[internetworkers] Marriage and religion
shea at sheatisdale.com
Mon Feb 9 17:38:42 EST 2004
Steve Champeon wrote:
> on Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 02:41:50PM -0500, Shea Tisdale wrote:
>> On its own this makes the entire case that the general principles upon
>> our government was founded were "the general principles of Christianity,
>> in which all those sects were united.in Marjorities sufficient to assert
>> and maintain her Independence"
> Well, yes and no. Actually, it merely makes the claim. It doesn't argue
> much of anything, and it doesn't enumerate what these principles are, or
> why they should be considered the province of Christianity, rather than
> that of reason. But you can believe what you like, I suppose.
Thanks for allowing me to believe what I like...
When it comes to the source of the principles behind a document, I tend to
trust the statements of those who wrote it.
> > But to examine it, even the current Swiss constitution lacks what our
> > Constitution set forth. Specifically, that the people are sovereign and
> > government derives it's power from the people. The Swiss constitution
> > enumerates the rights granted to the people. Whereas our constitution
> > enumerates the rights we as the people grant to government and
> > specifically limits government by reserving all other powers to people.
> Good point. Where in the Bible does it say that the idea of government
> Jesus envisioned enumerates the rights the people grant to the government?
> Just curious.
I didn't argue that it says that anywhere in the Bible. I was simply
pointing out a difference between the two documents.
> > No one will argue that Locke has not been influential on the concept of
> > government. At least I hope no one will.
> Far more than Jesus has, anyway.
> > However his personal view of religion isn't what we are debating here.
> > He wasn't involved in the framing of the Constitution. Influential on
> > those who did? Yes, but not involved. So, he can believe the moon is
> > made of cheese for all I care.
> What are we debating, Shea? I seem to have lost you here.
That the US Government was founded on Christian principles. Not being a
founding father, Locke's personal views are irrelevant to the discussion.
> I replied to your suggestion, that the US government was founded on
> "Christian" principles, with a suggestion that it was not, or that what
> principles it was founded upon were not specifically Christian nor were
> they unique to Christianity, nor were the Founding Fathers anything but
> skeptical Deists and Enlightenment rationalists.
Actually you stated outright that it wasn't a Christian belief in your first
sentence: "Um, that's not a Christian belief."
> You replied to that with a long screed filled with fabricated quotes,
> which I believe I debunked. What's left to argue here?
There is the Steve we know and love taking swipes at people.
So are you accusing me of fabricating quotes?
I don't think you proved a single quote was fabricated, nor did you debunk
any. You did go on and on about some web site you found where you thought
my quotes might be from:
>> Anyway, I think I found the site you got these from:
However you were incorrect in that attribution and I ignored it and the
subsequent information about "In God We Trust", The Pledge, various Pastors,
On those quotes that you did specifically question, I provided a reference
for you and in addition provided further quotes to support the claim.
However, you appear to discount all sources other than your own.
> But one more point just to prove what sort of debate we're likely to have
> if we continue:
There he is again, swipe...
> I wrote:
>>> But you're right - Adams was a Christian, and believed that certain
>>> principles he held dear were derived from Christianity. Of course, as
>>> he was obviously ignorant of other religions (the study of religion
>>> being something that would largely come only in the mid-1800s and after,
>>> through the philological studies of the Grimms and a proto-nationalist
>>> effort by Germany to "prove", linguistically, that they had to weld
>>> its principalities into a single, German-speaking, nation, who derived
>>> their history from the Greeks, rather than the Romans, etc. in contrast
>>> to the other, earlier, nation-states like France and Italy.) It's not
>>> surprising that he'd think that.
>> John Adams - Harvard educated lawyer. Delegate to the first and second
>> continental congresses. Negotiated a treaty of peace with France and
>> Holland. Minister to the court of St. James's. Two term vice president.
>> I guess he was just ignorant.
> I think this proves my point - I argue that a specific thing is true,
> you reply with an empty appeal to the authority of the person about whom
> the claim was made, ignoring the argument. I didn't say Adams was
> ignorant /in toto/, I said he, like /everyone else in his day and age/,
> was ignorant of the beliefs and foundations and practices of
> non-Christian religions.
You are correct, I did make an empty appeal to the authority of the person.
I guess I was upset at you saying Adams was ignorant. But I realize you
meant no disparage by it. Therefore I shall attempt to remedy that.
Your statement is in support of my point if we simply accept it as true
because as you so clearly put it, "...he, like /everyone else in his day and
age/, was ignorant of the beliefs and foundations and practices of
non-Christian religions." and therefore could not be influenced by them.
So yes, you did argue a specific point - mine. This is the second or third
time you have proven my points for me, so does that "...prove what sort of
debate we're likely to have if we continue"?
>> p. 660 of "America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations"
> You'll forgive me for suspecting the scholarship of a tome so named.
And you'll forgive me if I find the following to be questionable:
An editorial letter to the Phoenix valley news.
>> Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of
>> government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes
>> the heart."
> Perhaps not.
Or the logic that one minister researching a quote and failing to find it is
definitive proof of its falsehood.
> "Actually, no. He didn't. Or at least, nobody can find the quote in his
Or the fact that the website you, yourself use for conclusive proof also
uses the quote as if accurate and truthful:
> hesketh.com/inc. v: (919) 834-2552 f: (919) 834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
> Book publishing is second only to furniture delivery in slowness. -b.
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit
More information about the InterNetWorkers