Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:03:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2430 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> I was actually unaware of Franklin's claimed opinion on Judaism.
So was I, but it appears to be white-supremecist propoganda, so...
> But anyway, what about the evidence that hasn't been debunked?
Trumped by virtue of the fact that there were movements to include specific
mention to Christianity (if not any particular denomination thereof), while
there don't appear to have been any movements to outlaw religion altogether.
> 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,
I claim a J-C influence on the foundation of the US because the people who
founded it came from a largely J-C background (most of them were, after all,
from England), with J-C influenced morals and ideals (even if some of them were
atheists). I claim a J-C influence in modern America because the two most
dominant organized religions in America today are Christianity and Judeism.
What you seem to be reading into this is the idea that I have stated that a J-C
foundation somehow bestows special rights on the successors of that tradition.
I do not, just as I do not believe the strong white/male influence on the
foundation of the US bestows special rights on modern white/male people. I do
believe that there is a direct connection between the cultural and religious
heritage of the founding fathers and the path we've taken to arrive where we are
today (notice the tendancy to elect white Christian males to the presidency).
> 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).
Hey, you show me proof of a distinct proto-Judeic faith, and proof that the
founding fathers acknowledged that Judeism sprung from it they way that
Christianity and Islam are known to have sprung from Judeism, and I'll admit
that they might have let that proto-Judeic faith influence their decisions
regarding the foundation of this country.
> Newdow was protecting his child with "consceientious devotion" and that's
> all.
I think one can argue the case that she suffered more emotional distress from
his actions than from either reciting the pledge of allegiance or refusing to do
so.
> 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 think your dedication to this arguement suggests otherwise.
> 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).
Correction: The 9th District Court agreed with Newdow, but the fact that their
rulings, including that one have been overturned more than those of any other
discrict bears witness to the fact that they're not very indicative of the US in
general.
> But it's not a religion. So is it, or isn't it?
You say you don't believe in a god? Do you also say that you do believe in the
utter absence of a god? That's what makes atheism a religion, even though it's
unorganized. If you don't believe either way, then you're non-religious.
> But that's the big stink to which you originally referred. This claim
> of J-C philosophical heritage is being used to prop up religion-based
> arguments for how the body politic should function.
Just because the facts are being abused to various political ends doesn't make
them any less true. There are those who would make similar claims about white
skin, but that can't be used to disprove the fact that the US was founded by a
largely white society.
> 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.
Or the freedom to not be oppressed by their government. Or the freedom to not
be killed in the streets by random acts of violence. Or the freedom to hold to
religious practices that are prohibited by the state. Or the freedom to send
their kids to school. Or the freedom to not be termed a 2nd Class Citizen
because of race or gender. Or the freedom to speak out against injustice. My
landlord didn't migrate to the US to make a buck. He migrated here because his
mother told him that if he didn't leave Cuba, he'd be arrested for speaking out
against Castro.
> 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.
It's one of the big motivations, just as unfair taxation and lack of equal say
in the government were. Many of the early settlers came here to get away from
religious oppression (how ironic, then, that many of the colonies set up
official state religions of their own). And the fact that it's the first
freedom listed in the Bill of Rights, even before Freedom of Speech, shows just
how significant it was.
> Oh, I thought we were talking about the founders of the United States.
I thought you were talking about the Enlightenment. I just figured you might
appreciate knowing that it had strong religious ties.
> Or did Galileo play some critical role in our nation that I'm completely
> unaware of (while never leaving Italy)?
I think there's a likelihood that his mistreatment by the church did. It was
just one more incident showing why the church shouldn't be allowed to control
the government any more than the government should be allowed to control the
church, and it was one of the big sparks that set off the split between Religion
and Science.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
