| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"loose cannon" |
| Date: |
05 Jun 2005 04:13:45 PM |
| Object: |
America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism?
[Excerpts reprinted with permission from Linda Kimball]
Once upon a time, not too awfully long ago, America was known as the
'shining city on the hill.' America, the most radical experiment
in the history of the world, was the only nation to which people
oppressed and repressed by old world systems of social classes and
castes could be free of the stifling bindings engendered by those man
created constraints. She was a Judao-Christian nation where God of the
bible, and not an elite ruling class, was sovereign over all.
America was the land of hope, promise and opportunity,
where not only all men were equal before God's eyes, but where all
human life from conception to natural death, was gifted by God with
intrinsic worth. Because our Founders believed in the existence of a
transcendent sovereign Creator, they declared that belief in the
Declaration of Independence where it is written that our rights are
endowed to us from our Creator and thus are inalienable, which means
not from man. Under the aegis of the Judao-Christian worldview,
Americans were able to work towards a civilization of excellence and
virtue wherein natural families and their children could grow and
thrive in safety and security. America was also a civilization where
individual liberty could be maximized to the fullest in the absence of
strangling webs of manmade laws since followers of Judao-Christianity
were guided by the Golden Rule and voluntarily exercised self-control
over destructive impulses for the common good of all. As Augustine
said, "Human law cannot punish or forbid all evil, since while doing
away with evils it would do away with many good things which would
hinder the advance of the common good."
Alas, America is no longer a shining city on the hill because under the
influence of militant atheism and transnational socialism fueled by
Darwin's theory of evolution, as well as Marx's influence, she has
been turning her back on God and the Judao-Christian moral principles
upon which she was founded. As a result, our once decent, orderly
civilization has regressed to a state of 'almost anything goes'
permissiveness and outright barbarianism where the common good has been
displaced by the demands and desires of the few. Human life is no
longer sacred and is now liberally aborted away even as militant
atheist bio-ethicists busily seduce Americans to accept the idea of
euthanasia, under the guise of quality of life. Where before our
Creator was understood to have endowed all human beings with a right to
life, secular militant atheists have taken away that right and very
predictably replaced it with the "right to die." Dostoevsky
predicted this would occur when he wrote, "If God is dead, then all
things are permissible." Nietzsche concurs: "God is dead...the
heroic individualist is no longer bound to a traditional slave
morality, but is creating his own."
Nietzschean secular humanists, socialists, and militant atheists who
call themselves 'free thinkers' are shaping our culture and
politics, and what they are determined to create is an atheistic
America. By definition, free thinkers are people who reject authority
and religion in favor of what they refer to as "rational inquiry and
speculation based upon science." But they have elevated science to a
philosophy (even a religion) and what they call reason is nothing but
the constantly changing fickle whims that arise from unbounded
self-idolization, selfish desires, and wishful thinking. In this way,
as in so many other ways, free thinkers have not risen one inch above
their ancient pagan ancestors. The free thinkers sitting on the U.S.
Supreme Court who have made highhanded rulings based on world law
rather than on American law provide a good example of capricious
decision making sans fixed moral ethics.
Richard Dawkins is one of the free thinkers 'leading lights,' and
in an ambiguous way, he alluded to whom he believes should be the
ultimate source of morality in his book When Religion Steps on
Science's Turf. He wrote, 'No civilized person uses Scripture as
ultimate authority for moral reasoning." He qualified this just a
bit, by saying that there is an alternate source: "That alternate
source seems to be some kind of liberal consensus of decency and
natural justice that changes over historical time, frequently under the
influence of secular reformists. Admittedly, that doesn't sound like
bedrock. In practice we more or less ignore Scripture, quoting it when
it supports our liberal consensus, quietly forgetting it when it
doesn't. And wherever that liberal consensus comes from, it is
available to us all."
What Dawkins is saying, in a vaguely worded manner, is that when it
behooves people like him to pretend to believe Scripture, they will do
so, but that in reality the real source of moral authority is people
like himself: "intellectually superior" human animals.
Dawkins' smug claim shines a light on the incoherency and
self-contradictory nature of scientific naturalism. By declaring
himself and those like him to be the source of moral authority, he
exempts himself and his cohorts from the framework they prescribe for
everyone else, implying that human beings are worthless matter
operating without reason or purpose, directed by (merely) natural
forces. Dawkins is obviously stating that he is a superior being
capable of rational thought, of free consideration, of formulating
theories, of recognizing objective truth, and of being morally
discerning. This places him and his fellow scientists outside and
above the mindless material causes which supposedly order of the rest
of us. But intelligence and ideas are not the result of mindless,
non-directed particles crashing into each other inside our brains. To
believe so is irrational.
I found a further example of the incoherent and contradictory reasoning
of Dawkins "free thinking," on a secular humanist forum where they
had a "frequently asked questions" section. A questioner reverently
asked Dawkins if evolution has a purpose. Dawkins responded
emphatically, "[it] has nothing to do with survival of the species.
If anything it is the passing of genes. Really there is NO
purpose...It is simply that those genes that DO survive are the ones we
see...There is no higher purpose...The only higher purposes in the
universe are to be found in evolved brains such as our own when we have
conscious purpose to achieve...our brains are so accustomed to this
that they falsely...ascribe purpose where it doesn't exist."
Did you catch that clumsy verbal sleight of hand? Notice the initial
absence of purpose. Then, almost immediately there is a higher purpose
so long as it's for "evolved brains such as our own" that seek to
"achieve a purpose." Then to escape from the mess of
contradictions has he created, he does what all morally defective
narcissists do... he creates another incoherent contrivance. In
effect, Dawkins says that when the brain is consciously trying to
achieve a purpose, it's actually fooling itself into believing it is
achieving a purpose that it knows nothing about, since purpose has
never existed in the first place. This web-weaver of incoherency is a
leading light of academia?
Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, is another secular human
leading light. Perhaps because he felt secure in speechifying before
some of his fellow cohorts, he decided to be forthcoming with the
truth, when he declared "many scientific theories are no more than
unsubstantiated just-so stories...in the struggle between science and
the supernatural [we] take the side of science because we have a prior
commitment to materialism."
In other words, hatred towards God and Christian-Judao morality is not
premised upon facts but on cobbled together contrivances. Lewontin
audaciously attests to this when he startlingly admits, "we are
forced by our a priori adherence
to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of
concepts that produce material explanation."
So, the science of secular humanism is quackery. Its authority is
nothing but a web of ideologically contrived deceptions presided over
by snake-oil salesmen pretending to be scientists.
These hateful, narcissistic frauds apparently believe that along with
Hitler, Mao, Marx, Stalin, and Lenin, they, instead of mankind's
Creator, are capable of being the earthly judge of right and wrong.
Two of the wrongs according to Dawkins are religion, which he terms an
intellectual virus, and parents having the right to instruct their
children in religious faith. Dawkins declares, "Society, for no
reason that I can discern, accepts that parents must have an automatic
right to bring their children up with particular religious opinions and
can withdraw them from say, biology classes that teach evolution."
It isn't enough that these self-worshipping tyrants have reduced all
Americans, excluding themselves, to nothing but worthless matter with
no reason or purpose to exist. Nor is it enough for them that by
unleashing the destructive effects of their hell-born ideology upon
America they have managed to bring her to the edge of the abyss. No,
these devils will not be satisfied until they have managed to leech
every last drop of good from America and have forced every American to
become as miserable and hateful as they themselves are.
Two astute statesmen from our past left these words of wisdom for us.
The first, Thomas Jefferson, warned us, "God who gave us life gave us
liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we
have removed their only basis, a conviction in the minds of people that
these liberties are the Gift of God?" The second, William Penn,
cautioned soberly, "If we will not be governed by God, we must be
governed by tyrants."
Let us choose wisely: choose God.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
07 Jun 2005 12:12:59 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 7 Jun 2005 09:52:54 -0700, "PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com"
<PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote:
I will point out a well researched paper below and direct you
towards the section headed: American Citizenship - Its Origin and
Kinds.
I quote from the first paragraph: "While they were inhabitants of
their respective colonies, they were citizens of Great Britain, and
their local governments were mere dependencies, acting under
concessions from the parent government."
You need to answer who was the "they" referred to. There was British
royalty in the colony with land concessions and business concessions,
etc., who came to the Americas as British subjects. Query if a German
immigrant in New York for example could claim GB Citizenship by right
of residing in the colonies. Or if his child born in the colonies
could do so.
The full quote:
"In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the British government
planted or acquired thirteen distinct colonies on the continent of
North America, and governed them, prior to July 4, 1776, under the
system of English laws as applied by the colonial policy of Great
Britain, with George III as a constitutional monarch. Each of these
colonies had been founded or acquired separately and at a different
time, and each was governed under its own distinct charter or
commission. The inhabitants of all the colonies were British citizens
or subjects. The several local governments, under which the colonies
respectively conducted their domestic affairs, were not independent
political societies, of which they might be said to be citizens. While
they were inhabitants of their respective colonies, they were citizens
of Great Britain, and their local governments were mere dependencies,
acting under concessions from the parent government."
The "they" were the 'inhabitants of all the colonies'.
____________
"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance
of official policy, but a love of one's country
deep enough to call her to a higher standard."
--George McGovern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
06 Jun 2005 01:10:10 PM |
|
|
On 6 Jun 2005 05:33:25 -0700, "PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com"
<PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote:
Okey Doke. Fair enough. Neither of us can prove our point. But
the two main influences on the wording of the Declaration were
Jefferson and Franklin. They were both men who believed that a God
created the universe but they wanted to be fair to those that felt
otherwise.
You'd better read up a bit more on Jefferson.
____________
"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance
of official policy, but a love of one's country
deep enough to call her to a higher standard."
--George McGovern
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
06 Jun 2005 03:22:43 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 6 Jun 2005 05:33:25 -0700, "PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com"
<PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote:
Okey Doke. Fair enough. Neither of us can prove our point. But
the two main influences on the wording of the Declaration were
Jefferson and Franklin. They were both men who believed that a God
created the universe but they wanted to be fair to those that felt
otherwise.
You'd better read up a bit more on Jefferson.
He said himself that he was a Christian but one who opposed the
corruptions of Christianity, like the trinity and anything Greek.
____________
"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance
of official policy, but a love of one's country
deep enough to call her to a higher standard."
--George McGovern
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
07 Jun 2005 05:04:07 AM |
|
|
On 6 Jun 2005 13:22:43 -0700, "PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com"
<PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote:
retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
On 6 Jun 2005 05:33:25 -0700, "PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com"
<PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote:
Okey Doke. Fair enough. Neither of us can prove our point. But
the two main influences on the wording of the Declaration were
Jefferson and Franklin. They were both men who believed that a God
created the universe but they wanted to be fair to those that felt
otherwise.
You'd better read up a bit more on Jefferson.
He said himself that he was a Christian but one who opposed the
corruptions of Christianity, like the trinity and anything Greek.
You forgot to mention that he also did not believe Jesus was divine,
nor did he believe in a personal god.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
06 Jun 2005 03:56:05 PM |
|
|
On 6 Jun 2005 13:22:43 -0700, "PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com"
<PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6 Jun 2005 05:33:25 -0700, "PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com"
<PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote:
Okey Doke. Fair enough. Neither of us can prove our point. But
the two main influences on the wording of the Declaration were
Jefferson and Franklin. They were both men who believed that a God
created the universe but they wanted to be fair to those that felt
otherwise.
You'd better read up a bit more on Jefferson.
He said himself that he was a Christian but one who opposed the
corruptions of Christianity, like the trinity and anything Greek.
Read more. He did not believe in the divinity of Christ. He did not
believe in "miracles". He even assembled his own bible by excising all
reverences to divinity and unscientific assertions (like the virgin
birth and the resurrection and the assent of Christ). To claim him
for RR support is utterly ignorant.
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
" . Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the
finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be
called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical
teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements
that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He
presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life
of Jesus, in one continuous narrative."
He was also strongly in favor of a clear separation of church and
state and wrote at length about it often.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qjeffson.htm
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his
faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government
reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign
reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that
their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a
wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this
expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights
of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of
those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural
rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social
duties."
____________
"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance
of official policy, but a love of one's country
deep enough to call her to a higher standard."
--George McGovern
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
06 Jun 2005 05:04:22 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 6 Jun 2005 13:22:43 -0700, "PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com"
<PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6 Jun 2005 05:33:25 -0700, "PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com"
<PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote:
Okey Doke. Fair enough. Neither of us can prove our point. But
the two main influences on the wording of the Declaration were
Jefferson and Franklin. They were both men who believed that a God
created the universe but they wanted to be fair to those that felt
otherwise.
You'd better read up a bit more on Jefferson.
He said himself that he was a Christian but one who opposed the
corruptions of Christianity, like the trinity and anything Greek.
Read more. He did not believe in the divinity of Christ. He did not
believe in "miracles".
I know. These were the corruptions that I mentioned. I would agree
with him.
He even assembled his own bible by excising all
reverences to divinity and unscientific assertions (like the virgin
birth and the resurrection and the assent of Christ). To claim him
for RR support is utterly ignorant.
I'm not sure what you mean by RR support. I based my statement above
on a quote from his 1803 letter to Benjamin Rush, where he said, "To
the corruptions of Christianity, I am indeed opposed; but not to the
genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense
in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines,
in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human
excellence, and believing he never claimed any other." It is still a
claim to being Christian, just not like any other.
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
" . Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the
finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be
called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical
teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements
that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He
presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life
of Jesus, in one continuous narrative."
He was also strongly in favor of a clear separation of church and
state and wrote at length about it often.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qjeffson.htm
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his
faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government
reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign
reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that
their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a
wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this
expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights
of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of
those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural
rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social
duties."
____________
"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance
of official policy, but a love of one's country
deep enough to call her to a higher standard."
--George McGovern
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
07 Jun 2005 05:04:08 AM |
|
|
On 6 Jun 2005 15:04:22 -0700, "PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com"
<PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote:
retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
On 6 Jun 2005 13:22:43 -0700, "PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com"
<PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6 Jun 2005 05:33:25 -0700, "PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com"
<PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote:
Okey Doke. Fair enough. Neither of us can prove our point. But
the two main influences on the wording of the Declaration were
Jefferson and Franklin. They were both men who believed that a God
created the universe but they wanted to be fair to those that felt
otherwise.
You'd better read up a bit more on Jefferson.
He said himself that he was a Christian but one who opposed the
corruptions of Christianity, like the trinity and anything Greek.
Read more. He did not believe in the divinity of Christ. He did not
believe in "miracles".
I know. These were the corruptions that I mentioned. I would agree
with him.
Then you knew that he did not believe in any kind of personal god.
He even assembled his own bible by excising all
reverences to divinity and unscientific assertions (like the virgin
birth and the resurrection and the assent of Christ). To claim him
for RR support is utterly ignorant.
I'm not sure what you mean by RR support. I based my statement above
on a quote from his 1803 letter to Benjamin Rush, where he said, "To
the corruptions of Christianity, I am indeed opposed; but not to the
genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense
in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines,
in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human
excellence, and believing he never claimed any other." It is still a
claim to being Christian, just not like any other.
It certainly is, but he did not believe in any personal god. He was,
like Franklin, a deist.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
06 Jun 2005 07:02:44 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Duke Kahanamoku wrote:
" " <>
wrote:
Duke Kahanamoku wrote:
" " <>
wrote:
James Ascher wrote:
loose cannon wrote:
America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism?
[Excerpts reprinted with permission from Linda Kimball]
Once upon a time, not too awfully long ago, America was known as the
'shining city on the hill.' America, the most radical experiment
in the history of the world, was the only nation to which people
oppressed and repressed by old world systems of social classes and
castes could be free of the stifling bindings engendered by those man
created constraints. She was a Judao-Christian nation where God of the
bible, and not an elite ruling class, was sovereign over all.
Complete and utter bollocks!
Nowhere in the founding documents was there a mention of the Christian
or Jewish gods.
Try the Declaration of Independence:
"...That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights..."
(a) it not only does not specify Christian/Jewish God, it doesn't
specify god. It specifies Creator, which could refer to the process of
creation.
Of course it refers to creation but the word is capitalised. That
makes it quite clear that they were intending a god but did not want to
use the word or specify any particular name.
Not so. The term Big Bang is normally capitalized, as are the terms
Grand Unified Theory and Theory Of Everything. They could have been
----------------
So you admit, then, that this is speculation on your part.
What I do know is that, in the original version, "the Creator" did not
exist, until it was pressured into the document by some fundamentalists.
intending Creator to refer to "that which created everything" without
offending either religious or non religious people.
That which created everything to a Freemason and a Deist was GOD.
Irrelevant. Jefferson knew that there were those that didn't believe
in God. That is why he worded thusly:
"We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal
and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights
inherent and inalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and
liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
No "Creator" at all.
(b) it says we hold that truth to be self-evident, ie it is *not* a
matter of faith but an obvious truth.
Jefferson had strong ties to Freemasonry (Ben Franklin and John
Hancock WERE Freemasons)and was an outspoken deist. To any deist, it
WAS self-evident that a God created the universe. After creation is
another story.
The point about (b) is that, as James states below, the phrase you
referred to in the DOI comes right after the one that says "We hold
these truths to be self-evident," which means they are not matters of
faith; they are obviously true.
No, it means that, to a deist and a Freemason, the fact that God
created the universe WAS self-evident.
To a deist or a Freemason, but not to other Americans. That is why "the
Creator" did not appear in the first draft. Only after fundamentalists
demanded it be inputted.
They didn't have a sufficient
physics in those days to offer a better solution. They used "Creator"
because it was ambiguous enough not to offend, as you say, but
capitalised to indicate what was intended.
Right, that a fundamentalist added it as an afterthought, not as
Jefferson originally wanted it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
06 Jun 2005 06:25:25 AM |
|
|
wrote:
James Ascher wrote:
loose cannon wrote:
America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism?
[Excerpts reprinted with permission from Linda Kimball]
Once upon a time, not too awfully long ago, America was known as the
'shining city on the hill.' America, the most radical experiment
in the history of the world, was the only nation to which people
oppressed and repressed by old world systems of social classes and
castes could be free of the stifling bindings engendered by those man
created constraints. She was a Judao-Christian nation where God of the
bible, and not an elite ruling class, was sovereign over all.
Complete and utter bollocks!
Nowhere in the founding documents was there a mention of the Christian
or Jewish gods.
Try the Declaration of Independence:
"...That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights..."
Two things.
1) That does not mention the *CHRISTIAN* god. It says "their Creator"
which could mean a host of things, including, but not limited to, their
parents.
2) That wasn't the original wording that Thomas Jefferson wrote. He
originally wrote:
"We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal
and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights
inherent and inalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and
liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
It was only after members of Congress demanded that "Creator" be added
that it was changed to "they are endowed by their Creator."
Much like God intruded on the Pledge, the Creator also intruded on the
Declaration...
Please learn your history before speaking, else you'll be doomed to
repeat it... or something.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James Ascher" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
06 Jun 2005 07:31:30 AM |
|
|
wrote:
James Ascher wrote:
loose cannon wrote:
America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism?
[Excerpts reprinted with permission from Linda Kimball]
Once upon a time, not too awfully long ago, America was known as the
'shining city on the hill.' America, the most radical experiment
in the history of the world, was the only nation to which people
oppressed and repressed by old world systems of social classes and
castes could be free of the stifling bindings engendered by those man
created constraints. She was a Judao-Christian nation where God of the
bible, and not an elite ruling class, was sovereign over all.
Complete and utter bollocks!
Nowhere in the founding documents was there a mention of the Christian
or Jewish gods.
Try the Declaration of Independence:
"...That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights..."
Which Creator? The line doesn't specify. To assume the Jewish or
Christian Creator is absurd!
James
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
06 Jun 2005 07:36:27 AM |
|
|
James Ascher wrote:
PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com wrote:
James Ascher wrote:
loose cannon wrote:
America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism?
[Excerpts reprinted with permission from Linda Kimball]
Once upon a time, not too awfully long ago, America was known as the
'shining city on the hill.' America, the most radical experiment
in the history of the world, was the only nation to which people
oppressed and repressed by old world systems of social classes and
castes could be free of the stifling bindings engendered by those man
created constraints. She was a Judao-Christian nation where God of the
bible, and not an elite ruling class, was sovereign over all.
Complete and utter bollocks!
Nowhere in the founding documents was there a mention of the Christian
or Jewish gods.
Try the Declaration of Independence:
"...That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights..."
Which Creator? The line doesn't specify. To assume the Jewish or
Christian Creator is absurd!
I didn't say that that's what they were saying. I believe they
intended to imply that God WAS that creator by capitalising the word.
They (Jefferson and Franklin) would not have wanted to prejudice the
document by saying any name of God but both were Monotheistic, so, any
name of God would have to refer to the only one that there was.
James
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
06 Jun 2005 07:37:56 AM |
|
|
wrote:
James Ascher wrote:
wrote:
James Ascher wrote:
loose cannon wrote:
America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism?
[Excerpts reprinted with permission from Linda Kimball]
Once upon a time, not too awfully long ago, America was known as the
'shining city on the hill.' America, the most radical experiment
in the history of the world, was the only nation to which people
oppressed and repressed by old world systems of social classes and
castes could be free of the stifling bindings engendered by those man
created constraints. She was a Judao-Christian nation where God of the
bible, and not an elite ruling class, was sovereign over all.
Complete and utter bollocks!
Nowhere in the founding documents was there a mention of the Christian
or Jewish gods.
Try the Declaration of Independence:
"...That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights..."
Which Creator? The line doesn't specify. To assume the Jewish or
Christian Creator is absurd!
I didn't say that that's what they were saying. I believe they
intended to imply that God WAS that creator by capitalising the word.
They (Jefferson and Franklin) would not have wanted to prejudice the
document by saying any name of God but both were Monotheistic, so, any
name of God would have to refer to the only one that there was.
If Jefferson and Franklin had wrote "Creator." Fact is, they didn't.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
07 Jun 2005 07:48:52 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 12:31:30 +0000, James Ascher wrote:
PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com wrote:
James Ascher wrote:
loose cannon wrote:
America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism?
[Excerpts reprinted with permission from Linda Kimball]
Once upon a time, not too awfully long ago, America was known as the
'shining city on the hill.' America, the most radical experiment in
the history of the world, was the only nation to which people oppressed
and repressed by old world systems of social classes and castes could
be free of the stifling bindings engendered by those man created
constraints. She was a Judao-Christian nation where God of the bible,
and not an elite ruling class, was sovereign over all.
Complete and utter bollocks!
Nowhere in the founding documents was there a mention of the Christian
or Jewish gods.
Try the Declaration of Independence:
"...That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights..."
Which Creator? The line doesn't specify. To assume the Jewish or Christian
Creator is absurd!
James
I think "self-serving" would be more accurate. The use of the generic
term "Creator" is clearly meant to avoid endorsement of any particular set
of theistic beliefs.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
07 Jun 2005 08:57:21 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:48:52 GMT, MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 12:31:30 +0000, James Ascher wrote:
PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com wrote:
James Ascher wrote:
loose cannon wrote:
America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism?
[Excerpts reprinted with permission from Linda Kimball]
Once upon a time, not too awfully long ago, America was known as the
'shining city on the hill.' America, the most radical experiment in
the history of the world, was the only nation to which people oppressed
and repressed by old world systems of social classes and castes could
be free of the stifling bindings engendered by those man created
constraints. She was a Judao-Christian nation where God of the bible,
and not an elite ruling class, was sovereign over all.
Complete and utter bollocks!
Nowhere in the founding documents was there a mention of the Christian
or Jewish gods.
Try the Declaration of Independence:
"...That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights..."
Which Creator? The line doesn't specify. To assume the Jewish or Christian
Creator is absurd!
James
I think "self-serving" would be more accurate. The use of the generic
term "Creator" is clearly meant to avoid endorsement of any particular set
of theistic beliefs.
We can safely assume that the "Creator" mentioned is the same as
"nature's god" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, i.e. a
non-personal, deist concept.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
06 Jun 2005 07:39:32 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 12:31:30 GMT, James Ascher <jwa1968@earthlink.net>
wrote:
PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com wrote:
James Ascher wrote:
loose cannon wrote:
America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism?
[Excerpts reprinted with permission from Linda Kimball]
Once upon a time, not too awfully long ago, America was known as the
'shining city on the hill.' America, the most radical experiment
in the history of the world, was the only nation to which people
oppressed and repressed by old world systems of social classes and
castes could be free of the stifling bindings engendered by those man
created constraints. She was a Judao-Christian nation where God of the
bible, and not an elite ruling class, was sovereign over all.
Complete and utter bollocks!
Nowhere in the founding documents was there a mention of the Christian
or Jewish gods.
Try the Declaration of Independence:
"...That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights..."
Which Creator? The line doesn't specify. To assume the Jewish or
Christian Creator is absurd!
In the sociopathic mind of the fundy there is only one kind - their
deity. Any mention of it means theirs. Just like there is only one
kind of Christian - anybody who is respected who is a Christian is
automatically an evangelical fundamentalist and creationist.
James
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism? |
06 Jun 2005 02:28:54 AM |
|
|
loose cannon wrote:
America's Decision: God Or Militant Atheism?
[Excerpts reprinted with permission from Linda Kimball]
Once upon a time, not too awfully long ago, America was known as the
'shining city on the hill.' America, the most radical experiment
in the history of the world, was the only nation to which people
oppressed and repressed by old world systems of social classes and
castes could be free of the stifling bindings engendered by those man
created constraints. She was a Judao-Christian nation where God of the
bible, and not an elite ruling class, was sovereign over all.
Except women. And blacks. And Native Americans.
America was the land of hope, promise and opportunity,
where not only all men were equal before God's eyes, but where all
human life from conception to natural death, was gifted by God with
intrinsic worth.
Except women. And blacks. And Native Americans.
Because our Founders believed in the existence of a
transcendent sovereign Creator, they declared that belief in the
Declaration of Independence where it is written that our rights are
endowed to us from our Creator and thus are inalienable, which means
not from man. Under the aegis of the Judao-Christian worldview,
Americans were able to work towards a civilization of excellence and
virtue wherein natural families and their children could grow and
thrive in safety and security. America was also a civilization where
individual liberty could be maximized to the fullest in the absence of
strangling webs of manmade laws since followers of Judao-Christianity
were guided by the Golden Rule and voluntarily exercised self-control
over destructive impulses for the common good of all. As Augustine
said, "Human law cannot punish or forbid all evil, since while doing
away with evils it would do away with many good things which would
hinder the advance of the common good."
Except women. And blacks. And Native Americans.
Alas, America is no longer a shining city on the hill because under the
influence of militant atheism and transnational socialism fueled by
Darwin's theory of evolution, as well as Marx's influence, she has
been turning her back on God and the Judao-Christian moral principles
upon which she was founded.
Like the oppression of women. And blacks. And Native Americans.
As a result, our once decent, orderly
civilization has regressed to a state of 'almost anything goes'
permissiveness and outright barbarianism where the common good has been
displaced by the demands and desires of the few.
Like votes for women. And blacks. And Native Americans.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
