Subject:
|
Re: Mormon bashing again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:51:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
725 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> I suggest anyone who wants more insight into what the founding fathers
> intended, check out this site:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7970/jefpcont.htm
Awesome, thanks.
>
> In particular reference to the posting of the Ten Comandments, here is
> one little quote from the article on religion:
>
> >
> > "Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the
> > interests of society require the observation of those
> > moral precepts only in which all religions agree (for all
> > forbid us to steal, murder, plunder, or bear false witness),
> > and that we should not intermeddle with the particular
> > dogmas in which all religions differ, and which are
> > totally unconnected with morality." --Thomas Jefferson to
> > J. Fishback, 1809.
>
> To me this suggests that TJ would speak against posting of the Ten
> Comandments in any way which would imply government endorsement of them.
> Note that TJ is the author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
> (which I think pre-dates the Bill of Rights [so I'm a bot lazy - I
> should verify the timeline]).
I don't see that interpretation. He says nothing of endorsing, he mentions
observing moral precepts accepted by all religions - which I also mentioned in
my original comments:
> The fact that we gather in to groups and universally come up with very similar
> laws to govern ourselves is evidence of a law outside ourselves.
The ten commandments are a concise example of these basic principles. He
mentions these "precepts" in the context of governing society which equals
legislation. As I said before, posting the ten commandments is not endorsing or
mandating anything. Separation regards mandating a state religion. Again, that
"some" of the founders advocated a particular religion is clear, and does not
constitute a mandate. I am not for endorsing a particular religion, I am merely
defending the posting of the commandments and the teaching of creation which is
the only other viable alternative to evolution which is also a theory and
therefore faith-based.
Bill
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| Bill Farkas wrote in message ... (...) in (...) similar (...) endorsing or (...) that (...) not (...) merely (...) which is (...) Ah, but the Ten Commandments are MORE than an example of the basic principles, here they are for reference: 1 - Thou (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| I suggest anyone who wants more insight into what the founding fathers intended, check out this site: (URL) particular reference to the posting of the Ten Comandments, here is one little quote from the article on relion: (...) To me this suggests (...) (25 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 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
|
|
|
|
