Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Founders in Lock Step

In response to Obscure Definition of Post Modernism posted by pink101:

By the way, has someone told you that the Founding Fathers were all in lock step with each other?

Of course not. But there were SOME areas of agreement and/or some issues in which the RANGE or SCOPE of disagreement was significantly narrower than is the case today.

There are guiding, overall principles upon which the Founders (all of them) DID agree.

Of course, some of them were one hundred percent in favor of a religiously based society.

Glad to hear you acknowledge that.

But, as a group, they were opposed to it.

YOUR evidence for this is.......?

Don't give me Thomas Paine. He was in the MINORITY on the matter of religion, my friend, when it came to the Founders.

Also, this is where TERMINOLOGY becomes critical. If you mean by "religiously based society," a society that is governed by a denomination, organization, or group of "theocrat" type elders...then...YES, you are correct. A majority of Founders - pretty much all of them - rejected that.

If you, however, mean a society that is GOVERNED by overtly religious principles and that pays official and deferential respect to religious tradition and belief, then you are most definitely WRONG.

Such a society is precisely what a majority of the Founders WANTED!

So, those cards you played about John Adams and T. Jefferson's comments regarding the King of Kings don't trump anything.

Adams and Jefferson were two of the MOST influential thinkers in early America. So, these quotes count for a LOT in terms of what the founding generation thought and believed.

I must say they sound good for someone who wants to believe them as proof our Founders wanted America to be a Bible believing nation of obedient Christians.

Neither Jefferson nor Adams were orthodox, evangelical, Bible-believers. I chose them deliberately, because I'm NOT advocating the extreme that YOU think I am. Jefferson and Adams wanted a society that respected and honored religious (particularly Judeo-Christian) morality, but NOT one in which belief in a certain sect was coerced. That is what I want as well.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Founders in Lock Step

In response to Founders in Lock Step posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I had posted, " But, as a group, they were opposed to [a religion based government]."
,
And Brian, asked,.
.
YOUR evidence for this is.......?
.
The First Amendment.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - First Amendment

In response to Founders in Lock Step posted by pink101:

Nice try, but the First Amendment didn't MEAN to the Founding Fathers what the modern Supreme Court, the ACLU, the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and presumably you today consider as its meaning.

The meaning of the First Amendment has, over the years, CHANGED. That's a traceable historical fact. So, don't throw the First Amendment at me, unless you're prepared to discuss what the FOUNDERS meant by the First Amendment.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - First Amendment

In response to First Amendment posted by BrianTubbs:

.
You wouldn't admit to the truth here if you were able to question the Ffounding Fathers and have them give sworn statements. You'd think they were influenced by some thing or another.
.
You come here with too much baggage. If the Founding Fathers had intended this nation to be a nation based on religious principles (laws) they would have made that point entirely clear. They were well aware of the pressures to have such laws in place and that was part of the reason the wanted a Bill of Rights with in the Constitution.
.
You KNOW that.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Laws and Principles

In response to First Amendment posted by pink101:

We need to FLESH out a distinction here. I think a key aspect of our exchange here is what we each understand when we use the term "religious principle." You seem to think in terms of a religious organization or denomination handing down an edict as a law that will be binding on the society. I don't see it that way. If I did, then I'd be in agreement with you.

The Founders believed that, if you combine all the Christian denominations and all the major world religions (namely Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) into a Venn Diagram of sorts...

Then - in the overlap, in the intersections - you'd have some COMMON, religiously-inspired principles that can and should make up our moral and social foundation.

Does that make sense?

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Quick Definitions (principle)

In response to Laws and Principles posted by BrianTubbs:
Quick definitions (principle)
# noun: a basic truth or law or assumption (Example: "The principles of democracy")
# noun: a rule or law concerning a natural phenomenon or the function of a complex system (Example: "The principle of the conservation of mass")
# noun: a basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct (Example: "Their principles of composition characterized all their works")
# noun: a rule or standard especially of good behavior (Example: "A man of principle")
# noun: rule of personal conduct
# noun: (law) an explanation of the fundamental reasons (especially an explanation of the working of some device in terms of laws of nature) (Example: "The principles of internal-combustion engines")
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
/
Christian, Jewish, and Islamic principles are very specific and can be detailed into doctrines and dogmas.
.
Maybe you'd like to use a different word than principle?
.
Different people believe all sorts of things and that is precisely what the Founding Fathers deliberated on the ideas of Natural and Civil Rights. And, it is specifically why we do not have a law that dictates any religious principles per se.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Quick Definitions (principle)

In response to Quick Definitions (principle) posted by pink101:

Okay, what do you do with this quote from the father of our country?

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens . . . . And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - John Adams

And this one by Mr. Adams...

"[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand."

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Quick Definitions (principle)

In response to Quick Definitions (principle) posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I think, was that person a Mason?
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - John Adams

In response to John Adams posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I don't see a problem with that one either.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds