Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:48:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2294 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> > But since several of the thinkers of the time were openly hostile to
> > religion in general and clearly not Christian (and certainly, not Jewish),
>
> Some of the evidence for that has been debunked.
I was actually unaware of Franklin's claimed opinion on Judaism. But anyway,
what about the evidence that hasn't been debunked?
> Still, the very fact that the vast majority of them developed their
> sense of what is right and what is wrong from a culture that grew up
> around the Judeo-Christian faith says that even those who were
> decidedly atheist were still influenced by J-C morality.
Here's the thing. You claim that our culture has a powerful J-C influence because (I think) of the demonstrable plentitude of Christians and their philosophically Jewish heritage, but not a powerful X influence where X is the historically unclear Jewish antecedent religion (because we don't have any reason to believe that Judaism sprang fully-matured from the ether). Really, it seems that you (or more to the point, Dave!) could claim a powerful X influence even though X isn't strictly clear. And we can also reasonably assume the X has an antecedent, Y. And...
> > > All religions including atheism
> >
> > Why do you people continue to assert this falsehood?
> >
> > re·li·gion (r-ljn)
> > n.
> > 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
> > devotion.
>
> That last one. Show me how Newdow does not fit that definition to the letter.
Newdow was protecting his child with "consceientious devotion" and that's all.
Anyway, let me ask something. I don't believe there are any gods (or ghosts or
tooth fairies or invisible ceiling-dwelling monsters...). But there's no "zeal
or conscientious devotion" involved, I just can't imagine what would lead one to
believe in such unsupported notions (well, actually I blame it on child abuse,
but that's irrelevant for our purposes). So I'm an atheist. I even agree with
Newdow (and so do the courts). But it's not a religion. So is it, or isn't it?
> > Wait, aren't you and John the ones making the "big stink" about it now?
>
> No, my arguments have largely been restricted to the idea that the US was
> founded upon Judeo-Christian ideals.
But that's the big stink to which you originally referred. This "stinky" claim
of J-C philosophical heritage is being used to prop up religion-based arguments
for how the body politic should function.
> > And most people came here "in the first place" because they though they could
> > make a buck.
>
> That's not entirely true. Many do, but many of those people also end up
> returning to their homeland (just look at all the Mexicans who commute to the US
> for work, but return to Mexico to live). Many of the people who migrate here to
> become US nationals or citizens do so because of the freedom we enjoy everyday.
Right! The freedom to make a buck and take care of your family and do what's
right. These things are all wrapped up together.
> > Our justifaction cited is George III's "history of repeated injuries and
> > usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
> > Tyranny over these States."
>
> That includes the tyranny of telling you what you are and are not allowed to
> think, which covers the realm of religion.
Absolutely. But your claim seemed to be that religious persecution was the
(nearly) sole explanation for the very being of the United States. While it
certainly played a role -- particularly very early in the settlement, it is no
where near the primary motivation.
> > No one cared then to make a big stink about our "Judeo-Christian heritage"
> > but they did about our Enlightenment ties. Most of the people who could
> > write tried studiously to avoid such silly religious distinctions.
>
> Oh, really? What about Galileo? He was a devout Christian. His goal was not
> to disprove Religion, but to get Religion to accept the findings of Science.
Oh, I thought we were talking about the founders of the United States. Or did
Galileo play some critical role in our nation that I'm completely unaware of
(while never leaving Italy)?
ChrisN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
200 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
