Subject:
|
Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:13:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
883 times
|
| |
|
|
John:
You are looking at past history and past rhetoric with blinders on.
Part of The Enlightenment project was to break with the "divine right of
kings." That's why there is language of that type floating around. I am
not saying that there weren't believers around during the american
revolution, I am saying that the founding fathers had to persuade them and
use language appropriate to that task. This is how one leads a bull: from a
ring on his nose...
That people like Jefferson borrowed heavily from people like John Locke to
persuade believers is just shrewed politics. Everyone else knows that man
is born with no rights except the one's we agree to as a society. That is
why before the advent of republics the world had political schemes ranging
from the "law of the jungle" to "absolute monarchies." And we still have
weird political stuff going on in the world. Rights are not free, they
require "eternal vigilance" to keep them alive. Look at what has happened...
Calling yourself a "deist" is just a way to gain support from believers
while not specifically admitting that you are absolutely not a xtian.
Xtians are hardly going to support the views of persons that they know are
hostile to xtianity -- that's why much of what we know about Thomas
Jefferson's views, for example, is from private letters. These guys were
politicians after all. Why do you make so much of what is pretty obviously
a political move?
All these years later I would have preferred that Thomas Jefferson had been
less poetic and more precise in his word choices. It doesn't change his
well-known opinions, the meaning of his words, or even his obvious political
intent.
I can only hope that no one else bothers to answer your pointless issue
about what is written in the Declaration. I think you are amongst the few
that see this tiny portion of the text as an area of importance. The
intended separation of church and state is well understood -- I have no
problem keeping it that way.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
