Tom P wrote:
"t1gercat" <wexford1778@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163994114.070816.169260@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Again
Tom P wrote:
"t1gercat" <wexford1778@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163795118.259129.8000@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tom P wrote:
Interesting
Even your religion frowns on lying I understand.
You have no idea what religion I profess. If any. You are indulging
yourself in a common atheist error of logic. You presume that anyone
who
points out the logical flaws, factual mistakes, and utter
nincompoopery
in
your arguments must be a member of the opposite end of the theist
spectrum
from your atheist self. That is, only a fundamentalist Christian can
criticize the atheist position. I am not a fundamentalist Christian.
Never
have been. I am not an atheist. Never have been. What I have done is
identified a few holes in your silly argument using the words of the
men
who
did found the United States of America. The only reason I can identify
certain holes in your argument is because the holes already exist.
Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Madison, Franklin, and many more of the
"Founding
Fathers" did not profess the atheist sentiments the atheist web pages
lead
their readers to believe with their collections of highly selective
quotations. The American Revolution and the subsequent foundation of
the
American Republic are an extremely complex series of events. In fact,
Samuel Elliot Morrison, a rather distinguished professor of American
history
at Harvard, opined that, "The roots of the American Revolution go far
down
into the past. Geography and climate, institutional developments,
religion
and race, and other factors beyond our ken, may have made the
separation
inevitable." From Samuel E. Morrison, "Sources and Documents
Illustrating
the American Revolution and the Formation of the Federal Constitution
1764-1788," 2nd ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1963, page
xi.
All
of you atheists might note that Professor Morrison considered religion
as
important a factor as race, geography, climate, and institutional
developments. Read the book and you too can discover what Morrison
meant
by
"institutional developments."
Yes, yes, yes... and so what? The great majority of the people of
European descent living in the colonies were Christians of one flavor
or another. No one disputes that.
No one? Not even certain atheist fanatics hereabouts?
"Atheist fanatics?" Isn't that an oxymoron?
No.
Or are you just being smug?
No. Truthful.
To take that fact and then somehow
claim that Christianity had a profound influence on the practical and
constitutional formation of the United States is absurd.
"Profound" is not my adjective. Christianity was one cluster of ideas
among
four clusters of ideas that contributed to the American Revolution and
Constitution.
Really,
Yes. Really.
and how did a religion that never supported any form of
democratic rule,
What democratic rule do you have in mind? There were no democracies with
the exception of Iceland for the Church to support before the United States
in 1776. Why is that not screamingly obvious to you?
As for the "republics" in various city-states in what is now Italy, how
republican do you think they were compared to contemporary republics?
and that, in its tradition, virtually commands
obedience to an anointed king, support in any way the Revolution?
Remember the words of Jesus as reported at Mark 12:13-17, Matthew 22:15-22,
Luke 20:19-26, Gospel of Thomas 100:1-4, and the Egerton Gospel 3:1-6? I
listed all of the earliest sources for this saying because the words of
Jesus on one's duty to God as opposed to one's duty to the civil state are
so widely and commonly attested in both the canonical and non-canonical
sources for the words of Jesus.
Why don't you quote them and make your point? Why is everythign you say
so wrapped up in vanity and pedantry and framed as questions rather
than statements? So far, all I've seen are rather vapid appeals to some
lose connection that reveals nothing. Argument by innuendo.
Very nearly all of the people who made the American Revolution were
Christian by heritage and culture. A large number were Christian by belief.
A large number were Christian by practice. Read the documents of the time.
Those are the only basis for judgment. Your opinion does not matter.
Yawn. Most had two legs ,too. Christianity and democracy are not good
bedfellows.
There's a special problem with the Chruch of England, which was the
predominant sect among the colonies, since their clergy took a pedge of
obdeince to the King.
What "special problem" would that be?
Didn't every barrister, judge, customs officer, soldier, sailor, governor,
juror, member of the militia, and purveyor of the Royal Post also take an
oath to the king? The correct answer is yes, indeed they did. So how was
the oath of Anglican clergy any more of a problem than the oaths all these
other people took?
The oath of the cergy put them in direct opposition to the revolution.
The clery, unlike the soldiers and civil servants are before the mass
every day; they minister to the people. It was an awkward position and
the surviving Episcopal church had to deal with some rather violent
anti-clericalism that was directed their way after the revolution,
along with a loss of members.
The history of
Christianity and the state had been one of Churches supporting absolute
monarchs, despots and tyrants under the theory of divine right.
What other forms of government other than monarchies do you think were
available for the church to support? Or to support the church?
Read a bit about European history, Sport. Germanic traditions usually
called for a King elected by his vassels.
Describe these "Germanic traditions" and cite your sources. Who appointed
these so-called "vassels"? Do you refer to the Electors who voted for the
Holy Roman Empire in the late Medieval period?
No. I'm referreing to German tribal traditions. Can't provide the
reference; read it twnety years ago. Look for something on them, if
you're interested, or call me a liar. I don't care.
Virtually every absolute
monarchy began with a weak king chosen by his vassels whose dynasty,
fully supported by the Chruch, eventually consoldated power and was
able to exert hegemony over the vassels.
Cite specifics. Specific kings and specific "vassels." Your vague
generalizations mean nothing.
France, scholar. Hugh Capet was hardly the strongest member of the
nobility.
France is the premier example.
It is, is it? How so? Cite your sources. Have you read any of the books by
Lucien Febvre, Marc Bloch, Georges Duby, Frederic Heer, Norman Cantor,
LeRoy Ladurie, and Jacques le Goff? They all wrote some rather good books
concerning Medieval France. Yet their conclusions differ significantly from
yours. Who should I believe?
Have you read them? If you had, you'd damn well know that what I've
said is true.
In England, John was thwarted by his own aristocracy and forced to sign
the Magna Carta, limiting the power of the King.
What exactly did you read from which you drew your conclusions?
The Magna Carta.
In any event, the
theory was one king, one church, no rivals.
Whose theory is that?
Why are you asking stupid questions?
Other than the Ille de France, what exactly did the Medieval kings of France
actually control?
Depedns on when, doesn't it? Why don't you tell us?
Your conclusion implies that there were republics, democracies, and other
forms of government more palatable to your 21st century tastes from the
first through the eighteenth centuries. Which other form of government
than
monarchy do you have in mind that you think existed then?
No. There were constitutional states, including England and Spain.
Oh? When? What power was Henry II subject to? How about Richard III? How
about Henry VIII?
Answer your own questions. You're obviously ignorant of the subject.
Please, do tell us all about your alleged constitution of Spain.
Ask Thomas Jefferson. He wrote about it.
When did
this alleged constitution take effect? As I recall, modern Spain was formed
from the joining of the kingdoms of Aragon and Castille by the marriage of
Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castille only in 1479, and they only
completed the re-conquest of what is now Spain in 1492. Now, what about
this constitution you speak of, what was the date? And how did, say,
Philip II react to this alleged constitution? How about Charles V?
God, you are a bore.
There were republics scattered throughout Europe that allowed various
degrees of participation in governmental mangement by various classes
of peoples. Venice and Florence were two notable ones.
Oh really? Name each of these alleged "republics." Bet you can't. What
proportion of the population formed the electorate? Be very specific and
cite your sources.
Hunt around the history books. You'll be surprised.
By the way, didn't the Church and the governments of various city-states in
what is now Italy support each other? Florence and Venice were not exactly
at war with the Church before 1776. You can't have this both ways. You
wrote that the church and republican and democratic government were
inimical. Now you assert that Florence and Venice were "republics" which is
kind of laughable in itself, despite the pretensions of the time.
Nothing compared
to Republican Rome,
D'ya think so? When was "Republican Rome"? Are you not aware of the
significance of the class system in Roman life?
Yes. Are you not aware of the significance of tribal voting in the
Government of Republican Rome?
however, with its elaborate system of tribal
elections, and checks and balances in elected versus aristocratic
republican power. Adams collected a series of them in his work in
defense of constitutions and Jefferson made a study of comparative
constitutional governments.
You don't seem to get the connection between the situation in Rome during
Cicero's lifetime and British North America from 1763 through about January
1776. Do you have any idea what connection the men who made the revolution
against the King and Parliament made between their situation and Rome in the
first century B.C.?
It was a romantic notion at best, an evocation of classical times to
justify the current emergency. In reality, there was little that the
decline of the Roman Republic had in common with the situation in North
America.
I ask because it is really obvious if one has actually read the letters,
pamphlets, newspapers, broadsides, and sermons of 1763-1776 from British
North America. What do you think that connection was? Have you ever read
"Novanglus," especially No. VII from January 1775? There is a direct
connection laid right out by that author. Have you read James Wilson's
"Considerations on the Authority of Parliament" from August, 1774? How
about
the "Farmer's Letters" by John Dickinson or the "Considerations" by Daniel
Dulaney?
Instead of attempting to bulldoze me with historical sources, why don't
you just maken an argument based on them? Have you read them yourself?
Is that the problem? You know the bibliographies but not the content?
The men who made the revolution against Parliament and George III viewed
their situation in the period following the Seven Years War as nearly
identical to the situation of the Roman Republic during the period of the
civil wars during the lifetimes of Cicero, Livy, Sallust, Julius Caesar,
Virgil, and Augustus.
What men? Who? Why do you think this view has any validity?
Both the Roman writers of the first century B.C. and
the "Founding Fathers" of the United States saw their times as the end of
liberty when the traditional rights and liberties of Romans and Englishmen
were imperiled by the rise of unjust dictators.
Yes, but in Rome, fortunes and priviledge were at stake more than
liberties as we know them.
Both periods saw widespread
sentiments that the old republics and republican virtue were being replaced
by emperors.
Romans both loathed and longed for emperors and dictators. One of the
last Republican Consuls, Sulla, was appointed dictator by the Senate,
with the approval of the Tribunes, so that the mess the politicians and
generals had made in Rome could be straightened out and Rome righted.
As I said, any comparioson of Rome with America, even one based on
romantic notions of Roman virtue being corrupted by dictators, was more
than a stretch, it was fantasy.
Is it any wonder Adams, Jefferson, Dickinson, Wilson, Paine,
and the rest saw history repeating itself? And why would they not turn to
the classical authors for guidance?
Where else had they to go? The basis of their education were the
classical writers.
And where did such a government exist between the first and the
eighteenth
centuries that was available for the Church to either oppose or support?
The church supported centrailized monarchs against the power of their
nobles.
Another vague thus vacuous generalization. Your reply doesn't answer the
question. Where did republican or democratic governments exist between the
first and eighteenth centuries?
That question is irrelevant to the issue. If none existed, then none
exited at least in part because the Church supported monarchs who, in
turn, supported the Church.
Iceland had the "Althinge" which was sort of a republic or perhaps direct
democracy and the I think the Church supported that government, didn't
it?
I have no idea. Iceland was irrelevant.
The good people of Iceland didn't think so. Why do you?
Iceland is irrelevant. Don't be stupid.
Have you noticed that you consider all evidence that refutes your theories
to be irrelevant?
Much of it is.
Can you think of another?
The church supported absolute monarchs.
So we should take your unsupported word for it? You are waffling again.
Either there were republics scattered about Europe and the Church did not
support them. Or there were republics scattered about Europe and the Church
did support them. Which is it?
Oh, and which church do you have in mind, exactly?
The Christian Church, which was the Roman Catholic Church (in most of
Europe) or the Orthodox Churches allied with Rome until the Protestant
Reformation. Why are you asking this rather stupid question?
Don't debate it; you'll just
look stupid.
That's just fine.
At
times and in places the depots also controlled the Church (read a bit
about the Holy Roman Empire and the Ottonian system).
I have read a few dozen books on Medieval history. What specific
incidents
and despots do you have in mind? Although history is by its nature a
generalization, the generalization is made up of very specific evidence
in
the form of reports concerning specific people and specific events. You
are
still on the generalization. Let's move to the particulars, shall we?
Go back to your books. You'll find thsm.
I thought you were indulging in vague and vacuous generalizations again.
You just proved my evaluation correct. Cite specifics from specific
sources.
Refute my generalization by citing exceptions.
In any event,
there is nothing, absolutely nothing in Christian teaching and
tradititon, or in the Bible, to support any concept of
Republican-Democracy.
Have you ever read Augustine's "The City of God," Aquinas' "Summas," or
Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion"? How about anything by
John Cotton? Cotton Mather? John Locke?
Yes. So what?
You are lying.
Neither Aquinas, nor Augustine (who was a nutcase),
You just proved you are lying.
No. Augustine was a nutcase. I don't particularly care how fundamental
his works are to Christian "thought." He was a cult follower who toyed
with Mithras before jumping into Christianity. He abandoned his wife
(never a particularly good thing to do) then spent years struggling
with sexual desires. I don't care if you, or anyone else, would saint
him or accord him wisdom or glory. He was nutty.
Apparently, you know nothing about him.
nor
Calvin, and certianly not Mather ever was invoked by anyone in the
formation of our constitution. You forgot Knox, and why not throw in
Thomas Moore? How about Plato? Aristotle? Hobbs?
If you actually have read Augustine and Calvin, you will readily recognize
the doctrine of the depravity of humankind in the writings of Publius in
"The Federalist." You will also find that doctrine refuted in certain works
by John Adams.
So what? Do you really think that the men who met in Phildelphia sat
and pondered the "doctrine of depravity?" while composing the
Constitution?
No, actually, I forgot no one. Plato is certainly ideologically associated
with Augustine and Calvin. That would be truly obvious if you had actually
read them. Aquinas was a disciple of Aristotle, which again is obvious if
one actually reads them. Knox was, of course, a disciple of Calvin. Hobbes
contains elements of both Plato and Aristotle, and his notions of the limits
of the powers of government and the rights of the citizens for redress of
grievances are very close to those of Aquinas.
Of course you're aware that there was a movement to have Plato sainted,
and the Pope was petitioned to allow an order of Platonist monks to
form (he didn't allow it). Plato was considered by some to be a
precursor of Christ. His notion of the soul and communion with God (if
that's what one can call it), were cited as proof of divine
inspiration. He was also a communist and had some rather horrid notions
of how men should be governed. Read him some day.
If you haven't read those as a minimum, you have no idea what Christian
teaching is.
I know very well that Christian theology is a collection of stretches,
fuzzy thinking, pompous pronouncements, non sequitors, and
convolutions. It's also tedious and boring.
You have that right. But that does not diminish their importance in your
very own cultural and political heritage. But I still doubt you have read
much Christian theology.
You can doubt what you will. I don't care, and I doubt if men in their
right mind met to form a government based on notions they had derived
from Christian theology.
Tell us you really read
Aquinas and can argue with the Scholastics.
I have read in Aquinas, but have not read every word. The man's works are
huge amounts of reading. I don't know what you mean by arguing with the
Scholasti
And then tell us why anyone
would want to.
Like I said, I doubt you have ever read them. Perry Miller devotes lots of
pages of "The New England Mind" to connecting Puritan thought with the
Scholastics, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin. Since
Puritan thought is one component of the ideology underlying the
Constitution, one must understand certain of the basics of these
philosophers in order to comprehend the American Revolution.
I haven't read Miller, but I find it amusing that a Puritan apologist
would try somehow to arrogate the Constitution as a product of Puritan
thought, or at least as having been formed in part by it. There are
Native American pundits that claim the Constitution was gotten from an
imitation of certain tribal governances. I'm sure every group has some
claim they can make.
Therefore you are not capable of judging whether or not
Christian teaching or tradition ever supported any concept of
republicanism
or democracy unless you are thoroughly grounded in Christian theology. I
don't think you are. Surprise me by proving me wrong.
Suprise me by proving there is any link between the Christers and the
Constitution. You've yet to do that.
Christians wrote the Constitution. These Christians lived in an
overwhelmingly Christian nation. The Christian doctrine of the depravity of
humankind is the basis for the system of checks and balances that are the
structure of the Constitution. How much more of a connection can there be?
Remember the Roman Republic you opined about? That, too, was set up on
an elaborate system of checks and balances, among various levels of
society and balancing tribal power and interests with those of the
senate and other rich and aristocratic types. Religion was even
included in the mix of balances and certain high-ranking clergy had
political status. Checks and balances were quite old when Christ is
purported to have waled th earth.
One of the most religious of the founding fathers, Adams,
Why do you think John Adams was "one of the most religious of the
founding
fathers"? Who are you comparing him with, and on what basis are you
making
the comparison?
By Adams own repeated pronoucements of of his devotion to and interest
in Religion.
Compared to the writings of the other "Founding Fathers," why do you think
Adams was especially religious? Adams undertook a considerable study of
theology at various stages of his life, but studying historical theology
does not make one religious nor is it a reflection of piety.
Do you really think that Adams was as religious as, say, Charles Carroll?
Oh, hell, I dont' know. What's the scale? Poundage? Inches? Ounces of
Grace? What difference does it make?
I know you don't know. That is the point.
was aware of
this (So were Jefferson and Paine, and anyone with the basic education
of the time). He sought out pre-Christian pagan sources for his Defense
of Constitutions, and lavishly praised Cicero, not Aquinas or Calvin.
Of course he did. And he explains why in certain of his letters. Adams
loathed Roman Catholicism and Calvinism. Which is also screamingly
obvious
to anyone who has ever read Adams' correspondence. And John Adams wasn't
the
only one who used the works of Cicero. Have you ever read
Cicero? Do you know what Cicero wrote about the duties of the virtuous
citizen in a republic? If I recall accurately, Cicero wrote that man had
duties to the gods. Seems to me that is in "De Officiis" and possibly "De
Amicita," but I
don't have time to look it up just now and translate it, so feel free to
correct me if you believe I am mistaken.
Every frigging Roman seemed to made similar comments about devotion to
the gods. The Romans considered themselves religious people.
So did the generation of 1776.
Uh... yes,
and, again, so what?
Have you ever read Cicero? It is a simple question.
Cicero's religion was a compilation of all sorts
of things.
It was? Please support your position with quotation from Cicero and those
who knew him.
Romans were eclectic in worshipping gods, taking them and
borrowing them from everywhere, inventing them when convenient or
politically expedient.
As early as Cicero's lifetime? Are you sure?
Besides, the Roman religious organizations were
powerful politically and economically. They did much of the
international banking, ran insurances, etc.
"International banking" and insurance services by "Roman religious
organizations"? Please, do cite your evidence for such phenomena.
I have no time, but you're obviously dirt ignorant of ancient economics
and trade. If I lived in Rome and my brother and I had a business in
the Roman Colony of Asia minor, where he managed it, how do you think
profits were returned to Rome and fuding sent from Rome to Asia Minor?
I could go to the priests of Jupiter, make a deposit in their temple in
Rome, and they would send a coded message to their brothers in Asia
Minor to release funds in whole or part to my brother. The very rich
religious organizations helped not only insure but reinsure the
insurers who backed the bookies. They also insured shipping and
reinsured other insurers. Rome's business life was enormously enhanced
by religious organizations, organized gambling, secular money lenders,
and others.
No time.
We're still learning of the
pervasive influence of certain sects -- Jupiter, the Vestals, and
whatever.
We are? What new manuscripts and artifacts have been discovered in the past
five years? Please, do cite the papers in which these were announced.
Don't be such a pompous *****. The scholarship is ongoing and continuous.
Cicero's comments have to be considered in light of his time,
his class, and his experience. His notions of civic responsibility
cannot be invoked literally, although they have a certain elegance.
James Wilson, John Dickinson, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, and
a whole lot of other residents of British North America between 1763 and
1783 disagree with your assessment. They invoked Cicero, and other Romans,
quite literally.
In order to think clearly about law and government, the memebrs of the
Constitutional convention purged from the final document any invocation
of God, even the shadowy Diest "Creator" mentioned in the Declaration
of Independence.
They "purged" did they? Are you sure it was "purged" or was it never
inserted in the first place? And then of course you must not only accuse,
but you must prove your accusation. Which of the three accounts of the
Convention mentions this "purge" you mentioned?
Invocations to God or Creator were common in state constitutions and,
of course, in the Declaration of Independence. Don't like the word
"purged?"
My likes and dislikes are irrelevant. Just as yours are. As you used the
word, "purged" is inaccurate. And we are striving for accuracy.
OK. They didn't mention God. Does that strenghten your case?
How exactly does one mention religion without reference to deities?
God, you see, endorses despots.
So now you claim to know the mind of God? Actually, you have no basis
for
your conclusion that "God . . . endorses despots." Unless you claim to
know
the mind of God. Do you assert such a claim? Besides, that isn't
something
the "Founding Fathers" wrote.
Well, every European king seemed to claim their power decended from
God. I can't think of one king of a Christian country who didn't. Hell,
even Franco of Spain, claimed to be Caudillo per Dei Gracis.
But we are not discussing the claims of long dead European potentates. We
are
discussing your claim that God endorses despots, which means you claim to
know the mind of God. Tell me, if God endorses despots, does that mean God
endorsed the most prolific mass murderers in human history? You remember
those, don't you? The atheists Stalin and Mao. These two atheists were
certainly despots. And your claim that God supports depots must mean that
God supported Stalin and Mao. Are you sure you want to stick with that
story?
Stop being so ridiculous. I was referring not to the mind of God, but
to minds of men who purported to know Him. As for Stalin and Mao, both
lived to old age (Mao especially outlived his enemies), had aboslute
power and were able to satisfy every lust and kill anyone they wanted.
They murdered millions over many decades. Draw your own conclusions as
to whether or not some diety found favor in them.
Benjamin Frankin
couldn't even get the members of the Constitutional Convention to a say
a joint prayer when they seemed helplessly deadlocked.
Where did you read that?
Don't remember. I could find it, but I don't have the time. He asked
the Convention to vote funds for a chaplain to lead them in prayer.
They refused.
The number of sources are quite limited, only four, as far as I know. Find
your source. Your word is no good.
The Constitution was, if anything, a triumph over Christian tradition
On what do you base your conclusion? The Constitution is, if anything, an
explicit expression of the Christian worldview in it's fundamental
assumption concerning human nature underlying the checks and balances
that are the
fundamental principles of the Constitution of the United States. Read
Madison. Read Jefferson. Read Adams. See if you can follow this: No
man
is worthy to govern another was the widely held assumption. Why is no
man
worthy to govern another? The answer, of course, is because all human
beings are subject to vices, corruptions, and promoting their private
interests at the expense of their fellow human beings and the common
welfare. Is that idea expressed in Enlightenment thought? Where
exactly?
Who wrote it?
Where is the nexus? How do we leap from a Christ who dismisses
virtually all worldly concerns to a people 1800 years later with an
intense desire to establish a republican-democratic state.
We don't leap. We carefully follow the history of an idea through its
various written manifestations. And we find those in the writings of Paul
and the pseudo-Pauline corpus, Augustine, Calvin, Cotton Mather, Jonathan
Edwards, to James Madison.
Checks and
balances? Where do we find that in a Christian tradition that has all
power and wisdom flowing from a single central source?
The universal human propensity to do evil and abuse power are the human
conduct that necessitates checks and balances, and that is exactly the
Christian doctrine of universal human depravity. Read Federalist X. It is
right there: "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of
man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity,
according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for
different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many
other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to
different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to
persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the
human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them
with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and
oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is
this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no
substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful
distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and
excite their most violent conflicts."
You read
Jefferson and Adams, neither of whom were at the Constitutional
Convention.
Indeed I have. But I have also read Madison, Paine, Franklin, Washington,
Dickinson, Wilson, Edwards, and dozens of others.
The conventioneers did what they did, compromised and
created a law that defined a well-structured government. They did it
without invoking Christ, the Bible, or the Church.
You really should read the accounts of the Convention by Madison and Yates,
and also read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. You wouldn't write
what you just did if you would do that.
On the other hand, the basis of Christian philosophy, especially the
Pauline-Augustinian-Calvinist-Edwardsian strain of Christian philosophy
predominant in Massachusetts by the middle of the 18th century,
explicitly
states that all human beings are innately corrupt and depraved, thus all
men
are subject to vices, corruptions, and promoting their private interests
at
the expense of their fellow human beings and the common good.
And that is a firm basis for democracy?
No. It is no basis for democracy. The United States of America was never a
democracy and was not designed to be a democracy. You should know those
facts. But the Christian doctrine of human depravity was the basis for
designing a system of government wherein no faction or party could gain a
permanent upper hand and impose it's will on the other factions and parties.
Read Federalist X. Madison lays it right out, step by step.
There are also certain ideological break points readily identifiable in
the
polemics of that era where Enlightenment theory gave way to Puritanism.
Puritanism was a New England cult, not a Virginia one.
Actually, Puritanism was centered in Geneva, East Anglia, the Netherlands,
and not anywhere in New England until much later.
Nevertheless, it was the Virginian James Madison who used the Christian
Puritan doctrine of human depravity to guide the formation of the
Constitution and to defend and promote the Constitution.
And then you bump into Patrick Henry and other Virginians, who supported an
established Episcopalian church in Virginia after the American Revolution.
Who do you think the opposition was to the Virginia statute of religious
freedom jointly formulated and written by Jefferson and Madison?
You seem oddly unaware of such a change. You seem to believe that some
version of the primarily French Enlightenment personified by Diderot,
Voltaire, and Rousseau dawned in the English colonies at some point
following the Seven Years War. Then somehow Enlightenment ideals of the
innate nobility of humankind, notions of pure democracy on the model of
the
"General Will" expressed by the "Will of the People," and some sort of
natural limits on the power and scope of government became universal, or
at
least widespread, in English North America. And then somehow these
Enlightenment ideals led inexorably and uninterruptedly to civil
disturbances, various congresses, the outbreak of war, the Declaration of
Independence, the government under the Articles of Confederation and then
directly to the Constitution. Do I have that more or less correct?
No. You're creating a strawman. I think basically that the Virginia
colony, which was less obsessed with religion than the New Englanders,
pursued the notion of representative democracy based on the traditions
developed in the colony itself. The spirit of the times was certainly
one of enlightenment, but I think the evolution of Virginian democratic
thought was as much home-grown as imported.
How then do you explain the Virginian Madison invoking Puritan doctrines?
And how do you explain the Virginian Patrick Henry and many members of the
Virginia legislature enthusiastically fighting for the re-establishment of
the Episcopalian religion as the tax supported religious arm of the State of
Virginia? Another Puritan doctrine, I might add.
And what was especially unique about the Virginia legislative bodies that
cause it to be a more representative democracy and thus was so different
from other colonial governments? How about Pennsylvania?
Prove your theory using the primary historical sources, of which there is an
abundance.
and prejudice and a reinvocation of the pagan fondness for
representative government,
Prove that. Bet you can't.
Germanic tribal traditions. Classical traditions.
That is not proof. That is nothing more than your opinion. Cite specific
traditions as recorded in specific writings. Since you have made that
assertion about Germanic tribal traditions, please cite Tacitus on
traditions of representative government. And I presume you know why I ask
you to cite Tacitus, but just in case you don't, his "Germania" is the
earliest comprehensive work on Germanic tribes.
a fondness not only derived from classical
sources but from the old Germanic traditions which most
European-Americans have as part of our heritage.
Yes, that is actually one of the four idea clusters that made the
American
Revolution and Constitution happen the way they did. The idea cluster is
usually referred to as English traditions of liberty as embodied in the
Common Law. Christianity is one of the other idea clusters. The ideals
of
the Enlightenment are the third idea cluster. And the Greek and Roman
ideals of the virtuous citizen in the virtuous state are the fourth idea
cluster. All four clusters of ideas are equally important and none can
be
proven more or less important than any other. Why? Because the ideas of
all four clusters are evident in the writings of the people who made the
American Revolution and Constitution, and if any one cluster is removed,
the
American Revolution and Constitution do not and can not happen as they
did.
Yawn. Only four clusters, couldn't be three, ot six or something?
No, there are exactly four. Disprove the theory. Make your case for one or
three or 7685.
Very convenient. Get this from Moody Bible Institute?
Nah, books and articles by Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood, Jack Greene, Samuel
Elliot Morrison, Perry Miller, Frederic Jackson Turner, Charles Beard,
Francis Parkman, Joyce Appleby, Carl Beckman, Barbara Tuchman, Edmund S.
Morgan, Timothy Breen, Don Higginbotham, David McCullogh, J. R. Pole,
Catherine Albanese, Nathan O. Hatch, John Phillip Reid, Max Weber, Richard
Brown, Richard Hofstadter, and a whole bunch of other historians of the
American Revolution and Early Republic you have not read. You see, this is
my point. You have all of these opinions, but you are startlingly ignorant
of the basic corpus containing the documentary sources of the American
Revolution, and you don't even seem aware of who the mighty famous bigshots
were and are in the field.
Another point you seem unfamiliar with is that the American Revolution
was
unique among world revolutions because it was ideological in origin.
It was economic in origin more than ideological.
Prove it.
In the
period 1763-1776, times were good. There was a labor shortage, so wages
were high and unemployment was very low. Malcontents could move to the
frontier and believe and say anything they cared to. There were no food
shortages. Taxes were low. And the residents of English North America
considered themselves loyal English men and women, citizens of the
greatest
and most advanced civilization to that time. Yet these same people, at
least about two thirds of them, gave up this economic comfort to commit
armed rebellion against the King and Parliament of the nation they
heretofore considered themselves loyal citizens of. What explains that?
Could be explained by the fact that the king taxed citizens without
protecting them.
No. It couldn't be that.
Who do you think financed the campaigns against the French and their Indian
allies during the wars of the 18th century in North America? It was the
King and Parliament. The British army and Royal Navy indeed protected the
colonies from French fleets and invasion by French troops and their allies.
The Proclamation of 1763 was precisely intended as a measure to protect the
English colonies from Indian depredations. And the line of proposed forts,
to be manned by British troops paid, armed, and supplied by the King and
Parliament to enforce this separation of British colonists from Indians (and
protect the Indians from English expansion into their territories) were to
be paid for by the various taxes passed by Parliament following the 1763
Treaty of Paris. All true. Read the volumes of the English State Papers
and private correspondence by the ministers involved from the period.
What purpose do you think the taxes on documents, tea, and other commodities
were raised for?
Could be explained by the fact that a line was draw at
the Alleghenies that prevented further expansion. Could be explained by
the economic strangle hold Britain had on colonial development. Could
be explained by the fact that settlers were driven wholesale from the
Shenandoah by Indian Raids, that the Crown had let defenses go to the
point where Indians were attacking the outskirts of Philadelphia.
Our laws are not
bible-based,
Did I ever write that they were?
But there are an awful lot of common points between the laws delineated
in
Exodus and Deuteronomy and the English Common Law. Do you really think
there were no Christian influences on the Common Law?
Minimal, if any.
You are mistaken again. John Adams and Jefferson exchanged some lengthy
letters on the subject which are a gold mine of sources of Christian
influences on the Common Law. You might consider reading Jefferson's letter
to Adams of January 24, 1814, and Adams' reply of March 3rd, 1814. You
might especially note the discussions of Blackstone, Prisot, Wingate, Finch,
Hale, and even Chief Justice Marshall.
How then do you account for the large number of similarities between the
Torah and the Common Law?
The COmmon Law invoked Roman Code.
Prove it. By the way, what happened to all these pagan Germanic influences?
Christ, you know nothing about this,
do you?
Don't call me Christ. Just a bit more than you apparently do.
our
Who do you mean by "our"?
sense of justice not in conformity with much, if
anything, in the Bible,
You must have a very strange sense of justice. So do you think murder is
permissible? Atheists have murdered more human beings than anyone else
in
human history, so I guess it does make sense that an atheist would
approve
of murder. You see, I read in the Bible in more than one place that
murder
is forbidden. Rape, robbery, perjury, and a host of other socially
intolerable conduct is defined and condemned by the Torah. Are those
offences not in conformity with your "sense of justice"?
Yes, and stoning people for collecting wood on the Sabbath is ok.
Where did you read that?
You
claim to have read Aquinas. You haven't, have you?
Some, yes.
Even he recognized
that there is a "natural law" that must be established for civilization
to exist. The natural law -- forbidding murder, theft, etc .-- is
external to Christianity.
Yes, Aquinas believed God was the source of the natural law. And everything
else, for that matter.
So you don't think the Bible contains common notions of justice with
American jurisprudence? That must mean you totally disregard Natural
Rights
theory as a contributing factor to the American Revolution. Do you?
Remember that in Natural Rights theory, the inalienable rights referred
to
in the Declaration of Independence are endowed by the "Creator." That
"Creator" is the Judeo-Christian God. I know certain atheists bloviate
about Islam also being a monotheistic religion and I am aware of a short
monotheistic belief in Egypt about 1800 B.C., and there may even be other
monotheistic religions in world history. But none of those contributed
to
Western European constructs of monotheism during the 18th century. And
you
should keep in mind that every time the word "rights" is used in the
Constitution, as it appears in the first, second, fourth, sixth, seventh,
and ninth amendments, the source of those rights is the Creator, which in
the context of the late 18th century in English North America and later
the
United
States of America, was the Judeo-Christian God.
Now behave and stop squealing. You can scream about Deism and atheism
all
you care to, but the God of American Deism was the Judeo-Christian God
stripped of certain Judaic and Christian accretions. Atheism was not a
contributing factor at all. The correct historical sequence is the
Judeo-Christian God from which the 18th century American Deist concept of
God evolved, and the writings of Adams, Jefferson, Paine, and a whole
bunch
of others is evidence for that intellectual history.
And the Preamble to the Constitution clearly states that one of the
objectives of this founding document was ". . . to secure the blessings
of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America." Who do you believe the
"Founding Fathers" considered to have been doing the "blessing" and
"bestowing" when these "blessings of liberty" were bestowed?
our religion
"Our religion"? "Our" is the first person plural, isn't it? Are you
religious?
was separated from our government,
You have that right. Religion was quite deliberately separated from the
national government, and the history of that idea is crystal clear from
the
documents of the period. But at the same time, the First Congress voted
to
pay a Christian Minister to minister in the Congress. Yeah, I am well
aware
that Madison was opposed to that. But Madison was not in the majority in
that instance, was he?
and our founders treated the Divine with benign indifference when
crafting our Bill of Rights.
You are mistaken. Obviously. The first words of the First Amendment in
the
Bill of Rights are, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, . . ." Please, do
tell us how that expresses "indifference," can you? I consider beginning
the Bill of Rights by delineating two principles concerning religion a
rather strange way to express indifference towards the Divine. In fact,
I
am inclined to believe that God and religion were so central to their
world
view and to their everyday lives that the "Founding Fathers" chose to
begin
the Bill of Rights by addressing religion.
At no point did anyone indicate disrespect for God or
"the Divine" as you worded it. When you read the words of the founders,
you
will find their goal was to prevent an establishment of religion. Their
writing are full of references to the abuses by various religions and
their
belief that many if not most of the Christian sects had twisted the words
of
God and Jesus into something they were never intended to be. Not even
Paine
and Jefferson attacked God or Jesus. Both enthusiastically attacked the
corruption of the word of God and of Jesus by people claiming to be
religious.
Had we based our government and constitution on the Bible, we'd have an
anointed King who would rule by divine right. People would be stoned to
death for personal moral offenses. We'd enslave those we defeated in
battle, rape their women, and confiscate their lands (actually we did
that to the Indians, but that was when we were still too Christian).
Women would have no power and no rights, and every man would have all
the concubines he could afford.
Only if one take the fundamentalist view that every word of the bible is
literally true. That is a minority view among Christians even today.
Why
do you atheists presume that the doctrines of the fundamentalists is the
possible Christian doctrine? I address this question specifically to you
because you obviously expressed that concept.
How do you explain the concept of "checks and balances" and the balance
of
factions and parties in the structure of the Constitution itself?
Why do you think the framers of the Constitution went to such great
lengths
to insure that not only would one man never have absolute power, but that
no
one interest or party would obtain absolute power?
Does that fit with Enlightenment philosophy that attributes nobility and
goodness to humanity? Or does it fit the Puritan Christian concept of
human
nature that all human beings are depraved and none can be trusted with
power
over another?
Which of those opposing concepts of human conduct do you think is
reflected
in these quotations from Federalist X?
"AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union,
none
deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and
control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never
finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he
contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail,
therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the
principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The
instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public
councils,
have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments
have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and
fruitful
topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious
declamations. . ."
"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a
majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some
common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of
other
citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
"There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by
removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects."
"There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one,
by
destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by
giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the
same
interests."
"It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was
worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an
aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less
folly
to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it
nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air,
which
is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive
agency."
"The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise.
As
long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to
exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection
subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his
passions
will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be
objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the
faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not
less
an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of
these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of
different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of
different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the
influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective
proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests
and
parties."
"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we
see
them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to
the
different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions
concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as
well
of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders
ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other
descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions,
have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual
animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each
other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this
propensity
of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial
occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions
have
been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most
violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has
been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and
those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in
society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a
like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a
mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow
up
of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different
classes,
actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these
various
and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation,
and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and
ordinary
operations of the government."
"No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest
would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his
integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit
to
be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the
most
important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not
indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights
of
large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of
legislators
but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law
proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the
creditors
are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to
hold
the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves
the
judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most
powerful
faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be
encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures?
are
questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the
manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to
justice
and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various
descriptions
of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality;
yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity
and
temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of
justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number,
is a
shilling saved to their own pockets."
"It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust
these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public
good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many
cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view
indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the
immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of
another or the good of the whole."
"The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction
cannot
be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of
controlling
its EFFECTS."
Did you follow all that? The "CAUSES of faction cannot be removed"
because
the "latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man." How
is
that not the same as the Christian doctrine of the depravity of
humankind?
If Madison's construct is not from the Christian doctrine of the
depravity
of humankind, tell us what the source is. Please be very specific.
.
