We Remember, but only when it’s Politically Correct
I read an article here about how a city erected a veteran memorial that had a cross in it. That city is now being sued.
I read another article here about a small town football team that wanted to wear the names of servicemen killed in action on its jerseys. They were denied by the school board.
I am fed up with all of the shit stirring. I don’t, for one second, think that Jefferson would object to a soldier praying in front of a cross. I don’t think any of the founding fathers would. In the center of the dome of the Capitol building in DC there is a painting of George Washington’s assentation into heaven. If it was ok in 1865, why is the same concept not ok now? Did the constitution change? Now I know that we have changed how we think, and that many of the ideas that were fine then are not now, but I am not talking about slavery, or women’s rights or any of the other hot button issues. I am talking about simply acknowledging what we as a nation are. We are, by and large, a nation of people that believe in a higher power. By putting a soldier kneeling in front of a cross, that city is in no way saying you must worship in a certain way or even that you must worship at all. They are simply saying “We remember.”
The football team has taken the time to learn about the men and women whose names they were going to wear. Those names were selected from not only the most current casualties but from all casualties. I have no doubt that if that team had decided to wear the names of 9/11 victims or the names of fallen civil rights activists, the school board would have been all for it. For some reason we have reached the point where it’s no longer politically correct to support veterans. I for one applaud the initiative of the coaches and players involved. All these young people are trying to do is say “We Remember.” They are doing so in a very respectful way. Are we so screwed up as a nation that if these same young people wanted to run down that same football field waving a burning flag it would be allowed, but to wear the names of the fallen is somehow taboo?
God Help us all.
Category: Reality Check
“Are we so screwed up as a nation”? Short answer, yes, we are.
Under the guise of playing “what if”, the school board denied this simple act of remembrance.
Oh, that poor old 1st Amendment.
You PC peeples abuse it as an excuse to be rude, lewd and crude. You hide behind it when you play soldier and get all butthurt when Real Soldier People don’t like it, and say so right to your face.
The poor thing has been trampled, kicked in the shins, smacked in the head, and screamed at so many times, it’s a wonder it sticks around.
You can befoul a national memorial with a vulgar, obscene gesture but when you post it online because you think it’s funny, your only defense is the 1st Amendment and then you whine if you lose your job because other such 1st Amendment things you’ve done suddenly show up.
You stomp and yell about freedom of religion, but if someone exercises it, you get your shorts in a wad over it and go kick that poor old 1st Amendment right in the nuts.
You crummy little whiners want the freedoms given you by that wonderfully and brilliantly constructed piece of law for yourselves, but you get all wigged out if other people want those things, too, ’cause you’re mentally and emotionally a 5 year old snotty little brat who thinks everything is for YOU, and no one else gets any of it.
Wrong.
It’s for all of us. And I’m tired of your political correctness, because it’s the biggest phony scam ever foisted on this country, EVER. And all of you need to spend some time on the time-out chair.
Originally posted by Enigma4you: I don’t, for one second, think that Jefferson would object to a soldier praying in front of a cross. I don’t think any of the founding fathers would. In the center of the dome of the Capitol building in DC there is a painting of George Washington’s assentation into heaven. The majority of the people, complaining about the placing of religious symbols in public spaces, are absolutely clueless about the historical context of “Separation of Church and State.” It was the Roman Catholic Church that came up with that concept during the medieval period. The basic idea was that the government, in the form of the barbarian kings and their representatives, did not interfere with church affairs. Likewise, the church did not interfere with government affairs. So, if a school decides on its own, independent of religious dictations from the churches, to hold morning prayer, they are not violating separation of church and state. If a town decides on its own, independent of religious dictations from the churches, to erect a memorial with a cross, they are not violating separation of church and state. This was the understanding that our founders had, they had issues with the Church of England exerting influence and say within the colonial government. This was on top of the legal requirement for the colonials to pay taxes to the Church of England, regardless of their religious denomination. This led to the amendment involving religion. Liberals like to reference Thomas Jefferson in their “separation of church and state” arguments, but fail to realize that Thomas Jefferson attended Sunday mass in one of the chambers of Congress due to lack of availability of churches in the new capitol city. Our founding fathers were not atheists, they simply held a form of belief that was not consistent with mainstream Christianity. When it came to Jesus’s teachings, they were hard-core. Through their actions, they demonstrated themselves to be more Orthodox when it came to practicing Christianity compared to American Christians today. In fact, many were adamant that the new generations get properly indoctrinated and religious… Read more »
Let me assist with some editing for you:
The majority of the people are absolutely clueless.
Thank you and well said.
Great Post. Well written and thoughtful. I agree with many of the point you make. Here are a few points to ponder. I do not know what you mean by “moral representation of divinity”. I assume you are referring to the ideal that morality comes from a divine source. If so, the very notion of the premise is false and provably so. Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom states in part, “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief.” I am very much a supporter of Jefferson. I will not allow my body or goods to be taken by the government for the purpose of supporting any religious belief. In more contemporary terms, I will not support funds being taken from me by forcible taxation to be spent on religious idolatry. He also pens in the same document, “That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.” Let us read that again. Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions. What Jefferson’s document did was disestablish the Church of England and create a deterrent from any other religious group from establishing itself within our government. You use expressions like “assault on religion” to describe the very acts that are defending Jefferson’s own words. A defense against religious aggression into our government, its lands, and buildings is not an attack. It is a defense of the very constitution that separates us from tyranny. Jefferson did indeed use the writings of the New Testament in the construct of our civil law. He first removed any reference to divinity from them, removed any supernatural belief, and only kept was moral truth he could derive. He published a book with the result. Our founding fathers were not Atheists that is true, the fact that they were not Christians is equally true. Jefferson was widely believed to be Atheist,… Read more »
Thomas ‘Paine’ is the correct spelling.
I do completely agree that the far left liberal agenda is a threat to freedom, not just freedom to worship as we choose or not at all, but a threat to the very foundations that protect us from tyranny.
The misconception is that most of us that do not believe in a God are Liberal.
Dave Hardin: Great Post. Well written and thoughtful. I agree with many of the point you make. I didn’t write this post, I used speech to text dictation software to generate the previous, and current, posts. Dave Hardin: Here are a few points to ponder. They would be points to ponder had you addressed what I actually stated, and not what you thought I stated or argued. I’m a history buff, and I’ve also taken a detailed course in college focusing on the Founding Fathers. Dave Hardin: I do not know what you mean by “moral representation of divinity”. Had you read my last post, with the intention of understanding what I was actually saying, you would’ve understood what I meant. Dave Hardin: I assume you are referring to the ideal that morality comes from a divine source. [STRAWMAN] First, what I argued was that our rights came from God. What I meant by moral representation of divinity from government had everything to do with the concept that our rights came from God. Please go back and review the part of my post talking about where our founders saw our rights coming from. Most of the other themes that I argued supported this specific theme. Dave Hardin: If so, the very notion of the premise is false and provably so. Only if I argued what you assume I argued.I didn’t. I’m not arguing what you are assuming. This alone has set you off on the wrong course of action with regards to how to reply to my post. By logical extension, your entire premise is false as it relates to what you’re trying to reply to. I’m going to prove that through the rest of my reply. Dave Hardin: Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom states in part, “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief.” [STRAWMAN] will Hence what I stated in the previous post: “This… Read more »
Dave Hardin: Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions. [STRAWMAN] Nowhere, in my post, did I argue that our civil rights depended on our religious opinions. However, it is fact that the evolution of Christian philosophical thought contributed greatly to our current concept of democracy and rights. For example, why is it that during most, if not all, trials until recently, you put your hand on the Bible and swore to tell the truth during a court proceeding? Part of the reason for that is that during the Founding Fathers time, and before that, having a jury was a way to represent God in court. It was not the only reason for a jury, but it was one of the important ones. In fact, if you wanted a jury trial during the founder’s times, you requested trial by God and country. Lying to another man was not considered as serious as lying to God, especially in a situation where his presence is represented by the common population. Other options that people had was being tried by canon law. I bolded those two words, as your entire premise, the underlying themes of your reply to me, assumed that I was approaching this from a canon law approach, as well as from a Scripture approach. I wasn’t. Please go back and read my original post to understand what I’m saying. Here’s another one, the major fact that we could reference separation of church and state was made possible by Christian monks that advanced such concept in the medieval period. Dave Hardin: What Jefferson’s document did was disestablish the Church of England and create a deterrent from any other religious group from establishing itself within our government. Which I argued using this statement: “This was the understanding that our founders had, they had issues with the Church of England exerting influence and say within the colonial government. This was on top of the legal requirement for the colonials to pay taxes to the Church of England, regardless of their religious denomination.” — thebesig Keywords, “they had issues.” Which led to… Read more »
76. “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.” Thomas Jefferson — Virginia Act for Religious Freedom 77. “… I am not afraid of priests. They have tried upon me all their various batteries of pious whining, hypocritical canting, lying and slandering. I have contemplated their order from the Magi of the East to the Saints of the West and I have found no difference of character, but of more or less caution, in proportion to their information or ignorance on whom their interested duperies were to be played off. Their sway in New England is indeed formidable. No mind beyond mediocrity dares there to develop itself.” Thomas Jefferson — letter to Horatio Spofford, 1816 78. “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Thomas Jefferson 79. “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” Thomas Jefferson — letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT “The Complete Jefferson” by Saul K. Padover, pp 518-519 80. “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.” Thomas Jefferson — “Notes on Virginia” 81. “On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the… Read more »
A little more to add here: At the time the constitution was written, most, if not all the colonies did have a state religion. The Founding Fathers were intent on recognizing that none were to be official in the new federal government. That said, the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, are rights given by the Creator and cannot be taken away by man. There was a great debate to even include these rights in the Constitution. Thankfully, those rights were included although the federal government has been trying, and in some cases succeeding in chipping away at those rights ever since.
I congratulate you on your speech, since what we are reading is the transcript of that endeavor. I also congratulate you for taking a detailed course in college focusing on our founding fathers. I will assume you did not actually transport the course from any point to another but rather attended a course at the collegiate level. Me, I deal with the day to day limitations of attaining my GED. I struggled through your rather verbose meandering of thought with the intention of being objective. I must admit that I was unable to maintain any objectivity. I will again make an assumption that you babble into speech dictation because you are unable to master the keyboard due to some limitation. How that pertains to the discussion I am at a loss to explain, but thank you for pointing out your limitation. As you may well have already guessed, I too have my own difficulties with the keyboard. I tried to ignore the tone of condescension that was transcribed from your voice to the written word but it is nearly impossible for me to achieve. It appears you like to create Strawman arguments by using the logical fallacy of a Strawman argument to do so. I have no idea what you are going on about with most of your responding transcription posted from the words you are speaking to the text dictation software. Since I am obviously inept at being able to read what you say with the intention of understanding what you’ve said, and demonstrate an understanding in my posts, I will probably leave you with a post that requires you to fact check it. Try to dumb down your vocabulary for those of us that missed that amazing college course that elevated your perspective as a history buff beyond your mere earthly horizons. I will attempt a succinct demonstration. There probably is not God, I cant prove that but I didn’t make the claim that there was one. Up to those who make the claim to prove it. Since I have no evidence that convinces me there is a… Read more »
12. History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. Thomas Jefferson — in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813 13. “No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in its advances towards rational Christianity. When we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, raised to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus; when, in short, we shall have unlearned everything which has been taught since His day, and get back to the pure and simple doctrines He inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily His disciples; and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from His lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian. I know that the case you cite, of Dr. Drake, has been a common one. The religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconceivable, as to shock reasonable thinkers, to revolt them against the whole, and drive them rashly to pronounce its Founder an imposter. Had there never been a commentator, there never would have been an infidel.” Jefferson’s Letter to Timothy Pickering, 21 Feb 1821 14. “It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet the one is not three, and the three are not one: to divide mankind by a single letter into [“consubstantialists and like-substantialists”]. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. We should all then, like the quakers, live without an order… Read more »
30. “The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes.” John Adams — letter to John Taylor 31. “The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles” John Adams 32. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. Thomas Jefferson to John Adams 33. Congress has no power to make any religious establishments. Roger Sherman, Congress, August 19, 1789 34. The American states have gone far in assisting the progress of truth; but they have stopped short of perfection. They ought to have given every honest citizen an equal right to enjoy his religion and an equal title to all civil emoluments, without obliging him to tell his religion. Every interference of the civil power in regulating opinion, is an impious attempt to take the business of the Deity out of his own hands; and every preference given to any religious denomination, is so far slavery and bigotry. Noah Webster calling for no religious tests to serve in public office, Sketches of American Policy, 1785 35. “The office of reformer of the superstitions of a nation is ever dangerous. Jesus had to walk on the perilous confines of reason and religion; and a step to right or left might place Him within the grasp of the priests of the superstition, a… Read more »
50. “Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” James Madison, Ibid, 1785 51. Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity. Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1791 52. It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin. Let us, then, look to the great cause, and endeavor to preserve it in full force. Let us by all wise and constitutional measures promote intelligence among the people as the best means of preserving our liberties. James Monroe — First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1817 53. It is contrary to the principles of reason and justice that any should be compelled to contribute to the maintenance of a church with which their consciences will not permit them to join, and from which they can derive no benefit; for remedy whereof, and that equal liberty as well religious as civil, may be universally extended to all the good people of this commonwealth. George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776 54. Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. James Madison; Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments 55. The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. 1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams 56. I… Read more »
Will you two go get a room already?
Dave Hardin: 76. “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.” Thomas Jefferson — Virginia Act for Religious Freedom [STRAWMAN + RED HERRING] Again, context is everything: “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.” — Thomas Jefferson (Virginia Historical Society) Which actually supports what I argued: “This was the understanding that our founders had, they had issues with the Church of England exerting influence and say within the colonial government. This was on top of the need, legal requirement, for the colonials to pay taxes to the Church of England, regardless of their religious denomination. “This led to the amendment involving religion.” – thebesig Dave Hardin: 77. “… I am not afraid of priests. They have tried upon me all their various batteries of pious whining, hypocritical canting, lying and slandering. I have contemplated their order from the Magi of the East to the Saints of the West and I have found no difference of character, but of more or less caution, in proportion to their information or ignorance on whom their interested duperies were to be played off. Their sway in New England is indeed formidable. No mind beyond mediocrity dares there to develop itself.” Thomas Jefferson — letter to Horatio Spofford, 1816 [STRAWMAN + RED HERRING] First, that came from his essay titled, “Essay on New England Religious Intolerance.” Here is a quote of what he actually said, taken in context, with the portion left out from your quote bolded: “You judge truly that I am not afraid of the priests. they have tried upon me all their various batteries, of pious whining,… Read more »
Dave Hardin: 82. “Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a common censor over each other. Is uniformity attainable Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.” Thomas Jefferson — Notes on Virginia. [STRAWMAN + RED HERRING + REPEAT POINT] Pay attention to the first two sentences in that quote. Taken in context to everything else he had argued during this time, he’s talking about “checks and balances.” How is it a “check and balance”? In the case of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson understood the differences in opinions, a strategic level, could lead to war, and was associated with war. In this case, war driven by religion. In the colonies, and later did in the United States, in order to make a Republic, that has multiple religions and sects, work in harmony, the first two sentences in that quote have to apply. Again, the remainder of that paragraph argues why he made those first two sentences. They accurately pointed out that the different religions had to come to terms with their differences instead of continuing on in strife with each other. Thomas Jefferson, and his criticism of religion, was doing so against religious persecution. He wasn’t doing it as an argument against religion as a whole. This doesn’t dismiss the fact that the philosophy that evolved Christian philosophy contributed to our version of democracy. Dave Hardin: 83 “Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church … made of Christendom a slaughter-house.” Thomas Jefferson — to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822 Yet, when you see it as part of a bigger statement, you get a different picture: You asked my opinion on the items of doctrine in your catechism. I have never permitted myself to meditate a specified Creed. These formulas have been the bane… Read more »
Dave Hardin: 88. “Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.” George Washington Once again, you fell victim to a revised, urban legend, version of what was actually said. Here is his actual quote, his actual words, in context: “I regret exceedingly that the disputes between the Protestants and Roman Catholics should be carried to the serious and alarming heigth mentioned in your letters. Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause: And I was not without hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy of age would have put an effectual stop to contentions of this Kind.” – George Washington letter to Edward Newenham, 22 June 1792 Nowhere in there was he criticizing religion as a whole, nor was he condemning it. He was addressing a letter that was talking about friction between the Protestants and Roman Catholics. He continued on and expressed disappointment that in his modern period, people cannot go beyond that. The founding fathers lived through a period labeled as an “enlightenment period.” Part of the spinoff of that included looking at the Bible with a modern mindset, as opposed to mindset in place when the different parts of the Bible was written. A lot of what you reference is the founding fathers doing that; however, that is not them dismissing religion, nor proving it wrong. Dave Hardin: Being a history buff and all, you probably know all of that. Yes, I knew about the actual quotes. They, along with other quotes related… Read more »
Dave Hardin: I congratulate you on your speech, since what we are reading is the transcript of that endeavor. I also congratulate you for taking a detailed course in college focusing on our founding fathers. I will assume you did not actually transport the course from any point to another but rather attended a course at the collegiate level. I took the information, learned in the course, and incorporated it my greater knowledge about American history. I utilize that information to further research’s similar and other information. I didn’t take it in isolation, then “pump and dump” at the end of the term. It was a base of research that I continue to do to the present time. In fact, all these quotes that you presented, or, rather, the majority of the quotes that you presented, our very similar to what I studied in the course. The textbook that we used was chock-full with the writings of the founding fathers. Your assumption, that I did not transported it from one point to another, that I just took it as a course and did nothing else, is an error. But then again, so is every other argument you’ve made on this thread. Dave Hardin: Me, I deal with the day to day limitations of attaining my GED. I don’t hold, a person’s highest degree, against him/her. What I do hold against him/her is there failure, inability, to read and understand simple English. Even though I’m about to matriculate for my doctoral studies, I use simple English when posting on social media as well as sites like these. I know for fact that fifth-graders could understand the posts that I generate. I’ve actually had one read my an article that I posted before, he understood what I said. The English I used in that article was no different from the English I’m using here. Dave Hardin: I struggled through your rather verbose meandering of thought with the intention of being objective. I must admit that I was unable to maintain any objectivity. It’s kind of hard to struggle through a post, that… Read more »
Dave Hardin: Try to dumb down your vocabulary for those of us that missed that amazing college course that elevated your perspective as a history buff beyond your mere earthly horizons. I will attempt a succinct demonstration. Says the guy that uses big words in his posts. The point that your arrogance is missing is that I have a vantage point that you don’t have with this specific argument. The college course was not done in isolation, but the knowledge gained was carried over into my further research in history matters. You’ve demonstrated, in replies, that you’re pretty good at parroting quotes you think support your argument. It’s plainly obvious that you have not done research, additional research, beyond the quotes that you’re selecting. I’m doing that for you in my replies. In fact, the coach that you select show that you are getting desperate in this exchange. You will see that with the remainder of my reply. You are looking at this, with so much emotion in you, that many of the quotes that you provide helps my argument and destroys yours. Again, you’ve understood a long post that I generated, multiple long posts that I generated, generated with the same type of English. You didn’t have a problem with my posts back then, when we were going against the same opposition. Now, when we are in the opposite sides of the argument, you’re having all of these “problems” that the opposition normally has. This isn’t the first time that I’ve experience this phenomenon, where people who have previously congratulated me in my arguments turn around and criticize similar arguments, like what you’re doing here, when we find ourselves in opposition. Dave Hardin: There probably is not God, I cant prove that but I didn’t make the claim that there was one. Up to those who make the claim to prove it. This is not an argument about whether God exists or not. This is not an argument about whether we should prove he exists, or prove he doesn’t. Whether he does or not is irrelevant to this argument… Read more »
Dave Hardin: 4. “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God That they are not to be violated but with His wrath Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.” Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237 This is an argument in favor of our rights coming from God. Their concept, that we humans are held accountable to a higher entity, was an ingredient the founders wanted in our version of democracy. They understood what could happen when you remove that higher entity, and replaced it with humans and their ever-changing whim of what’s right and wrong. Dave Hardin: 5. The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation, wrote Washington. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens. George Washington in a letter to Touro Synagogue (1790) Natural law, natural rights, and God’s law, were interrelated concepts during the time of our founding fathers. Natural, as in from nature, as in from God who “created” nature, and by extension these rights. Dave Hardin: 6. “Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the… Read more »
Dave Hardin: 14. “It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet the one is not three, and the three are not one: to divide mankind by a single letter into [“consubstantialists and like-substantialists”]. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. We should all then, like the quakers, live without an order of priests, moralise for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe; for I suppose belief to be the assent of the mind to an intelligible proposition.” Jefferson’s Letter to John Adams, August 22, 1813 If you read the Bible, nowhere in there does it say that you have to attend church services every Sunday. In fact, Jesus specifies exactly how you are to worship. All that’s needed is a simple prayer to God in in your own privacy. The second part is given with groups of other people to discuss the Scripture. Thomas Jefferson had a better idea about how Christianity should be practiced. What Thomas Jefferson is doing here, in the quote that you provided, is criticizing the corruption of it by people who were considered people of the cloth. Again, I don’t see any similarities between him, based on that statement, and you. Dave Hardin: 15. The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State. Founding Father James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, Essays In Addition to Americas Real Religion Again, this is a concept that was invented by the Christians, arguing the same principle, in response to barbarian Kings forcing decisions made within the church. Nowhere in the statement does it prove wrong the fact that the philosophy that evolved from Christian philosophy helped to bring about our version of democracy. Dave Hardin: 16. And I have no doubt that every new… Read more »
Dave Hardin: 25. A man of abilities and character, of any sect whatever, may be admitted to any office or public trust under the United States. I am a friend to a variety of sects, because they keep one another in order. How many different sects are we composed of throughout the United States How many different sects will be in congress We cannot enumerate the sects that may be in congress. And there are so many now in the United States that they will prevent the establishment of any one sect in prejudice to the rest, and will forever oppose all attempts to infringe religious liberty. If such an attempt be made, will not the alarm be sounded throughout America If congress be as wicked as we are foretold they will, they would not run the risk of exciting the resentment of all, or most of the religious sects in America. Edmund Randolph — address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 10, 1788 26. I never liked the Hierarchy of the Church an equality in the teacher of Religion, and a dependence on the people, are republican sentiments but if the Clergy combine, they will have their influence on Government Rufus King, Rufus King: American Federalist, pp. 56-57 *Crunch crunch crunch goes the popcorn* Watching you provide me with quotes, to support my argument and destroy yours, is like watching you bend your upper body down at the same time you rapidly bring your knees up to meet your face repeatedly. I’m enjoying the show. Notice, how that argument states that the different religions keeps each other in check. The Major fact that we had different religions keeping each other in check would play a major role against establishing a single religion as the official religion. Even with their argument about “separation of church and state”, the government leverages the existence of different religions to maintain one of its amendments. Dave Hardin: 27. A general toleration of Religion appears to me the best means of peopling our country The free exercise of religion hath stocked the Northern part of… Read more »
Dave Hardin: 38. If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789 Spiritual tyranny, religious persecution, are two separate topics from pure Christianity. Keep in mind that they are slamming the previous, not Christianity. In one of the other quote that you provided me here, George Washington implores his troops to exercise the practice of religion. Dave Hardin: 39. “The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs.” Thomas Jefferson — Letter to James Smith, December 8, 1822 This is what he actually said to James Smith, in context: “No historical fact is better established than that the doctrine of one god, pure and uncompounded was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was among the efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the antients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity of the supreme being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a god like another Cerberus with one body and three heads had it’s birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. And a strong proof of the solidity of the primitive faith is it’s restoration as soon as a nation arises which vindicates to itself the freedom of religious opinion, and it’s eternal divorce from the civil authority. The pure and simply unity of the creator of the universe is now all but ascendant in the Eastern states; it is dawning in the West, and advancing towards the South; and I confidently expect that the present generation… Read more »
Looks like the school district is afraid of someone getting a case of “the butt hurt” over letting the HS football team honoring fallen warriors.
My opinion – honoring those that have fallen, to include LEO’s, firefighters and EMT’s, shouldn’t be a one day event… we should remember them always. One day student assemblies for Veteran’s Days is just the schools/school district’s way of being PC, but as soon as the day is over with, nothing else is said.
Enigma4you, yes indeed…God help us.
One of my most trusted and valued friends is an atheist that just gets seriously pissed at atheists that want to shut down anything remotely Christian. He always said a thinking atheist has to admit that the 10 commandments is a pretty good idea
He would probably agree that maybe there are 6 commandments that are a good idea. The first four dictate exactly how you must worship that particular God.
The rest of them are moral beliefs that have been held by every civilization know to mankind. The false notion is that the God of Abraham had some kind of ownership to them. Those same moral values and many more not mentioned there have existed long before any mention of the Abrahamic God.
Good point Dave.
what’s up D !!!!!
🙂
Given the sniveling slovenly unabashed liberals running our Pubic Screwool systems these days, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if they espoused the idea of putting the names of dead felons shot by LEO’s instead of the names of Fallen Veterans, and the Cross? I’m sure they wouldn’t utter a peep if a pentagram or a crescent moon was used instead, and the US Flag? They’ll gloat, drool and grin when one is burned, spat on, or stepped on, but do the same to a “Foo-foo flag” (rainblow) and they’ll be screeching and bawling for you to be arrested and “reeducated” a la Nazi Germany, USSR, or North Korea.
The idea that the Apotheosis of Washington depicts him going to ‘heaven’ is utter nonsense.
It is him going into the HEAVENS. Not a Christian heaven as is implied. He is surrounded by Roman Gods not the Christian one.
I agree that many people take both sides of the issue too far. That little cut out of a soldier kneeling with the cross has been used all over the country for the sole purpose of stirring up trouble.
It is cheap and easy to place anywhere. I have lost count of how many times that exact thing has been removed from public lands.
There are a number of things wrong with the Iowa cross story, and it’s hard to know where to begin without going into some length.
In the first place, the media thrives on conflict. It’s part of the stock in trade, and if there isn’t enough real conflict handy, it tends to get created.
In the second place, most of the expressed outrage in the story is coming from a single source, the attorney for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a guy who apparently makes a living working for a non-profit as a professional complainer. His rationale being summed up in the nut-graf quote:
“The separation of church and state is vital for religious freedom,” (Ian) Smith said. “When the government puts its authority behind a particular religion, it stifles other religious expression.”
Kinda makes you wonder if that sound you’re hearing is all those other religions gasping for air doesn’t it?
My great grandfather, who served in the Civil War, was what was known in the day as a “free thinker.” He was married to a woman who was a devout Southern Baptist. Somehow they managed to have 13 kids without the world coming to an end.
Personally, it doesn’t matter to me much whether somebody thinks the Creator is an imaginary friend, or if somebody else wants to worship Wanda the Flying Pig. What actually counts is having common sense and a moral compass.
On the other hand, I’ve been tempted lately to get a plastic statue of St. Jude for the dashboard of my truck. He being, after all, the patron saint of lost causes.
And if they were to put a picture of ‘a’ or ‘the’ Kardashians up naked, it would be perfectly fine. (free speech!) To disagree with putting it up would make “you” a racist or evil conservative, or anything else negative.
Let alone, far too many people these days could name all the Kardashians, but couldn’t name the 50 states, couldn’t tell you who is third in line to be President during peace time, how many members of Congress there are, etc etc. (Stuff we used to learn in grade school.)
“Did the constitution change?” No, but there is a group of people, a very small group of people who apparently have a supernatural ability to see words where there are none and attach meaning to words that defy a plain reading of the Constitution. These seers, these mystics, wear black robes, and are neither elected by nor answerable to the people. They have wrested power not granted to it by the Constitution, including the power of judicial review, something the Founding Fathers were well familiar with and could easily have conferred explicitly in the Constitution. But they did not. Instead, it was concocted as an implied power of the mystics of the Supreme Court. From there, over time, the mystics’ developed abilities far beyond those of mortal men. They found a “penumbra of rights” which, try as we might, none of us can find in the Constitution. It’s truly uncanny and mystifying that a small group of lawyers can dictate to millions of people what is and is not good and right and proper in a society that prides itself on being a republic–and a democratic one at that.
“Assentation,” huh?
As to the football team, the school is bound by the NHFS (commonly called “the Fed” by those in the sports officiating avocation. )
The Fed is really picky on what can be allowed on a jersey in all sports and does not allow what the football team wants to do.
Before reading the entire article and the press release by the school district, my thought was “what they want to do is against Fed rules.” It’s that black and white.
So if the school wants to fight the Colorado High School Sports Association and the Feds, they can. They will lose because there is no dissent allowed in those organizations, but they can try.
That being said, the other reason of “allowing other events or points of view” on jerseys is poppycock. Schools have a wide discretion as to what speech is allowed on campus and at events. If they think the speech may even remotely cause a disruption, they can ban it.
So saying “we can’t allow military names because it opens the door to other, more controversial things is heifer hockey.
The school district is right about the Fed rules but wrong on the speech issue.
Questions for Dave Hardin
These will be asked (posted in this box only) one at a time. None are long winded thereby making it easy for you to answer each. Please, keep your answer to each short, concise and to the point.
What would you count as actual, credible, real world evidence for God?
And so, Dave here it is five hours later! You gonna answer the question or what? Are you hiding? Is your answer stuck on a piece of bubble gum up under the table? How about underneath your chair? Looking for it on your laptop? Ah…Your file server crashed and you don’t have backups of the files. Is that it?
He probably has a life.
My answer? I look around at the Universe, and reason that a system that complex did not simply just kinda happen accidently.
Others take the opposite path.
Smugness in either seems …. dumb.
Yep. I dabbled a bit in astronomy and spend quite a bit of time hanging with the smart folks of my company’s Space Science Division. These guys have put stuff on Mars and had some of the principal scientists for that little probe that just flew by Pluto, among other things they’ve done. We can pretty much explain, scientifically, everything going on out there in the cosmos. But when discussing the actual creation of the universe, aka the Big Bang Theory, the one thing none of us can explain is: where did that first speck come from?
Hmmmm….
Guess you told me what was what, huh? Who the fuck are you? Comedic relief? Stow the sock puppet act in your field pack 11B-Mailclerk and take a hike. Dave is a *big boy* the last I heard and very capable of defending his position.
Lol.
Irony. troll much?
Do you even read your own posts?
Just lol…..
Yes, science doesn’t really have an explanation for the random collection of chemicals that came together and ignited what is generally called ‘life’, does it?
We may eventually. But at the moment we get all sorts of flame wars over “builder” versus “happenstance”. (Or to be fair, over one or another imagined answers to ‘how?’)
And some folks are really, really touchy about anything challenging or even questioning that ‘how?’