their own moral (based on their religion, among other factors) values. I don’t believe people are able to separate themselves from themselves.
“However, the Declaration, despite its religious references, actually is nondenominational; by which I mean, not just “not a particular sect” of Christianity, but not necessarily Christianity at all…” — exactly what I have said.
“In no way, shape, or form was the Constitution based on anything religious in nature beforehand.” —
*** Not based on religion, but written by People who cannot help but be influenced by the morality they have learned during their lives which – in all cases – included some degree of religious philosophy and thought.
Next Post…
“Now, if you look at the current crop of religious topics, they all have one thing in common: religious people are trying to force their religious beliefs on other people.” — I disagree with the assertion that Gay Marriage and Abortion are strictly religious topics.
Both or either of these can (AND SHOULD) be evaluated based on their own merits, without painting them as religious issues.
I see abortion as equivalent to murder, plain and simple, no religious over- or under-tones needed.
Abortion: Jane is forcing on her child her desire to prevent that child’s birth. John is trying to represent the right of the child to have equal protection.
If Jane wants to kill her 10 minute old baby, or 3 year old child, the effect on John is the same as an abortion-killing of a pre-born child. The only difference is the fact that the law currently and irrationally treats them differently.
WOW… just WOW. Love the conversation, fellers
sorry to jump in late, but-
“…I think MOST if not ALL TRULY RELIGIOUS people are very Spiritual as well. I’m not talking about the people who sit in Church and go through the motions, but the true believers in the religion of their choice. Religion is all about spirituality.” wow, what a leap of faith to take. let’s look at the qualifying words here: most, truly, very, true…obviously you arrogantly attribute these qualities to yourself F&B, so much for christian humility. the problem is, you’ve absolutely nothing to back up your words, just like all religious people. to join a club (religion) does not in any way indicate one is spiritual, in fact, if anything, it’s like AA for people who fell off the spiritual wagon.
“Someone whose actions are tempered by a belief in a Higher spiritual Power will likely demonstrate greater compassion and wisdom than one who does not believe.” again, more arrogance, which is typical of religious followers; always talking and thinking about how better they are than everyone else, with nothing to back it up.
here’s a splendid example of your christian compassion and wisdom, where you insult islam and joke about the possibility of muslims winding up in your christian hell, with your everpresent cute little smug frowny face:
“How disappointing it must be for all the radical Islamic jihadists who die while destroying Americans, or Christians, etc. and not only find there are no virgins waiting for them and they haven’t even gone to ‘heaven’ but have ended up in a much different situation than they expected.” looking forward to walking aroung in heaven hand in hand with your saviour are ye F&B?
and, of course, the final coup de grat:
“I see abortion as equivalent to murder, plain and simple, no religious over- or under-tones needed.” what?! the whole point of your argument has been that people can’t seperate themselves from their ‘religion’, that christians are more tolerant, compassionate and wise than ‘nonbelievers’- then you go and make an outrageously biggoted statement, followed with some unusually convoluted analogy as your ‘proof’. hilarious.
you’re not planning on bombing any clinics are you F&B?
As difficult as it may be for you to fathom, DaveM, I am really not talking about myself, but rather in generalities.
If you have trouble understanding my analogy, there’s not much I can do to help you with that.
And at that point we have to go back to Plato and Aristotle again. Does morality exist outside of a religious context? I believe it does. There are absolute rights and wrongs that exist independent of religion.
I’ll just attribute your last comment to your clear lack of experience and maturity, and your lack of a cogent argument.
of course you will, because, as i’ve already implied, you’re extraordinarily arrogant.
and again, you’ve contradicted yourself- speaking in generalities? wherever in the post did you indicate this?
you’re own argument is that people can’t seperate their decision making/legislature from their own philosophical/moral/religous/spiritual experience. your own argument is that you are talking about yourself, just as you maintain the founding fathers imbued their own beliefs in the DOI etc…
and you’re abortion analogy is, well, as boring as it is fanatical (westboro church anyone?)
i feel bad for you
there’s not a need to speak in aristotelian or plutonic absolutes, only of the golden rule.
DaveM, watch out for ad hominem attacks. Calm down a bit.
F&B, I will respond to your longer and more important post when I get the time– my teachers are pushing all their projects and essays to be finished by winter break.
However,I’ll mention your latest comment.
“And at that point we have to go back to Plato and Aristotle again. Does morality exist outside of a religious context? I believe it does. There are absolute rights and wrongs that exist independent of religion.”
I agree with one thing you said: morality does exist outside a religious context. However, here we diverge. You say there are absolute rights and wrongs that exist independent of religion. While I respect your opinion, I must add that it is just that: an opinion. Morality, like opinions, is subjective. I personally hold as my moral code a variant on utilitarianism (for those of you who want to know, a direct combination of utilitarianism and negative utilitarianism, tempered by a bit of relativism).
If you think about it, there can be no absolute morals unless it is through a religious context; in fact, I have seen people try to prove that there is a God from the assumption that there were absolute morals.
In essence, either morality is an absolute, coming from something supernatural, or ingrained into everyone’s DNA, or morality is subjective in nature, varying from person to person.
My contention is that 1) we must accept for now that it is not absolute by dint of supernaturalness because of Occam’s Razor (though future evidence may prove this false, it is currently true), and 2) morality can not be written into the DNA because of wide variance, so therefore 3) morality *MUST* be subjective. Additionally, my base assumption is that absolute morality must be absolute because of some external force; it can not just be there. This external force can take the form of either a god (occam’s razor!!! God of the gaps!!! Woo!), or something inherent in all humans (DNA. Nothing else is universal).
So, first, unless we automatically accept that there is a God, we can not use that as a basis for absolutism. Since you stated morality can exist outside of a religious context, I think we can agree on this.
Secondly, there are wide variations. At least some form of relativism must be accepted to account for the changes. We ourselves are the perfect examples: I believe that abortion is moral because I see murder as consisting only when it stops the brain from functioning (allowing first and second trimester abortions), and that a fetus is a parasite unless it could survive if the umbilical cord were separated.
You, however, see the fetus as already living, and a potential human being, so you see abortion as murder.
Of course, there are better examples; African tribes that accept rape; Rastafarians that include marijuana as part of their religion; the acceptance of slavery and genocide of unbelievers in the Middle East and Africa; heck, while I’m at it, I might as well include the Westboro Baptist Church, which has been picketing American soldier’s funerals saying “Thank God for dead soldiers” in response to the military accepting gays.
The similarity of opinions on many subjects can be traced back to how we all have common cultural roots, and those who don’t have been roughly assimilated. So, things like sex are now seen as basically immoral.
Interestingly enough, sex is immoral in judeo-christian society because, way back when the Jews were in Israel, they neighboured the Phoenicians (or some other country that began with a P… my memory may be slightly off). Now, the Phoenician religion had, as priestesses of their temples, the equivalent of whores for their religion, but they were also of one of the highest classes in the nation. They brought donations to the temple by offering sex to donors, and the bigger the donor, the more experienced the priestess the donor would get.
The Jews didn’t want their men to be drawn away, so they decreed (past verb of decree?) that sex was immoral, and could only be between man and wife. This led over the millenia to becoming a cultural trait, that led to the current situation, where children can’t see anything sexual in nature, where we lie to them to stop them from realizing what sex is, where we can’t go out naked (like the ancient egyptians did on a daily basis) for fear of being arrested, where even people who are naked in their house have been arrested (recent supreme court case– it was held constitutional to do so).
All these examples show that morality can not be in the DNA or anything universal among humans, else there would be a great deal more of commonality between our morals. Besides, shouldn’t the existence of different moral systems show that it can’t be absolute?
In any case, culture, intent, and belief must be taken into account when determining morality; one can’t just say that “Everyone who does (blank) is immoral”. Guilty by plea of insanity. Mental retardation. Misunderstanding. There can be no general set of absolute morals.
I hope this helps