Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] Marriage and religion

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Steven Champeon <schampeo AT hesketh.com>
  • To: "'Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/'" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Marriage and religion
  • Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 13:13:14 -0500

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.

> > Agreed. (Well, except maybe Switzerland, who had been independent since
> > 1291, had judicial review, no monarch, etc. - but they invoke God in the
> > Confederation Charter, so what the heck, let's give the US the honor).
>
> Yeah, the first line is "In the name of God Almighty!" :-)

:)

> 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.

> 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.

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.

You replied to that with a long screed filled with fabricated quotes,
which I believe I debunked. What's left to argue here?

But one more point just to prove what sort of debate we're likely to have
if we continue:

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.
> 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.

> p. 660 of "America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations"
> http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=1489

You'll forgive me for suspecting the scholarship of a tome so named.

--
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. schneier




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page