Take a look at these two photos. On the top is what the Metrodome, home of the Minnesota Vikings, is supposed to look like. On the bottom is what it looks like this morning after 16 inches of snow have been dumped on it.I can't help but think of the Dome as a metaphor this morning for the Democrats...super inflated and pumped up after the 2008 election...completely collapsed and deflated after a mountain of bullshit has been heaped upon them.
To me, the snow represents how the "minority" party can be effective if that party has a relentless, well financed engine of propaganda behind it. 30 percent approval rating or less? No problem. Let's get Rush, Glenn and Sarah on it. Problem solved. Democrats have nothing like this. Perhaps it's simply not in their nature. More likely is the fact that they don't have irrational fear combined with paranoia about the government on their side. Whatever the reason, the Democrats have caved to so many things in the last week that this image of the snow heaped Dome is honestly perfect.
For the next two years, they need to heed the advice of the unnamed Holocaust survivor. "When someone says they want to kill you, believe them." I know I'm going to heed it. Quite literally, lives are at stake as is the future of this country.
And I'm not going to sit around and watch aimlessly as pathological ideologues destroy it.
65 comments:
Damn that Global Warming.
This is why I find it laughable that you guys get so offended when we call you morons. Global warming causes drastic shifts in weather in either direction.
This is why I find it laughable that you guys get so offended when we call you morons. Global warming causes drastic shifts in weather in either direction.
This is why it's such a good wheeze. You can blame anything on it!
I think it's time for some Mark stories. Specifically, in what way has Mark changed your thinking on something? Speaking for myself, I support charter schools much more than I used to as a result of reading Mark. I used to be a bit leery of the notion of charter schools because I was worried that any sort of kook might be able to get taxpayer money to fund their school and teach kids nonsense. However, look at Mark though - involved in children's education, unable to parse logic, unable to construct coherent arguments, and relies primarily on appeals to emotion in order to try to make his points. And he's proud of all that. He is as bad for the education of future generations as any raving fundamentalist flat-earther. Moving taxpayer dollars away from Mark and those like him (or making him compete for them, at the least) can only be a good thing for our country. So thank you Mark. You have opened my eyes to the wrongness of my earlier position. Any other Mark stories out there?
Mark unable to grasp logic? Why do you people read this blog?
"And I'm not going to sit around and watch aimlessly as pathological ideologues destroy it."
Strong words. Any specific plans, or just blog your way to restoring the country?
dw
Logic, Haplo9? Where's the logic in your views? I don't see any from the tripe you have written on here. You don't like Mark because he points out the major flaws on your ideology. If he agreed with you, he'd be the best teacher in the world, right?
You want a story? Here's one...I used to be one of Mark's students. He coached me in tennis and then spent time tutoring me in history. When I got to college, my writing skills were vastly superior due to his instruction on essays on paper writing. Never once did he bring his opinions or bias to his teaching and always encouraged me to be a critical thinker. I have yet to see you be one. And emotion? That's laughable considering the bile you heap on him every day.
My parents were, and still are, staunch conservatives. To this day, they still send Mark a Christmas card every year because of how he helped me.
Where's the "logic" in thinking that climate change is a hoax? It's one thing to be skeptical and ask for more data. It's another to dismiss the theory as a liberal plot to force taxpayers out of their money. There is a ton of data to support that it is man made. This data is all peer reviewed and logically concluded based on evidence. Yet, that isn't logical either according to you. So who is the one giving in to emotion and ego?
I don't know Mark personally but I find his posts to be witty, intelligent, and right on the mark (hee hee!) He's certainly changed my mind about the seriousness of the threat we face from people like you, Haplo9. Continued insistence that liberals and progressives are wrong about everything, even in the face of the disastrous results of conservative/neo-libertarian policies such as deregulation, is literally insane. It is this type of insanity that I soft pedaled before I started reading this site. I won't make that mistake again and have since become more involved in stopping people like you-through peaceful means, of course.
Collapses like that are what happens when reality tests the quality of construction. For example, continued job losses are "unexpected" only to leftists.
Oh, and brendan? Maybe your ability to string words together got some benefit from Mark, but your "logic" is no better than his. So lets test whether or not Mark brought his biases into his history tutoring…
What was the most common view among the Founding Fathers about the relationship between religion and government?
What was the Founding Fathers' view about the purpose for government?
What was the Found Fathers' view about the problems with government?
What historical forces led to the United States becoming the most powerful nation in history?
And just out of curiosity, how much do your "staunch conservative" parents argue with things Mark taught you?
> Where's the "logic" in thinking that climate change is a hoax?
When the computer program used to produce the hockey chart graph produces the exact same results from random data.
When Mars showed evidence of warming at the exact same time the Earth was warming.
When research shows that the supposed "cause" of AGW (CO2) concentration changes follow temperature changes by about 400 years.
When other computer programs intended to model the environment are fed historical data to test their accuracy and produce results which do not match what actually happened. (Not even close!)
The fact that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was actually warmer than it is today; and they didn't suffer the "catastrophe" predicted by the Warmists, but actually saw a net benefit.
When there are emails uncovered from the only sources of global temperature showing deliberate collusion to hide evidence such as the MWP.
When there is evidence that average temperatures have been falling for the past 9 years.
When the raw temperature data upon which all the warming claims are based has been DELETED and is not available for peer review. (NOTE: This means the "peer reviewed" testing you claimed Is. Not. Possible!)
When many scientists whose names were attached to the IPCC report which started the whole AGW scare want their names removed because their results were manipulated after their involvement ended, or because their names were added over their objections.
When a single volcano can put out more CO2 that all humans could in all of recorded history.
When there are hundreds of temperature measurement stations which have environmental changes around them which obviously affect their readings. (Like air conditioners blowing hot air on the station, or building an asphalt parking lot near them, etc.)
When visitors to the Copenhagen conference on climate see far more literature on socialism and taking over society than on science, that leads one to think that AGW is only a (fake) tool being used to accomplish that goal.
Most telling of all: When Warmists blame colder temperatures on Global Warming. What kind of "logic" is that?!?
And in the "just for fun" category: When Warmists demonstrate "do as I say, not as I do" tactics, such as polluting far more than most people do to travel to climate conferences, or running a house that uses 10 times the average energy in a single month than most houses use in an entire year. Especially when those AGW conferences experience record low temperatures; repeatedly. (Note: Follow the money.)
> Where's the "logic" in thinking that climate change is a hoax?
When the computer program used to produce the hockey chart graph produces the exact same results from random data.
When Mars showed evidence of warming at the exact same time the Earth was warming.
When research shows that the supposed "cause" of AGW (CO2) concentration changes follow temperature changes by about 400 years.
When other computer programs intended to model the environment are fed historical data to test their accuracy and produce results which do not match what actually happened. (Not even close!)
The fact that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was actually warmer than it is today; and they didn't suffer the "catastrophe" predicted by the Warmists, but actually saw a net benefit.
When there are emails uncovered from the only sources of global temperature showing deliberate collusion to hide evidence such as the MWP.
When there is evidence that average temperatures have been falling for the past 9 years.
When the raw temperature data upon which all the warming claims are based has been DELETED and is not available for peer review. (NOTE: This means the "peer reviewed" testing you claimed Is. Not. Possible!)
When many scientists whose names were attached to the IPCC report which started the whole AGW scare want their names removed because their results were manipulated after their involvement ended, or because their names were added over their objections.
When a single volcano can put out more CO2 that all humans could in all of recorded history.
When there are hundreds of temperature measurement stations which have environmental changes around them which obviously affect their readings. (Like air conditioners blowing hot air on the station, or building an asphalt parking lot near them, etc.)
When visitors to the Copenhagen conference on climate see far more literature on socialism and taking over society than on science, that leads one to think that AGW is only a (fake) tool being used to accomplish that goal.
Most telling of all: When Warmists blame colder temperatures on Global Warming. What kind of "logic" is that?!?
And in the "just for fun" category: When Warmists demonstrate "do as I say, not as I do" tactics, such as polluting far more than most people do to travel to climate conferences, or running a house that uses 10 times the average energy in a single month than most houses use in an entire year. Especially when those AGW conferences experience record low temperatures; repeatedly. (Note: Follow the money.)
I almost forgot…
You're probably too young to remember, but doom and gloom predictions like this have been going on for decades, and longer.
Before there was "global warming", there was "global cooling". There were hundreds of books written about "The Coming Ice Age".
There were also chicken little books about overpopulation, and other fear and panic topics.
These things are nothing new, were always called "science", and later discovered to be complete frauds. Even without evidence such as what I listed above, there is ample reason to be suspicious of "Yet Another Prophet of Doom and Gloom."
BTW, aren't you the person I challenged to actually engage over at The Smallest Minority? If so, it seems you never showed up, and never took up the challenge of actually defending your beliefs. Based on this comment, you don't even know what those challenges are!
Hey I had a comment I put up on here and now it's gone. WTF?!!?
"You don't like Mark because he points out the major flaws on your ideology."
Just for shits and giggles: Brendan, will you please pick any 'major flaw' in any opposing ideology to your own, then expound upon it?
Perhaps it will stimulate me. Perhaps you will be absolutely correct. Perhaps you will make me think.
I'd rather work with your opinion, but if you can't think of anything specific, I'll repost this:
Perhaps you'd better explain yourself Mark. You say that none of us are in control of ourself?
Here's your chance to convince me that your way of thinking is better than my own personal opinion.
I say that each of us is under their own control. Depending on your level of self-control, your mileage out of life may vary.
Show me where I am wrong.
dw
I'm not the person you challenged over at the Smallest Minority.
Nice questions. All loaded for answers courtesy of the Tea Party. I think I'll pass on answering them individually as I know it will be a waste of time. But I will say this. One of the great things that Mark taught me was that the answers to questions such as yours have been the subject of debate from the beginning. There was no uniform view of the founding fathers on religion nor on the purpose or problems of government. As Mark has been saying recently, there as much disagreement. The national bank fight is an example of this. The Federalist Papers vs. the anti Federalist Papers are another. As blk said a while back, I imagine that you use the Constitution as a bludgeon to beat those "evil" liberals over the head with your views. Sorry, I don't drink wing nut Kool Aid.
My parents never argued with Mark because he taught me how to think critically and think for myself. He presented me with historical evidence that led me to question many of the things my parents had taught me. He didn't tell me what he thought. He told me what happened and the various views that came from each topic. Mainly, they were happy that I started getting B's and A's on papers instead of D's and C's. I have to say that I seriously doubt that the anti-Mark brigade on here understand what teachers are all about these days.
Reposted (attempt 2) due to Googles propensity for eating comments. (You're not alone on that Angela.)
> Where's the "logic" in thinking that climate change is a hoax?
When the computer program used to produce the hockey chart graph produces the exact same results from random data.
When Mars showed evidence of warming at the exact same time the Earth was warming.
When research shows that the supposed "cause" of AGW (CO2) concentration changes follow temperature changes by about 400 years.
When other computer programs intended to model the environment are fed historical data to test their accuracy and produce results which do not match what actually happened. (Not even close!)
The fact that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was actually warmer than it is today; and they didn't suffer the "catastrophe" predicted by the Warmists, but actually saw a net benefit.
When there are emails uncovered from the only sources of global temperature showing deliberate collusion to hide evidence such as the MWP.
When there is evidence that average temperatures have been falling for the past 9 years.
When the raw temperature data upon which all the warming claims are based has been DELETED and is not available for peer review. (NOTE: This means the "peer reviewed" testing you claimed Is. Not. Possible!)
When many scientists whose names were attached to the IPCC report which started the whole AGW scare want their names removed because their results were manipulated after their involvement ended, or because their names were added over their objections.
When a single volcano can put out more CO2 that all humans could in all of recorded history.
When there are hundreds of temperature measurement stations which have environmental changes around them which obviously affect their readings. (Like air conditioners blowing hot air on the station, or building an asphalt parking lot near them, etc.)
When visitors to the Copenhagen conference on climate see far more literature on socialism and taking over society than on science, that leads one to think that AGW is only a (fake) tool being used to accomplish that goal.
Most telling of all: When Warmists blame colder temperatures on Global Warming. What kind of "logic" is that?!?
And in the "just for fun" category: When Warmists demonstrate "do as I say, not as I do" tactics, such as polluting far more than most people do to travel to climate conferences, or running a house that uses 10 times the average energy in a single month than most houses use in an entire year. Especially when those AGW conferences experience record low temperatures; repeatedly. (Note: Follow the money.)
> I'm not the person you challenged over at the Smallest Minority.
That was intended for Angela, which would have been obvious if Google hadn't eaten the comment which that comment was supposed to follow. The challenge was made here, and was to go there and get involved in the discussions and defend her views since she was so certain that we're irrational. (If she was right, it should have been easy, but she never did it.)
> One of the great things that Mark taught me was that the answers to questions such as yours have been the subject of debate from the beginning.
Thank you for demonstrating that Mark's biases did affect what he taught you.
I chose those particular questions about history because:
A) The answers (to at least some of them) are easily seen by simply reading what they wrote. For example, the purpose for government is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, and in fact, it is the lynchpin of their argument.
B) That portion of history should be known by anyone graduating from high school.
C) Many people today do not like the principles held by the Founding Fathers. (Differences between the Founders were on most issues were relatively minor compared to today's disagreements; with slavery being one exception to that general rule.) Therefore, biases against their positions are often easy to spot; as you just demonstrated.
D) Those principles are central to the design and restrictions of the Constitution, and thus basic, foundational principles upon which this country is built.
Attempting to repost the missing comment for the third time. (Stupid Google!) You're not alone in having this problem, Angela.
(Part 1 of 2)
> Where's the "logic" in thinking that climate change is a hoax?
When the computer program used to produce the hockey chart graph produces the exact same results from random data.
When Mars showed evidence of warming at the exact same time the Earth was warming.
When research shows that the supposed "cause" of AGW (CO2) concentration changes follow temperature changes by about 400 years.
When other computer programs intended to model the environment are fed historical data to test their accuracy and produce results which do not match what actually happened. (Not even close!)
The fact that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was actually warmer than it is today; and they didn't suffer the "catastrophe" predicted by the Warmists, but actually saw a net benefit.
When there are emails uncovered from the only sources of global temperature showing deliberate collusion to hide evidence such as the MWP.
When there is significant evidence that average temperatures have been falling for the past 9 years.
(Repost: Part 2 of 2)
When the raw temperature data upon which all the warming claims are based has been DESTROYED and is not available for peer review. (NOTE: This means the "peer reviewed" testing you claimed Is. Not. Possible!)
When many scientists whose names were attached to the IPCC report which started the whole AGW scare want their names removed because their results were manipulated after their involvement ended, or because their names were added over their objections.
When a single volcano can put out more CO2 that all humans could in all of recorded history.
When there are hundreds of temperature measurement stations which have environmental changes around them which obviously affect their readings. (Like air conditioners blowing hot air on the station, or building an asphalt parking lot near them, etc.)
When visitors to the Copenhagen conference on climate see far more literature on socialism and taking over society than on science, that leads one to think that AGW is only a (fake) tool being used to accomplish that goal.
Most telling of all: When Warmists blame colder temperatures on Global Warming. What kind of "logic" is that?!?
And in the "just for fun" category: When Warmists demonstrate "do as I say, not as I do" tactics, such as polluting far more than most people do to travel to climate conferences, or running a house that uses 10 times the average energy in a single month than most houses use in an entire year. Especially when those AGW conferences experience record low temperatures; repeatedly. (Note: Follow the money.)
(Repost, attempt 4: Part 2 of 2)
When the raw temperature data upon which all the warming claims are based has been DESTROYED and is not available for peer review. (NOTE: This means the "peer reviewed" testing you claimed Is. Not. Possible!)
When many scientists whose names were attached to the IPCC report which started the whole AGW scare want their names removed because their results were manipulated after their involvement ended, or because their names were added over their objections.
When a single volcano can put out more CO2 that all humans could in all of recorded history.
When there are hundreds of temperature measurement stations which have environmental changes around them which obviously affect their readings. (Like air conditioners blowing hot air on the station, or building an asphalt parking lot near them, etc.)
When visitors to the Copenhagen conference on climate see far more literature on socialism and taking over society than on science, that leads one to think that AGW is only a (fake) tool being used to accomplish that goal.
Most telling of all: When Warmists blame colder temperatures on Global Warming. What kind of "logic" is that?!?
And in the "just for fun" category: When Warmists demonstrate "do as I say, not as I do" tactics, such as polluting far more than most people do to travel to climate conferences, or running a house that uses 10 times the average energy in a single month than most houses use in an entire year. Especially when those AGW conferences experience record low temperatures; repeatedly. (Note: Follow the money.)
(Repost, Attempt 5: Part 2 of 2)
When the raw temperature data upon which all the warming claims are based has been DESTROYED and is not available for peer review. (NOTE: This means the "peer reviewed" testing you claimed Is. Not. Possible!)
When many scientists whose names were attached to the IPCC report which started the whole AGW scare want their names removed because their results were manipulated after their involvement ended, or because their names were added over their objections.
When a single volcano can put out more CO2 that all humans could in all of recorded history.
When there are hundreds of temperature measurement stations which have environmental changes around them which obviously affect their readings. (Like air conditioners blowing hot air on the station, or building an asphalt parking lot near them, etc.)
When visitors to the Copenhagen conference on climate see far more literature on socialism and taking over society than on science, that leads one to think that AGW is only a (fake) tool being used to accomplish that goal.
Most telling of all: When Warmists blame colder temperatures on Global Warming. What kind of "logic" is that?!?
And in the "just for fun" category: When Warmists demonstrate "do as I say, not as I do" tactics, such as polluting far more than most people do to travel to climate conferences, or running a house that uses 10 times the average energy in a single month than most houses use in an entire year. Especially when those AGW conferences experience record low temperatures; repeatedly. (Note: Follow the money.)
(Repost, Attempt 6: Part 2 of 2)
When the raw temperature data upon which all the warming claims are based has been DESTROYED and is not available for peer review. (NOTE: This means the "peer reviewed" testing you claimed Is. Not. Possible!)
When many scientists whose names were attached to the IPCC report which started the whole AGW scare want their names removed because their results were manipulated after their involvement ended, or because their names were added over their objections.
When a single volcano can put out more CO2 that all humans could in all of recorded history.
When there are hundreds of temperature measurement stations which have environmental changes around them which obviously affect their readings. (Like air conditioners blowing hot air on the station, or building an asphalt parking lot near them, etc.)
When visitors to the Copenhagen conference on climate see far more literature on socialism and taking over society than on science, that leads one to think that AGW is only a (fake) tool being used to accomplish that goal.
Most telling of all: When Warmists blame colder temperatures on Global Warming. What kind of "logic" is that?!?
And in the "just for fun" category: When Warmists demonstrate "do as I say, not as I do" tactics, such as polluting far more than most people do to travel to climate conferences, or running a house that uses 10 times the average energy in a single month than most houses use in an entire year. Especially when those AGW conferences experience record low temperatures; repeatedly. (Note: Follow the money.)
"What was the most common view among the Founding Fathers about the relationship between religion and government?"
I'll answer that one. The Founding Fathers were deists. More info on that here.
http://earlyamericanhistory.net/founding_fathers.htm
Jefferson and Franklin were very anti-organized religion. The phrase "separation of church and state" came from Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. The United States Supreme Court has cited this intent frequently in its decisions regarding the First Amendment. Madison too wrote of "total separation of church and state." He wrote further.
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States."
http://www.constitution.org/jm/18191213_monopolies.htm
"Practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."
(1811 Letter to Baptist Churches).
Of course others such as Patrick Henry disagreed. As Brendan said above, there was no uniform view and your question, STI, is a lie or, as Wikipedia puts it, contains weasel words. Come to think of it, you're entire line of questions contain an overall, weaselly feeling to them.
We should also look to the Treaty of Tripoli, 1789, ratified by the US Senate which had this to say.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
And what of Thomas Paine and the Age of Reason? Perhaps a future post..
Clearly, the founding fathers were religious men of various Christian faiths but they were, without a doubt, products of the Age of Enlightenment. Men such as these saw the corruption of organized religion and how its connectivity to the government's in Europe was a disgusting malaise. There was no "common" view on how to solve this and there was plenty of debate to go around...just like today.
Alright, I guess I'll try this again. Mark has shown me that the the threat from the right, which I previously soft pedaled, is getting worse. Every day we see something new bit of insanity from them and it makes the business of solving our problems more difficult. I didn't realize how difficult until I started reading this site.
Take the post by STI above, for example, Any sources for your assertions from credible scientific organizations?
Many of your claims are instantly torpedoed by the three different investigations. Those three are:
1. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
2. Science Assessment Panel
3. Independent Climate Change Email Review.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP
http://www.cce-review.org/
This statement, for example, has now been show to be completely false by the above reports.
"When there are emails uncovered from the only sources of global temperature showing deliberate collusion to hide evidence such as the MWP"
What I don't understand here is what you believe the goal is of the "Warmists." Other than your usual rigidity about never being wrong, I don't get it. They're trying solve a problem and you're acting as if there is none. Thankfully, our armed forces aren't.
Haplo9, I don't know Mark personally but he comes off to me as being genuinely frustrated at the sheer ignorance, willful or otherwise, at the facts.
Here's a line of "logic" for you, Haplo9.
THE PLEDGE OF MARK'S WINGNUTS IN COMMENTS.
I (HAPLO9 or whoever) promise to:
1. Insult Mark personally to either provoke a reaction or make him feel off balance.
2. Follow the insult with color (e.g. Mark is illogical/stupid/emotional to a fault).
3. Conclude that 1 and 2 means he's wrong about everything forever and ever, Amen.
which means I win. YEA ME!
Comment gone again...trying again...
Alright, I guess I'll try this again. Mark has shown me that the the threat from the right, which I previously soft pedaled, is getting worse. Every day we see something new bit of insanity from them and it makes the business of solving our problems more difficult. I didn't realize how difficult until I started reading this site.
Take the post by STI above, for example, Any sources for your assertions from credible scientific organizations?
Many of your claims are instantly torpedoed by the three different investigations. Those three are:
1. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
2. Science Assessment Panel
3. Independent Climate Change Email Review.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP
http://www.cce-review.org/
This statement, for example, has now been show to be completely false by the above reports.
"When there are emails uncovered from the only sources of global temperature showing deliberate collusion to hide evidence such as the MWP"
What I don't understand here is what you believe the goal is of the "Warmists." Other than your usual rigidity about never being wrong, I don't get it. They're trying solve a problem and you're acting as if there is none. Thankfully, our armed forces aren't.
I don't know what is going on with comments, folks. Make sure you paste before you post! Or email me and when I post them people with think I'm secretly posting as someone else:)
jeffc, I may make your comment into a post. There should be a preamble to it, though. Something along the lines of "When Mark says something I don't like, emotionally upsets me, or makes me feel insecure about my ideology, I promise to..."
> The Founding Fathers were deists.
Wow! Talk about your EPIC FAIL! This was less than one month ago on your very own blog (see the second comment from the end):
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10123622&postID=191993696997661705
Here's more:
http://bit.ly/1fKIzz
http://bit.ly/2TBxN1
http://bit.ly/7AnpJ
http://bit.ly/DAttb
You should already know this, but it seems necessary to point it out again:
May 1, 1789 - Congress initiates the practice of opening every session with prayer, paying a chaplain to do so.
September 25, 1789 - The final wording of the First Amendment was settled. (It took more than 2 years for the ratification process to be completed.)
September 25, 1789 (Yes, the same day the First Amendment was finished) - Congress unanimously approved this resolution:
"Day of Thanksgiving. Resolved. That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness."
I find it fascinating that you claim to be a Christian, yet you work so hard to deny Christianity.
"But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven."
— Matthew 10:33
(Repost, Attempt 7: Part 2 of 2)
When the raw temperature data upon which all the warming claims are based has been DESTROYED and is not available for peer review. (NOTE: This means the "peer reviewed" testing you claimed Is. Not. Possible!)
When many scientists whose names were attached to the IPCC report which started the whole AGW scare want their names removed because their results were manipulated after their involvement ended, or because their names were added over their objections.
When a single volcano can put out more CO2 that all humans could in all of recorded history.
When there are hundreds of temperature measurement stations which have environmental changes around them which obviously affect their readings. (Like air conditioners blowing hot air on the station, or building an asphalt parking lot near them, etc.)
When visitors to the Copenhagen conference on climate see far more literature on socialism and taking over society than on science, that leads one to think that AGW is only a (fake) tool being used to accomplish that goal.
Most telling of all: When Warmists blame colder temperatures on Global Warming. What kind of "logic" is that?!?
And in the "just for fun" category: When Warmists demonstrate "do as I say, not as I do" tactics, such as polluting far more than most people do to travel to climate conferences, or running a house that uses 10 times the average energy in a single month than most houses use in an entire year. Especially when those AGW conferences experience record low temperatures; repeatedly. (Note: Follow the money.)
I'm not sure how many of Mark's students know about this blog. I was one of his students a couple of years ago. He did show us The Smallest Minority blog back in 2008 as part of one of his election units but we never talked about his. I found out after I graduated about it. Oh, I should mention that I'm the student of his that is attending Notre Dame.
Mark was always careful (overly so actually) to not inject any of his own bias into lessons. He's main goal was to have us answer the "whys" and "hows" and analyze for ourselves different events. He offered us many perspectives. The one I remember well (because I completely disagreed with the author) was Clarence Carson. We spent a lot of time on him.
Mark taught me how to be a critical thinker as well as how to smash a kicker out wide on the ad court!
Did you read the link I provided regarding deism? Or any of the other ones?
I guess I'm not certain what your claim is. You better spell it out for me because your original question had to do with the relationship between church and state. Yet your links seem to be driving towards the notion that the founding fathers were nearly all Christian which I agreed with in my last line above.
>You don't like Mark because he points out the major flaws on your ideology. If he agreed with you, he'd be the best teacher in the world, right?
It would be nice if he could point out such flaws. Then there might actually be some thinking happening around here.
But you see, I happen to work in an industry (engineering) where the logical means I use to solve a problem have to be right, the solution I construct will fail. In other words, reality doesn't work a certain way just because I wish it did. So we don't speak the same language - you and Mark speak of how you wish things would work, regardless of how likely or unlikely it is for things to work that way. We speak of how things will likely work, given the past behavior of the system. This is known as experience - much denigrated by those who don't have any, but invaluable to those who wish to accomplish things. Both you and Mark would have to do a lot of growing up to do before there would be any convincing going on around here. Well, mostly you, as you seem to still be young. Mark, at his age, is pretty much a lost cause.
>And emotion? That's laughable considering the bile you heap on him every day.
What's laughable is that you would say this on a blog where the title a few posts down is "fuck you." Mark has been 99% emotion driven since day one.
>1. Insult Mark personally to either provoke a reaction or make him feel off balance.
Now now jeff. There is a bit of difference between my insults and Mark's - mine are right out in the open - I think he's an emotion driven, irrational buffoon. Mark, on the other hand, tries to hide his insults behind rhetoric so he can act like he never insulted anyone. Or did you think trying to tell other people that he knows their best interest better than them is a compliment?
>2. Follow the insult with color (e.g. Mark is illogical/stupid/emotional to a fault).
Guilty as charged, though I'd say I'm just calling it how I see it.
3. Conclude that 1 and 2 means he's wrong about everything forever and ever, Amen.
Wrong. Though his claims certainly warrant more skepticism than normal, given his terrible track record at backing up said claims. That said, all he would have to do is stop the fallacies - appeals to emotion, appeals to authority, attacking strawmen, drawing conclusions from data that doesn't support his conclusions, and generally checking his ego at the door. I admit I have my doubts that he can do that, because that is all he has ever done, but if he were to start doing so, you might be surprised at the reaction.
> Did you read the link I provided regarding deism? Or any of the other ones?
I have to admit that I haven't had time to read your links, because I've been too busy fighting Google's d*mn deletion of comments. (I gave up on trying to get part 2 of 2 posted after 8 attempts, even though there was no quoting, no swearing, and nothing else wrong with it.) However, I'm quite familiar with the arguments atheists use to push that claim. They tend to make 3 claims:
1) That Deism was common at the time. It wasn't. In fact, Deism generally collapsed as a movement around 1740, and was held in such poor regard that many states had made it illegal for confessed Deists to hold office.
2) Deism is redefined as something it wasn't. Deism is, and has always been, a belief in an absentee god who wound up the universe and left it alone. They believe that God doesn't answer prayer, that he did not send Jesus to save us from sins, that God doesn't perform miracles, and that he did not reveal himself in the Bible.
3) This distorted definition is applied to Founding Fathers as if that was the default position, clear evidence of their orthodox Christian beliefs (such as in the links I provided) is ignored, and Deism is read into every possible silence or writing as if public proclamations of "I am not a Deist" every morning, noon, evening and midnight of every single day of their life would be barely sufficient to "prove" that they're not a Deist.
Dr. M. E. Bradford did a study of the religion of the signers of the Constitution. (Described in the book A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the Units States Consitution.) He found that 28 were Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 3 Deists, and 1 unknown. These results were based on church membership records, which at the time required that members swear, and continue to profess, adherence to the denominations' doctrinal creeds. Every one of the non-Deist denominations would be called Fundamentalist by today's standards, and all were incompatible with Deism.
Your claim that the Founding Fathers were all Deists is contrary to the available evidence; which is just a nice way of saying that it's flat wrong.
> I guess I'm not certain what your claim is.
The Founding Fathers did not intend for the First Amendment to keep religion from having any influence or relationship to government, because the very same men who wrote the First Amendment, also established religious practices; specifically, Christian practices within government itself.
> Yet your links seem to be driving towards the notion that the founding fathers were nearly all Christian which I agreed with in my last line above.
The links were in response to your claim that the Founding Fathers were Deists.
You actually provided the appropriate reference which defines the central characteristic of Christianity:
If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
— Romans 10:9
Deism actively denies that Jesus is Lord by denying that God even sent Him. It also denies that he was raised from the dead. Therefore, Deism contradicts Christianty's central claim. A person could be a Deist or a Christian (or something else) but not both.
Why did I even bother writing a response?!? G** D*** Google ate another one!
Even Echo was never this bad.
The question:
What was the most common view among the Founding Fathers about the relationship between religion and government?
The response:
As Brendan said above, there was no uniform view and your question, STI, is a lie or, as Wikipedia puts it, contains weasel words.
You do know what the phrase "most common view" actually means, don't you? It means "the view held by more people in X group than any other view".
In other words, the use of the phrase "most common view" states explicitly that the views are not uniform. In your world this apparently means that it must be a lie because it says exactly what you just did.
And you wonder why we have doubts about your grasp of language and your grasp of logic, and thus tend to be skeptical of your opinions.
As a former mentor and now colleague of Mark, I knew he would make an excellent instructor when he told me very early on that he looks at himself "as an overpaid missionary and not an underpaid teacher." Haplo9, I've been in the education business for over 30 years and Mark's work is superior. I have no problem with charter schools and think that our education system can always use new ideas but your attempt to use them to personally insult Mark is childish.
(Let's try this again. Part 1 of 2)
> Did you read the link I provided regarding deism? Or any of the other ones?
I have to admit that I haven't had time to read your links, because I've been too busy fighting Google's d*mn deletion of comments. (I gave up on trying to get part 2 of 2 posted after 8 attempts, even though there was no quoting, no swearing, and nothing else wrong with it.) However, I'm quite familiar with the arguments atheists use to push that claim. They tend to make 3 claims:
1) That Deism was common at the time. It wasn't. In fact, Deism generally collapsed as a movement around 1740, and was held in such poor regard that many states had made it illegal for confessed Deists to hold office.
2) Deism is redefined as something it wasn't. Deism is, and has always been, a belief in an absentee god who wound up the universe and left it alone. They believe that God doesn't answer prayer, that he did not send Jesus to save us from sins, that God doesn't perform miracles, and that he did not reveal himself in the Bible.
3) This distorted definition is applied to Founding Fathers as if that was the default position, clear evidence of their orthodox Christian beliefs (such as in the links I provided) is ignored, and Deism is read into every possible silence or writing as if public proclamations of "I am not a Deist" every morning, noon, evening and midnight of every single day of their life would be barely sufficient to "prove" that they're not a Deist.
Dr. M. E. Bradford did a study of the religion of the signers of the Constitution. (Described in the book A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the Units States Consitution.) He found that 28 were Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 3 Deists, and 1 unknown. These results were based on church membership records, which at the time required that members swear, and continue to profess, adherence to the denominations' doctrinal creeds. Every one of the non-Deist denominations would be called Fundamentalist by today's standards, and all were incompatible with Deism.
Your claim that the Founding Fathers were all Deists is contrary to the available evidence; which is just a nice way of saying that it's flat wrong.
(Part 2 of 2)
> I guess I'm not certain what your claim is.
The Founding Fathers did not intend for the First Amendment to keep religion from having any influence or relationship to government, because the very same men who wrote the First Amendment, also established religious practices; specifically, Christian practices within government itself.
> Yet your links seem to be driving towards the notion that the founding fathers were nearly all Christian which I agreed with in my last line above.
The links were in response to your claim that the Founding Fathers were Deists.
You actually provided the appropriate reference which defines the central characteristic of Christianity:
If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
— Romans 10:9
Deism actively denies that Jesus is Lord by denying that God even sent Him. It also denies that he was raised from the dead. Therefore, Deism contradicts Christianty's central claim. A person could be a Deist or a Christian (or something else) but not both.
(Attempt 3: Part 2 of 2)
> Did you read the link I provided regarding deism? Or any of the other ones?
I have to admit that I haven't had time to read your links, because I've been too busy fighting Google's d*mn deletion of comments. (I gave up on trying to get part 2 of 2 posted after 8 attempts, even though there was no quoting, no swearing, and nothing else wrong with it.) However, I'm quite familiar with the arguments atheists use to push that claim. They tend to make 3 claims:
1) That Deism was common at the time. It wasn't. In fact, Deism generally collapsed as a movement around 1740, and was held in such poor regard that many states had made it illegal for confessed Deists to hold office.
2) Deism is redefined as something it wasn't. Deism is, and has always been, a belief in an absentee god who wound up the universe and left it alone. They believe that God doesn't answer prayer, that he did not send Jesus to save us from sins, that God doesn't perform miracles, and that he did not reveal himself in the Bible.
3) This distorted definition is applied to Founding Fathers as if that was the default position, clear evidence of their orthodox Christian beliefs (such as in the links I provided) is ignored, and Deism is read into every possible silence or writing as if public proclamations of "I am not a Deist" every morning, noon, evening and midnight of every single day of their life would be barely sufficient to "prove" that they're not a Deist.
Dr. M. E. Bradford did a study of the religion of the signers of the Constitution. (Described in the book A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the Units States Consitution.) He found that 28 were Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 3 Deists, and 1 unknown. These results were based on church membership records, which at the time required that members swear, and continue to profess, adherence to the denominations' doctrinal creeds. Every one of the non-Deist denominations would be called Fundamentalist by today's standards, and all were incompatible with Deism.
Your claim that the Founding Fathers were all Deists is contrary to the available evidence; which is just a nice way of saying that it's flat wrong.
I give up. Google is repeatedly refusing to allow me to respond so I'll simplify it.
Evidence must be ignored and other "evidence" simply made up or twisted hard to make the claim that the Founders were Deists, and is therefore flat wrong.
Dr. D-
While I confess to being perhaps overly sarcastic in my first comment, I'm quite serious about Mark changing my thinking about charter schools. His writing on this blog has led me to distrust his instincts and motives.
As his mentor, I have to ask - are you proud of the thought processes he's developed? Consider, in this very post, he's likened opposition to his preferred policies as the equivilent to attempts by the Nazis to kill a lot of people. Is that a valuable perspective on politics in the United States? Is that a sentiment worthy of respect?
The original question:
What was the most common view among the Founding Fathers about the relationship between religion and government?
Mark's response:
As Brendan said above, there was no uniform view and your question, STI, is a lie or, as Wikipedia puts it, contains weasel words.
Do you even know the meaning of the phrase, "most common"? It means, "more than any other in a given grouping". In other words, it is an explicit statement that "there was no uniform view", by virtue of being "most common" rather than "only". It includes the assumption that there are other, less common results in that grouping.
And yet you label it "a lie", apparently because it says exactly what you did, that "there was no uniform view".
And you wonder why we have doubts about your command of the English language and your ability to think logically, and tend to be skeptical of your opinions. I'm starting to suspect that when you refer to "critical thinking" you are using "critical" in the way the medical profession uses it: "Requiring constant external life support to keep from dying entirely".
Sounds like everyone Markadelphia teaches/mentors turns out liberal. Coincidence? Get out into the real world kids.
Thanks for the kind words, Dr. D:)
STI, so what is your vision of what our government should be based on your assertions? A Christian theocracy? The Constitution is pretty clear that people have the freedom to worship whatever God they please and the government should not be involved in it at all.
I will agree that our founding fathers brought several basic Christian principles with them in formulating the Constitution. Both Franklin and Jefferson would disagree with your assertion that Deism and Christianity are mutually exclusive. Deism is not a religion. Unitarianism is a religion, however, that does not believe in the Trinity. Do you think that they are not "real" Christians? John Adams was a Unitarian.
Again, though, I would ask you to read the entire article on the founding fathers and deism that I linked and point out to me what "made up evidence" or "twisted hard." Specifically, which of his references do you find at fault? There are ample writings to support the article's assertions.
It seems to me that you are trying to paint the men that constructed our nation out to be right wing evangelical Christians. Is that true? I guess I need more information before I comment further.
> Both Franklin and Jefferson would disagree with your assertion that Deism and Christianity are mutually exclusive.
Wow! Just… wow!
Only you, M, could look square at an obvious contradiction—that Deism denies the resurrection* and Christianity requires the resurrection†—and continue to argue that they're compatible.
You claim to be a critical thinker, therefore, it doesn't matter what Franklin and Jefferson "would" say. You have the ideas right in front of you to examine for yourself. A real critical thinker is capable of identifying the contradiction for themselves—especially such an elementary and obvious contradiction. You obviously cannot.
Apparently you need to be reminded of the basic rules of logic. There are only three of them. The second one is the law of noncontradiction (sometimes stated as the law of contradiction). It states:
Contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way.
http://bit.ly/hKquxM
Be aware kids. Asserting that two fundamentally contradictory claims are compatible with each other is not even basic, elementary logic, and therefore is not actually critical thinking. If you think it is, then M has led you astray. I suggest you start over by learning what actual logic is. Start with the three basic laws of logic, then look into deductive and inductive reasoning. I also suggest that you become familiar with what logical fallacies are and why they are not actual logic. (Here's a good list to start with: http://bit.ly/mDeZu)
There are so many more problems with M's comment, but Google will probably eat my comment anyway, so I'm stopping here.
* Deism also denies miracles, God interceding in history, and the Bible as God's revelation. See http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm
† You actually pointed out the reference for this side of the contradiction; which makes your blindness to it all the more amazing
Mark unable to grasp logic? Why do you people read this blog?
Cheap entertainment, and worth every penny I pay for it!
brendan sez I think I'll pass on answering them
Well I am convinced - you were one of M's students.
Dr D sez "as an overpaid missionary and not an underpaid teacher."
As an atheist parent I find that a horrifying attitude.
Not to worry though Dr. D - M quite recently complained about how the schools are underfunded. So did you know he was a liar back then? Do you even care?
"Only you, M, could look square at an obvious contradiction—that Deism denies the resurrection* and Christianity requires the resurrection†—and continue to argue that they're compatible."
Actually, not only me. From the article linked above.
"Deism could fall into certain subcategories of Deist-Christian (i.e. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson) and Deist non-Christian (i.e. Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen). Deist-Christians generally believed the Bible provided good lessons to live by and they attended church regularly. Deist non-Christians generally felt that Christianity was largely an impediment to growth and they did not attend church regularly."
There are several problems we are having here. The first is that you are comparing Deism, a philosophy about religion, with Christianity, a religion. Unitarianism would be a more appropriate comparison. It was officially recognized as a religion in the 1700s. Unitarianism is a religion that does not believe in the Trinity but does believe in Christ's position beneath God and in salvation through the lessons he taught. Are they Christians or not?
" A real critical thinker is capable of identifying the contradiction for themselves—especially such an elementary and obvious contradiction. You obviously cannot."
A real critical thinker would a). Understand the difference between a philosophy and a religion; b)not be blinded by personal belief; and c)not make sweeping comments about the founding fathers that further these beliefs.
It does matter what they say because that's how we judge what their thoughts were regarding the separation of church and state. Here are some quotes.
George Washington
"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country"
John Adams:
"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"
Just six years after the First Amendment became an official part of the Constitution, the U.S. Senate read (in the English language) and ratified a treaty with Tripoli which included in Article 11 the following assertion: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" (John Adams, 1797, Hunter Miller, ed., Treaties and other International Acts, 2:365).
Thomas Jefferson:
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."
"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill."
Continuing for the hard of hearing...
James Madison:
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."
Benjamin Franklin:
"I believe in one God, Creator of the universe.... That the most acceptable service we can render Him is doing good to His other children.... As to Jesus ... I have ... some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble." - Benjamin Franklin (Alice J. Hall, "Philosopher of Dissent: Benj. Franklin," National Geographic, Vol. 148, No. 1, July, 1975, p. 94.)
"When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." - Benjamin Franklin (from a letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780;)
Thomas Paine:
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."
"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."
"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."
"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance."
And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."
The link above also provides an answer to your original question to Brendan.
http://earlyamericanhistory.net/church_and_state.htm
"The concept of separation of church and state would be decided by a very strange combination of liberals and evangelists. At the risk of oversimplifying, the Deists and Unitarians wanted to make sure a dominant religion did not subjugate reason and practical economic thought. Baptists, Methodists, and other up-and-coming Protestant groups wanted to make sure no dominant religion subjugated their religious beliefs. Neither of these groups wanted to see a state-sponsored religion. Both thought a dominant religious system could lead to taxable coercion and a stifling of free thought.
These two very different groups saw the situation the same way. Without separation, a religious monopoly was always possible. There were at the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 enough Anglicans who were also liberal enough to also join forces with Deists and evangelical groups. Quakers and Mennonites had always wanted separation for fear of persecution, so they too were on board. Thanks to both James Madison (the real policy wonk) and Thomas Jefferson, the separation of church and state was outlined in Congress and born in writing – the first nation to do so."
And that's not even counting the separation that was handled at the state level. Your assertion that they were nearly all Christian is true but one group wanted the state out of the business of religion and the other wanted religion out of the business of the state.
Because they were products of the Age of Enlightenment, they came up with an answer for both which is why they were such remarkable men.
I'd also like it noted that STI has yet to answer many of my questions of him. I have no problem with this whatsoever but wonder why the rest of you have not accused him from "running away" from arguments.
So your argument is to appeal to authority rather than looking directly at the evidence itself?
Appealing to authority is one of those fallacies from the list I linked to earlier. Here are the details:
http://bit.ly/4bXNLr
True critical thinking tests the evidence and thought process used by experts to reach their conclusions. I've pointed as close as possible to original evidence as the internet allows. Yet you still prefer your "experts" over looking at the original evidence for yourself (such as the Founder's actual actions). That's not critical thinking.
Furthermore, whether or not Deism is a "religion" is irrelevant. (Determining relevancy is another crucial component to actual critical thinking; another skill you lack.) Both are beliefs about whether or not a particular event happened in history; specifically the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead 3 days after his crucifixion.
Notice the wording: "whether or not". P or Not P. Only one belief can be true.
If one person says "Jesus rose from the dead" and another says "No he didn't," those two people are contradicting each other. Period. Full Stop.
For the record, Deism fits the dictionary definition of "religion":
http://bit.ly/otjr
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually [but not always] involving devotional and ritual observances, and often [but not always] containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
Furthermore, philosophy and religion are not distinct from each other:
http://bit.ly/eaFoz8
"One cannot undertake a credible history of philosophy without taking philosophy of religion seriously."
Our discussion is about the founding fathers. So quoting them and their thoughts on religion and government is now appealing to authority? That makes no sense. In addition, you made a statement
"Only you, M, could look square at an obvious contradiction—that Deism denies the resurrection* and Christianity requires the resurrection†—and continue to argue that they're compatible."
I refuted that statement by showing that someone else did as well and it wasn't only me. Now you accuse me of appealing to authority? Are your being an asshole on purpose or will you admit your error?
There was also no appeal to authority in my own statement which I will repost again.
--Your assertion that they were nearly all Christian is true but one group wanted the state out of the business of religion and the other wanted religion out of the business of the state--
Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, where is your evidence from the sources themselves (i.e the founding fathers)?
I gather from your statements above that you do NOT think that Unitarians are Christians. True or false?
Also, how does logic figure in to matters of faith? My view is that it doesn't.
I'm sticking to one topic, 'cause that's all I have time for. So suck it up.
and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is without foundation, and so is your faith. In addition, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified about God that He raised up Christ—whom He did not raise up if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Therefore, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished. If we have put our hope in Christ for this life only, we should be pitied more than anyone.
— 1 Corinthians 15:14–19
In other words, if Jesus Christ did not actually rise from the dead—in other words, if it's not an actual historical event—then Christianity is a sham, a lie, a belief that's less than worthless. Logic has EVERYTHING to do with it.
The Bible's definition of "faith" is NOT "blind faith, preferably in spite of evidence", it's "active trust based on what you've been shown to be true".
You've claimed repeatedly that you're a Christian. It seems your definition of "Christian" is someone who engages in wishful/fanciful thinking in spite of the evidence.
I gotta say that your track record certainly fits the part of that definition starting at "someone."
> So quoting them and their thoughts on religion and government is now appealing to authority?
No. Your reliance on your links for the distorted definition of Deism and cherry picked quotes from the Founding Fathers, while ignoring other, far more clear quotes from them is the appeal to authority.
Our discussion is about the founding fathers.
Of whom, oh say 200 or so who were most highly influential you've identified a handful that you can quote approvingly as nice, safe "Deists". Nor do you account for the chaplaincy in Congress (which has rotated through many denominations, but never "Deist"), the opening of each session with prayer or the invocation at the Supreme Court: "God save the United States and this honorable court". What God do you think they are addressing?
The simple fact was that overwhelmingly they were Christian, of one flavor or another. Why do you find that so problematic? Are you convinced that all Christians are incapable of rational thought, and/or the ability to parse politics from religious belief? That would seem odd coming from a self-professed Christian!
Are your being an asshole on purpose or will you admit your error?
Pot meet kettle!
> I refuted that statement by showing that someone else did as well and it wasn't only me. Now you accuse me of appealing to authority?
Yep. Take a good close look at the bold portion of your own statement. Instead of addressing what you think made the statement wrong, you appealed to someone else who makes the same claim you do. If you're claiming the other person is an expert, that is an appeal to authority. If it's just "a bunch of other people agree with me" then it's an appeal to the people (http://bit.ly/12SFgv). Both are the same basic fallacy.
Feel free to pick yer poison. Either way, it's still poison.
Juris, I think you need to re-read what Mark wrote.
"Your assertion that they were nearly all Christian is true."
"I will agree that our founding fathers brought several basic Christian principles with them in formulating the Constitution."
"the founding fathers were nearly all Christian which I agreed with in my last line above."
So, why are you being contrary? Just a natural reaction? He agrees that nearly all the founding fathers were Christian. The problem here is that Speaking Truth thinks that some of them aren't because of their well documented Deist leanings. He thinks they can't be both. Apparently, he thinks that Unitarians aren't Christians either. This is where the debate is but let's remember where it started.
Speaking Truth asked a question up above.
"What was the most common view among the Founding Fathers about the relationship between religion and government?"
Here is the correct answer based on verifiable evidence.
--Your assertion that they were nearly all Christian is true but one group wanted the state out of the business of religion and the other wanted religion out of the business of the state--
This is why they made the Constitution the way they did and why it is brilliant.
That's right, Tess dearest! It was the men who would be considered evangelical and right wing today that wanted the government out of the religion business because of what had been happening at Europe for the centuries previous. They loathed the concept of bishops and the papacy. They wanted people to be able to worship freely without any sort of authority hanging over their heads. They found allies in the rest of the FFs who wanted religion out of the government business and, presto!, we have our freedom. For now, anyways, because it seems like some people want a theocracy back again.
Thanks, girls. As you can see, juris, I have no problem admitting that they were nearly all Christian. I did so three times.
"It seems your definition of "Christian" is someone who engages in wishful/fanciful thinking in spite of the evidence."
Y'know, one could argue that there really isn't any evidence at all. Sure, there are few writings outside of the Bible but the Resurrection is a matter of faith, not fact and logic.
And it's not up to me to judge other people's path to Jesus Christ. I know what I believe and it's clear what the founding fathers believed, based on their writings, and why they constructed the Constitution the way they did. Angela summed it up quite nicely above.
No problem if you want to stick to one topic and don't have the time. Living your life is more important than debating on this blog.
I'll answer that one. The Founding Fathers were deists. More info on that here.
A handful of the 200 or so Founding Fathers were deists. That is not "The Founding Fathers were deists". Not even close. In fact, it is a perfect reason to bring this up, because you are doing the same damn thing. You can simultaneously argue "A" and "not A" and think you are being consistent?
What is it about being liberal that encourages such sloppy 'thinking'?
I think the problem here is that we have different definitions of the Founding Fathers. When I made this statement, I was thinking about the most influential...Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Madison, Adams, Monroe...Paine published Age of Reason and helped to spread it throughout America and Europe. I was also thinking of Allen, Harnett, Morris, and Williamson.
Now, I'd hardly diminish these men as a "handful" would you? These were the key men that guided this country in its nascence. Are you honestly saying that Joseph Hewes was as influential as Franklin or Jefferson?
The other thing you might want to look into are the ten men who were Congregationalists. How did they view governing?
Jefferson, Franklin and Paine were undoubtedly the free-est thinkers. I think you are stretching to include Washington, Adams and Madison who did not - according to any biographical material I've ever seen (and a stray quote or even two is not indicative) - have such tendencies. Whig politics and/or Enlightenment philosophy does not equal deist belief.
Non-sectarianism was already a cornerstone American value - given that so many came to the Colonies in search of religious freedom (at least in general - most were strict and intolerant within their own communities). That they agreed to enshrine that in the Constitution does not mean they were secularists, deists (or quasi-Christians) in general. It just shows the exceptional good sense they had - which even their religious beliefs did not eclipse. And that they feared govt interference in religious practice as much as (if not more than) religious influence in the public square.
Post a Comment