|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 3, 2004 13:50:16 GMT -5
Mary, I have to say I'm a bit surprised that someone with your grasp of history would describe Shin's post as excellent, without acknowledging the number of quotes that could be posted by founding fathers describing how essential a role religion played in an effective free society such as they one they were creating.
|
|
|
Post by Meursault on Aug 3, 2004 13:52:45 GMT -5
Fuck the founding fathers it's 2004. Let's have a little peace, love, sharing, and understanding.
|
|
|
Post by Meursault on Aug 3, 2004 13:53:18 GMT -5
Or not there aren't any rule books to life.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Aug 3, 2004 13:55:40 GMT -5
Mary, I have to say I'm a bit surprised that someone with your grasp of history would describe Shin's post as excellent, without acknowledging the number of quotes that could be posted by founding fathers describing how essential a role religion played in an effective free society such as they one they were creating. Given that shin's point was merely to refute melon's depiction of the founding fathers, I see no reason why he needed to include any of those quotes. Moreover, Thomas Paine obviously never said any such thing since he was a militant atheist and overtly hostile to religion in all its manifestations. More generally, though, I'm with Mersault here (though I wouldn't put it in quite such, uh, colorful terms!) The cult of founding father worship in this country is unbearable. Just because Jefferson said something 220 years ago about issue X doesn't tell me a damn thing about what I should think about issue X in a dramatically different society. I applauded shin's post not because I think those quotes from the founding fathers in and of themselves establish philosophically irrefutable principles, but only because they exposed the sloppy history at work in melon's post. Cheers, M
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 3, 2004 13:59:45 GMT -5
Given that shin's point was merely to refute melon's depiction of the founding fathers, I see no reason why he needed to include any of those quotes. Moreover, Thomas Paine obviously never said any such thing since he was a militant atheist and overtly hostile to religion in all its manifestations. More generally, though, I'm with Mersault here (though I wouldn't put it in quite such, uh, colorful terms!) The cult of founding father worship in this country is unbearable. Just because Jefferson said something 220 years ago about issue X doesn't tell me a damn thing about what I should think about issue X in a dramatically different society. I applauded shin's post not because I think those quotes from the founding fathers in and of themselves establish philosophically irrefutable principles, but only because they exposed the sloppy history at work in melon's post. Cheers, MHow is it not sloppy history to ignore the number of founding father's who very much support Melon's post? One-sided is certainly sloppy ... so wouldn't that make BOTH sloppy?
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Aug 3, 2004 14:01:07 GMT -5
shin's post was excellent. it made me see something in a new light. the "founding fathers" were in fact wrestling away from an overt christian influence, as per the deistic era they lived in.
which means that the fundamentalists who cry out that the US is losing it's theistic Christian roots are the ones that are mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by Meursault on Aug 3, 2004 14:01:57 GMT -5
S'time to take the it away from the founding fathers, like the indians took the land from the racoons, or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 3, 2004 14:02:20 GMT -5
shin's post was excellent. it made me see something in a new light. the "founding fathers" were in fact wrestling away from an overt christian influence, as per the deistic era they lived in. which means that the fundamentalists who cry out that the US is losing it's theistic Christian roots are the ones that are mistaken. This would be an example of what sloppy does. A couple of posts, with no acknowlegement of the many who disagreed at the time does not prove shit.
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Aug 3, 2004 14:04:05 GMT -5
fair enough. if you can be short about it, what's your take on it? i mean, how do you see the founding influence?
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 3, 2004 14:39:10 GMT -5
Suffice to say, Christianity DOES play a part in our nation's history, but saying that, for instance, the 10 Commandments play a larger role in it than the teachings of deism is a complete farce. The very structure of our government lends itself to the ancient Roman senate, which if anything says that *multiple* views of how best to run a country were considered. Quoted for the benefit of Chrisfan, who seems to have missed it the first time.
|
|
|
Post by PC on Aug 3, 2004 14:41:07 GMT -5
To quote Rodney King: Can't we all just get along?
Yours in Christ, PC
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 3, 2004 14:42:16 GMT -5
I'd say that for the most part, we all pretty much get along most of the time. I just don't think anyone should mistake agreement with getting along.
|
|
|
Post by PC on Aug 3, 2004 14:45:07 GMT -5
Yeah, I guess you have a point. I just felt like quoting Rodney King haha.
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 3, 2004 14:51:21 GMT -5
To better illustrate Ben Franklin's stance on religion, which I had briefly mentioned, I think these two quotes, put side by side, illustrate to some extent what the founding father's truly felt about Christian morals specifically:
"The moral and religious system which Jesus Christ transmitted to us is the best the world has ever seen, or can see."
&
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
Keeping in mind, of course, that I believe that Franklin was to some extent an anomoly in a considerably athiest collection of thinkers. There was also a strong influence of Enlightenment/deism thinking between both Franklin and Jefferson, but I believe that once Franklin came to terms with Calvanist thinking he opened his heart more to Christianity, or at least the specific teachings of Jesus Christ (which, by the way, were never really in dispute with the FF *nearly* as much as the corruption of the Church, which is, as I'd wager Melon would confirm, an issue of the falibility of humanity more so than a problem specifically with Christ himself).
I wish I had studied this more in school. I'm going about this more on memory than confident knowledge, but doing some quick searches on the subject isn't telling me I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 3, 2004 14:52:53 GMT -5
|
|