The Philosophy of Conservativism [Archive]

Stone Island

20th February 2009, 06:06 PM

Edward Feser notes (http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/02/conservatives-and-tradition.html)that one of the common criticisms of conservativism is that conservatives are “guilty of appealing to tradition when it suits [them], and not when it doesn't.”

He then provides 8 classes of tradition and the possible evaluation thereof:

1. Some traditional practices might reflect something deep in human nature itself and thus be inherently necessary to human well-being.

2. Some traditional practices might not be inherently strictly necessary to human well-being, but may nevertheless tend to promote the well-being of any human society given the concrete circumstances universal to human societies.

3. Some traditional practices might play such a crucial if contingent role in maintaining the well-being, not of all societies, but of some particular society, given its own concrete circumstances.

4. Some traditional practices might not themselves directly have even this sort of conduciveness to the well-being of a society, but might nevertheless be logically, sociologically, historically, or psychologically connected to traditional practices that are conducive in this way, so that to eliminate them would indirectly threaten the directly beneficial practices.

5. Some traditional practices might not play any of the roles described in 1-4, but the mere fact of changing them might, given circumstances, upset the stability of a given society even though they have no intrinsic value.

6. Some traditional practices might be harmful in some respects, but eliminating them might do even greater harm.

7. Some traditional practices might be benign but not particularly beneficial – they can be either kept or abandoned with no harm of any sort, or with only trivial harm.

8. Some traditional practices might be harmful enough that eliminating them will do more good than harm.

(I list all 8 because I know a lot of readers won't bother to follow the link through.)

Based on this schema, various sorts of public religious practice, especially the kind the SCOTUS refers to as ceremonial deism, but also creches, displays of the 10 commandments, the realization that the founding of the country was based on an understanding of and working through of Christianity, etc..., ought to be preserved. In addition, the oft lamented mixing of religion and politics, as opposed to the separation of church and state, really isn't a problem at all, at least not for a conservative.

ImaginalDisc

20th February 2009, 08:09 PM

D'rok

20th February 2009, 08:16 PM

Separation of church and state is traditional in this country.

Yup. By definition, conservatives should be worried about change that departs from that tradition.

The irony, it burns.

D'rok

20th February 2009, 08:25 PM

On a semi-related note, conservatives in my country (Canada) actually have a potential constitutional argument against the separation of church and state. The preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law"

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

And that bloody thing was written in 1982.

The Supreme Court has already had a lot to say about the "rule of law" bit. It's only a matter of time until the "supremacy of God" gets tested. It might even happen quite soon, given the ongoing litigation around polygamy in BC Mormon communities.

I hope they make that argument. It would clarify what are already the plain facts on the ground here: freedom of thought and expression are incompatible with the "supremacy of God", and church and state are de facto separate.

It is a strange quirk that Canada, which has a head of state who is also the head of the Anglican church, has real separation of church and state, while America, which has constitutionally guaranteed separation, is so conflicted.

joobz

20th February 2009, 08:40 PM

D'rok

20th February 2009, 09:00 PM

I note that the linked blog post references Burke. It's too bad Burke didn't write "Reflections on the Revolution in America". Can he really be cited as supporting revolution? Newsflash for American conservatives: you live in the most explicitly liberal country the world has ever known. You are the living manifestation of Locke, Mill et al. You had a revolution against traditional, conservative political authority, and you declared your independence and crafted your constitution on explicitly liberal terms borrowed from Locke, Montesquieu and the gang.

So, if an American conservative wants to be American, your conservatism demands that you fight to uphold the liberal traditions of your country. Any other kind of conservatism is not American.

It's quite the bind, really.

20th February 2009, 10:11 PM

It is a strange quirk that Canada, which has a head of state who is also the head of the Anglican church, has real separation of church and state, while America, which has constitutionally guaranteed separation, is so conflicted.

Not to mention that our Prime Minister is an evangelical Christian, who attends a Christian and Missionary Alliance Church (http://www.cmacan.org/aboutuspg.php?pg_id=30).

Read items 4 and 5 on that list.

Yet how often do you see Harper banging on about his religion, in supposedly sectarian Canada?
Compare that to the prevalence of God-talk in supposedly secular America.

Another difference: The leader of one of our national parties (and a not insignificant one) is an atheist. An openly atheistic American party leader is still a long time away. To be fair, though, Gilles Duceppe is a separatist and his party only runs in one province.

Safe-Keeper

21st February 2009, 03:07 AM

Separation of church and state is traditional in this country. It's very frightening how widespread the idea that the US was founded as a Christian country has become. It's blatant history revisionism, and should never have gotten as prevalent as it is.

D'rok

21st February 2009, 06:17 AM

Not to mention that our Prime Minister is an evangelical Christian, who attends a Christian and Missionary Alliance Church (http://www.cmacan.org/aboutuspg.php?pg_id=30).

Read items 4 and 5 on that list.

Yet how often do you see Harper banging on about his religion, in supposedly sectarian Canada?
Compare that to the prevalence of God-talk in supposedly secular America.

Another difference: The leader of one of our national parties (and a not insignificant one) is an atheist. An openly atheistic American party leader is still a long time away. To be fair, though, Gilles Duceppe is a separatist and his party only runs in one province.

From number 5 on that list:

"The destiny of the impenitent and unbelieving is existence forever in conscious torment, but that of the believer is everlasting joy and bliss."

I always knew Duceppe was going to burn in hell. :D

Unalienable

21st February 2009, 06:26 AM

I have nothing wrong with traditions. I am an atheist (or at the extreme, a non-interventional God style Deist) and yet when somebody sneezes, I still say "God bless you." That isn't going to hurt anybody. Likewise, a plaque containing the Golden Rule in a schoolhouse isn't going to be the downfall of a free society.

Part of the problem here is that we shouldn't even have to worry about religion creeping into government. If government didn't creep outside of its own proper constraints, then it wouldn't find itself meddling in places like schoolhouses where people actually care about this kind of stuff.

What about the 10 commandments on a plaque outside a courthouse? Well, as long as it is there as a decoration and not an actual legal guideline to follow, I could care less. It sure looks nicer than an ugly modern art statue.

Roboramma

22nd February 2009, 06:52 AM

Based on this schema, various sorts of public religious practice, especially the kind the SCOTUS refers to as ceremonial deism, but also creches, displays of the 10 commandments, the realization that the founding of the country was based on an understanding of and working through of Christianity, etc..., ought to be preserved. In addition, the oft lamented mixing of religion and politics, as opposed to the separation of church and state, really isn't a problem at all, at least not for a conservative.

Well, assuming that the traditions that fall under items numbered 1-6 on your list are actually more numerous than those that fall under classification numbers 7 and 8, sure.
But why should we believe that to be true? While it's possible to make the classifications as you quoted them, 1-6 may only represent 1% of traditions, while 7 and 8 collectively represent 99%.

Of course, I don't know that's the case, and neither do you. So without that data, I suggest we look at traditional practices and judge them on their merits on a case by case basis, what do you say?

Stone Island

22nd February 2009, 09:31 PM

So without that data, I suggest we look at traditional practices and judge them on their merits on a case by case basis, what do you say?

Edward Feser writes,

So, when can the innovator’s burden of proof be taken as having been met? When is a traditional practice or belief to be upheld and when abandoned? To some extent this has to be answered on a case by case basis, but the cases fall into several distinct classes

Stone Island

22nd February 2009, 09:37 PM

Yup. By definition, conservatives should be worried about change that departs from that tradition.

The irony, it burns.

Actually, "separation of church and state" isn't all that tradition, at least not in its modern formulation.

First, it's not Constitutional, but you knew that.

Second, it was meant to protect churches from government, not the other way around.

Third, for a while supporting it was a sure-fire way to kill your political career.

Fourth, it was used by a Protestant religious establishment (the state) to discriminate against Catholics (a particular Church).

Finally, it's come to meant what it means today.

Which is the "real" tradition?

D'rok

22nd February 2009, 09:48 PM

First, it's not Constitutional, but you knew that.

:jaw-dropp

Which is the "real" tradition?Liberalism. But you knew that.

Foster Zygote

22nd February 2009, 10:15 PM

Actually, "separation of church and state" isn't all that tradition, at least not in its modern formulation.
Yeah, for most of human history, whatever religion the ruling authority happened to subscribe to was given special precedent over any other. If you happened not to subscribe to said religion you were/are SOL.

First, it's not Constitutional, but you knew that.
Oh, do explain.

Second, it was meant to protect churches from government, not the other way around.
Please explain this. Are you implying that the government has no need of protection from religion? Considering that in a republican democracy the government is the people this seems like a huge problem to me. If a religion that you don't agree with was to gain influence or even control over the government I would be willing to bet that you would feel differently.

Third, for a while supporting it was a sure-fire way to kill your political career.
So what? for a long while supporting integration in Southern U.S. schools was a sure-fire way to kill your political career. What is your point?

Fourth, it was used by a Protestant religious establishment (the state) to discriminate against Catholics (a particular Church).
Huh?

Foster Zygote

22nd February 2009, 10:54 PM

In answer to my question
Please explain this. Are you implying that the government has no need of protection from religion? Considering that in a republican democracy the government is the people this seems like a huge problem to me. If a religion that you don't agree with was to gain influence or even control over the government I would be willing to bet that you would feel differently.
Stone Island sent me a PM suggesting that I read the Federalist Papers #10.

Stone Island, since you are only a dissertation away from a Ph.D. in political science, would it not be easy for you to point out in brief what about The Federalist #10 supports your claim regarding the intention of the establishment clause of the First Amendment?

Dr Adequate

22nd February 2009, 11:59 PM

the realization that the founding of the country was based on an understanding of and working through of Christianity, etc... I have to agree with you about the "understanding and working through of Christianity".

"The Christian god can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." - Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to his nephew, Peter Carr

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absented myself from Christian assemblies." - Benjamin Franklin, Toward The Mystery.

"Tom, had you and I been 40 days with Moses, and beheld the great God, and even if God himself had tried to tell us that three was one ... and one equals three, you and I would never have believed it. We would never fall victims to such lies." - John Adams on the doctrine of the Trinity, letter to Thomas Jefferson

It was doubtless this understanding that led to the foundation of the USA as a secular nation.

Dr Adequate

23rd February 2009, 12:12 AM

Actually, "separation of church and state" isn't all that tradition, at least not in its modern formulation. It appears (give or take a couple of definite articles) in the writings of James Madison, you know, the guy who wrote the Bill of Rights?

"It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State." - James Madison

Traditional enough for you? Only if you go any further back you'll get to the even more traditional opinion that King George III ruled America by divine right.

Second, it was meant to protect churches from government, not the other way around.

Again, let's turn to James Madison:

"There remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." - James Madison; Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt

Third, for a while supporting it was a sure-fire way to kill your political career. Unless, of course, you happened to be one of the Founding Fathers.

Fourth, it was used by a Protestant religious establishment (the state) to discriminate against Catholics (a particular Church). Someone should have mentioned this to the Catholic JFK:

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute - where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him." - John F. Kennedy

Finally, it's come to meant what it means today.

Which is the "real" tradition? Since what James Madison meant by it is, apparently, what I would mean by it, I claim to be the upholder of the real tradition.

Conservatives had better hasten to put that one in class 8.

Dave Rogers

23rd February 2009, 04:26 AM

Based on this schema, various sorts of public religious practice, especially the kind the SCOTUS refers to as ceremonial deism, but also creches, displays of the 10 commandments, the realization that the founding of the country was based on an understanding of and working through of Christianity, etc..., ought to be preserved. In addition, the oft lamented mixing of religion and politics, as opposed to the separation of church and state, really isn't a problem at all, at least not for a conservative.

This entire OP is a non-argument. The point of an appeal to tradition is that it is irrelevant in establishing the truth value of an argument, not that it's necessarily wrong. You're making the point that some traditional practices are beneficial and others harmful, and that elimination of some (not necessarily an identical set to the latter) is beneficial. By doing so, you are accepting that the appeal to tradition is fallacious, and that other grounds must be used for deciding which practices are to be preserved, and which eliminated. You're then discarding this, and writing the paragraph above, which is a set of unsupported assumptions based - surprise, surprise - on the good old appeal to tradition!

As other posters have shown, some of the traditions you're appealing to don't in fact exist, but to me it seems futile to dispute your premises when they seem to have no connection to your conclusions.

Dave

KingMerv00

23rd February 2009, 04:28 AM

Stone Island,

What legal test do the courts currently use when determining if a governmental act is a violation of the establishment clause?

(Hint...it beings with "L")

joobz

23rd February 2009, 05:19 AM

You seem to be presenting continuously self-contradictory arguments.
So, StoneIsland, is natural law a reality? Do humans have certain inalienable rights?
If so, doesn't the seperation of church and state protect these rights?

Are you now saying that we don't have objective moral rights? Or, perhaps, that what you thought those objective moral rights were wrong?

And to your quote, I must say that those list of 8 provides the perfect justification for a "conservative" to randomly accept/reject any tradition without fear of losing the conservative label. Perhaps the real lesson is that conservativism is simply another word for moral relativism.
I'm not rising to the bait.

**[plonk]**
I realize this is futile, but simply..

What bait? You've argued for natural objective laws and now argue that a cornerstone of the US government doesn't serve to protect those natural laws, as is theorized by traditionalists. I'm asking you to explain your complete coherent position. If you are indeed a PhD of political science, then this should be a rather straight forward point to address.

As a word of warning, you will not have the luxury of *plonking* your thesis committee.

joobz

23rd February 2009, 10:57 AM

Please note StoneIsland. I do not view your responses as private as they are responding to my public messages.
I realize this is futile, but simply..

What bait? You've argued for natural objective laws and now argue that a cornerstone of the US government doesn't serve to protect those natural laws, as is theorized by traditionalists. I'm asking you to explain your complete coherent position. If you are indeed a PhD of political science, then this should be a rather straight forward point to address.

As a word of warning, you will not have the luxury of *plonking* your thesis committee.
The Jame Randi Education Foundation Forum isn't my Ph.D. committee. I don't owe you anything, neither consistency nor coherence. I certainly don't owe you my attention
You are absolutely right. My point is simplt that I would simply be shocked if your committee wouldn't ask similar questions when confronted with logically contradictory arguments.

Stone Island

23rd February 2009, 11:46 AM

It appears (give or take a couple of definite articles) in the writings of James Madison, you know, the guy who wrote the Bill of Rights?

"It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State." - James Madison

Traditional enough for you? Only if you go any further back you'll get to the even more traditional opinion that King George III ruled America by divine right.

Again, let's turn to James Madison:

"There remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." - James Madison; Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt

I think you miss the subtlety of Madison's understanding.

Freedom from a religious establishment was certainly something they could all agree upon. Mistaking a creche on a court house lawn for a religious establishment is a great and enduring error on the part of some our more misguided and over-enthusiastic civil libertarians.

However, freedom from a religious establishment doesn't wash away the fundamentally religious character of the new nation, and shouldn't lead you to ignore the fundamental importance of religious liberty. Americans were a religious people, and as a religious people would serve in office, and would thus bring to bear their religious scruples.

In addition, the First Amendment prohibition on religious establishments only extended to the Federal Government. State governments could establish any religion they wanted.

You don't have to read too many Inaugural addresses to find all the traditional mentions of God and providence you could hope for.

My own quote-mine from Madison's A Memorial and Remonstrance:

Because the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind.

Regarding the debate over the First Amendment, Madison speaking:

He apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.

Is this the same as prohibiting public recognition of the U.S.'s Christian heritage, non-denominational prayers at certain public events, or the like?

From Ariens and Destro's Religious Liberty in a Pluralistic Society (Carolina Academic Press, 2002):

Two days after writing his letter to the Danbry Baptist Association, Jefferson attended a Sabbath (Sunday) religious service in the House of Representatives, at which the "separationist" and Baptist John Leland preached. Leland was a resident of western Mass., and involved in the cause of religious freedom in both that state and in Connecticut... To understand the meaning of the guarantee of religious liberty, is it more important to focus on the fact that Jefferson attended a service at which a famous Baptist minister, involved in the disestablishment effort in New England, preached, or is it mope important to note the fact that religious services were conducted in the House of Representatives? Is this even consistent with the present understanding of the requirements of the First Amendment (Ariens and Destro, 2002, 96)?

Also, from the same book:

While President, Jefferson sent a proposed treaty between the U.S. government and the Kaskaskia and other native tribes to the Senate for confirmation. The treaty included a provision which stated: "the U.S. will give, annually, for seven years, one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that [Roman Catholic] religion, which will engage to perform for said tribe the duties of his office, and also to instruct as many of their children as possible, in the rudiments of literature. And the U.S. will further give the sum of three hundred dollars, to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church (Ariens and Destro, 2002, 97).

TraneWreck

23rd February 2009, 12:17 PM

In addition, the First Amendment prohibition on religious establishments only extended to the Federal Government. State governments could establish any religion they wanted.

I am trying very hard to avoid getting too involved in this, but alas, here we go.

This point is obviously moot as the amendments to the constitution following the Civil War applied the establishment clause along with the rest of the Bill of Rights to the states. So whatever the custom happened to be at the exact moment(s) of ratification, like slavery, that quaint practice is a thing of the past.

Thus, we now have an established custom nearing 150 years of age that expressly denies the ability of states to establish religion.

On a related note, I would love to hear an explanation of why I should care that Christianity was or was not customary. It's obviously the case that the major philosophical influences for the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were Enlightenment philosophers, not religious scholars. The only reason Jefferson even had to go through the motions of being a deist was because Darwin hadn't arrived to give reasonable people an explanation of how things came to be.

That being said, I'm not sure I care in a practical sense (historically and philosophically, however, I am very interested) what the customs of our founding fathers happened to be. They had good ideas (Bill of Rights) and horrific ideas (3/5ths clause) but the merit of those ideas are determined practically, not by whether someone hundreds of years before behaved similarly.

Is this the same as prohibiting public recognition of the U.S.'s Christian heritage, non-denominational prayers at certain public events, or the like?

First of all, what do you mean by the "U.S.'s Christian heritage?" If you mean that genetically the poeple who built this nation came from mostly Christian ancestors, then I don't see any example of that fact being hidden.

If, however, you mean that this nation was founded on Christianity, you are just wrong. From the treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams and ratified by the Senate in 1797:

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

If you're making the weaker argument that Christian philosophy influenced the framers, then I would say that's true of some of them, but not the most important figures. Ben Franklin, a self-professed religious man. "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."(Toward The Mystery)

Thomas Jefferson scissored all references to miracles from his Bible, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." (letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814).

And of course, "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." (letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802)

George Washington was more enigmatic, but he wasn't overtly Christian. He was a member of the American Church, but at that time it was socially and politically necessary. A great many preachers made up stories about Washington to claim him as a Christian (such as his death-bed appeal to Jesus), but he was a deist.

And some founders were very Christian. Our government, however, is expressly NOT Christian, and should not be involved in any sort of religious like activity. You can pray all you want on your own time, but leave the Virgin Mary off the Courthouse steps.

You don't have to read too many Inaugural addresses to find all the traditional mentions of God and providence you could hope for.

Yes, a politician must win elections to gain power. A great many citizens of this country are religious. Therefore, our leaders must go through this insulting dance involving sucking up to bigots (Warren), appearing in church even though it's obvious you could care less (Clinton), and using the phrase "God Bless America" at every opportunity. If we rely on the pandering habits of politicians to settle our philosophical debates, we are in for an even rougher road.

On a related note, the only president of the last 40 years that didn't even feign religious interest was Reagan. He never went to church, had a fractured family, and yet all the religious folk loved him...strange.

Foster Zygote

23rd February 2009, 12:46 PM

Stone Island

23rd February 2009, 02:22 PM

I am trying very hard to avoid getting too involved in this, but alas, here we go.

This point is obviously moot as the amendments to the constitution following the Civil War applied the establishment clause along with the rest of the Bill of Rights to the states. So whatever the custom happened to be at the exact moment(s) of ratification, like slavery, that quaint practice is a thing of the past.

Thus, we now have an established custom nearing 150 years of age that expressly denies the ability of states to establish religion.

On a related note, I would love to hear an explanation of why I should care that Christianity was or was not customary. It's obviously the case that the major philosophical influences for the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were Enlightenment philosophers, not religious scholars. The only reason Jefferson even had to go through the motions of being a deist was because Darwin hadn't arrived to give reasonable people an explanation of how things came to be.

That being said, I'm not sure I care in a practical sense (historically and philosophically, however, I am very interested) what the customs of our founding fathers happened to be. They had good ideas (Bill of Rights) and horrific ideas (3/5ths clause) but the merit of those ideas are determined practically, not by whether someone hundreds of years before behaved similarly.

First of all, what do you mean by the "U.S.'s Christian heritage?" If you mean that genetically the poeple who built this nation came from mostly Christian ancestors, then I don't see any example of that fact being hidden.

If, however, you mean that this nation was founded on Christianity, you are just wrong. From the treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams and ratified by the Senate in 1797:

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

If you're making the weaker argument that Christian philosophy influenced the framers, then I would say that's true of some of them, but not the most important figures. Ben Franklin, a self-professed religious man. "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."(Toward The Mystery)

Thomas Jefferson scissored all references to miracles from his Bible, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." (letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814).

And of course, "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." (letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802)

George Washington was more enigmatic, but he wasn't overtly Christian. He was a member of the American Church, but at that time it was socially and politically necessary. A great many preachers made up stories about Washington to claim him as a Christian (such as his death-bed appeal to Jesus), but he was a deist.

And some founders were very Christian. Our government, however, is expressly NOT Christian, and should not be involved in any sort of religious like activity. You can pray all you want on your own time, but leave the Virgin Mary off the Courthouse steps.

Yes, a politician must win elections to gain power. A great many citizens of this country are religious. Therefore, our leaders must go through this insulting dance involving sucking up to bigots (Warren), appearing in church even though it's obvious you could care less (Clinton), and using the phrase "God Bless America" at every opportunity. If we rely on the pandering habits of politicians to settle our philosophical debates, we are in for an even rougher road.

Nobody is arguing for a re-establishment of an official religion.

As for our government being expressly not-Christian, I have to ask, where is the textual evidence for that claim? And why in Article II, Section 7, are Sunday excepted? It's a small point, I admit, and certainly doesn't pave the way for an established religion, which no one wants, but, I think, it does point to a general recognition of the religious character of American society.

To dismiss explicitly religious behavior, and religious acknowledgment as merely the result of craven political necessity, is an injustice, I think, because you have to overlook what people wrote, did, and said, and instead imagine what you would have them really mean. That calls for quite a bit of projection on your part. You would be rightly annoyed if I copied D'Souza and claimed that the reason Hitchens is an atheist is because he doesn't want people to judge him for having kinky sex. That kind of grappling with unknown and unknowable motives, in the face of public behavior, isn't serious.

I see your John Adams with George Washington:
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.
And raise you Abraham Lincoln:
Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh."
If you can dismiss George Washington's words as merely the most ceremonial of deisms, then I can certainly dismiss what John Adams told a bunch of pirates in order to get a treaty written. Which, do you think, has more authority?

joobz

23rd February 2009, 02:34 PM

Freedom from a religious establishment was certainly something they could all agree upon. Mistaking a creche on a court house lawn for a religious establishment is a great and enduring error on the part of some our more misguided and over-enthusiastic civil libertarians.Are you saying that displaying a star and crescent on the lawn of a court house wouldn't suggest any favoritism that the local authority may have? Would you feel like you would receive equal treatment under the law there?

However, freedom from a religious establishment doesn't wash away the fundamentally religious character of the new nation, and shouldn't lead you to ignore the fundamental importance of religious liberty. Americans were a religious people, and as a religious people would serve in office, and would thus bring to bear their religious scruples.
I don't see ANYONE here confusing this. Of course people of America have been historically religious. Ever since the settling of the puritans, it was clear they were religious. Nobody is attempting to take away personal expression of religious beliefs. The claim that civil liberties advocates are doing so is a red herring catering to the persecution complex that seems to exist in Christian communities.
But the challenge for you is to explain why these "historically religious" people went out of their way to remove all religious references from the constitution -save the phrase In the year of our lord. If anything, I think the fact that our government was born out of a religious group underlines the reality of what they were attempting to do.

In addition, the First Amendment prohibition on religious establishments only extended to the Federal Government. State governments could establish any religion they wanted. the 14th amendment nullifies this point. You do know that the constitution is amendable, correct?

My own quote-mine from Madison's A Memorial and Remonstrance:

You are insinuating that Dr.Adequate quote mined Madison. Quote-mining is the practice of taking a phrase out of context, thereby intentionally changing the meaning of the person being quoted. This is an extremely dishonest practice and one that isn't taken lightly. Indeed, if you think Dr. Adequate has quote-mined Madison, please provide evidence of this.

Perhaps refer to the Madison's greater statement that was being quoted from and explain why Dr. Adequate's interpretation is dishonest.

Regarding the debate over the First Amendment, Madison speaking:

Is this the same as prohibiting public recognition of the U.S.'s Christian heritage, non-denominational prayers at certain public events, or the like?
Now, I will give you credit.

You did properly Define your own quote as a quote-mine, as you completely, fully and dishonestly changed the intent Madison's point:

Allow me to present the opening paragraph from the statement you quote-mined.
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html
We the subscribers , citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,
Notice that madison is "remonstrating" a bill attempting to establish teaching the Christian religion.

He goes on to 15 reasons for that remonstration. (you do understand that remonstrating means to argue against, correct?).

Reason 12 for not establishing such a bill was:
Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Leveling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defense against the encroachments of error.

Taken in full, you get the idea that Madison welcomes the separation of church and state with the idea that by permitting open practice of ALL faiths, one is likely to come to the TRUE religion. It's clear he believed that to be Christianity, but that he also believed that state sponsorship of the religion would be contrary to bringing people to the true religion.

Now, your quote mine made several errors
1.) By not providing context to Madison's statement, you allowed people to read the word "bill" as potentially meaning the "bill of rights".
2.) You asked the question of "Is this the same as prohibiting public recognition of the U.S.'s Christian heritage, non-denominational prayers at certain public events, or the like?" Which is nearly impossible to answer with the little bit of information that you gave. And yet, when you have the full quote, you can see that the answer to your question is even more likely to be YES. Madison did not want state involved with religion at all. To create laws supporting one over the other or even give the semblance of favoritism is contrary to his view of how to free people to discovering the truth.

Again, I thank you for this fine example of quote-mining. It provided me with a means of demonstrating how one goes about proving a quote mine was in fact perpetrated. Now, are you able to find similar errors in Dr. Adequate's quote? If not, then honesty would dictate that you should apologize to him for your charge of quote-mining.

Foster Zygote

23rd February 2009, 02:52 PM

If you can dismiss George Washington's words as merely the most ceremonial of deisms, then I can certainly dismiss what John Adams told a bunch of pirates in order to get a treaty written. Which, do you think, has more authority?

Your kidding, right? The one with the greater authority, indeed the only authority in any legal sense, is the one that is actually a legal document.

All you've shown is that Washington and Lincoln at least payed lip service to religion. The quotes that you've provided do not demonstrate that either man even thought that the government of the United States should be in any way aligned with religion in an official sense.

Are you sure that you are on the verge of earning a Ph.D. in political science?

Dr Adequate

23rd February 2009, 03:20 PM

To dismiss explicitly religious behavior, and religious acknowledgment as merely the result of craven political necessity, is an injustice, I think, because you have to overlook what people wrote, did, and said, and instead imagine what you would have them really mean.

Here's Jefferson on Washington and what he wrote, did, and said:

"When the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice." - Thomas Jefferson, quoted from Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572.

That calls for quite a bit of projection on your part. You would be rightly annoyed if I copied D'Souza ... You did. Then you pasted him.

I see your John Adams with George Washington:

And raise you Abraham Lincoln: Would that be the same Abraham Lincoln who wrote: "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln, letter to Judge J. S. Wakefield

TraneWreck

23rd February 2009, 03:29 PM

Nobody is arguing for a re-establishment of an official religion.

As for our government being expressly not-Christian, I have to ask, where is the textual evidence for that claim? And why in Article II, Section 7, are Sunday excepted? It's a small point, I admit, and certainly doesn't pave the way for an established religion, which no one wants, but, I think, it does point to a general recognition of the religious character of American society.

You are conflating two points:

1) the American people are largely Christian
2) Christianity is the foundation (in some sense--you are very vague on this point, do you mean legally, philosophically, socially?) of the Constitution, or the country, again, you're vague on this point.

1 is a fact of life, and certain decisions were made based on practicality. Sundays were traditionally days of rest. Businesses, schools, and other aspects of life were already constructed around this fact, thus it was practical to continue. It is that practicality, not the death and supposed ressurection of Jesus, that is the basis of that constitutional decision.

And where is your evidence for 2? To the extent that I even understand what you're talking about, I gave two direct, contradictions to that claim. The first is the treaty of Tripoli written a mere decade after the adoption of the Constitution where the president and the senate expressly state that the United States is not a Christian nation. The second is Jefferson's clear description of the wall between Church and State. Now you can sneak by on a technicality and argue that the Bill of Rights weren't initially included in the Constitution, but they were clearly the fruit of that constructive period.

No one here, nor anyone I can think of, has ever argued that the majority of the population was Christian. Obviously that is relevant when discussion, for example, how southerners justified slavery. But as for GOVERNMENT and its roll in religion, Jefferson put a big ass wall right between them.

To dismiss explicitly religious behavior, and religious acknowledgment as merely the result of craven political necessity, is an injustice, I think, because you have to overlook what people wrote, did, and said, and instead imagine what you would have them really mean. That calls for quite a bit of projection on your part. You would be rightly annoyed if I copied D'Souza and claimed that the reason Hitchens is an atheist is because he doesn't want people to judge him for having kinky sex. That kind of grappling with unknown and unknowable motives, in the face of public behavior, isn't serious.

Neither is it evidence that the US is a Christian nation, whatever you think that means. The point is that you cannot infer that the Constitution is a Christian document (or whatever it is you are claiming) because presidents babble about god in their speeches.

I see your John Adams with George Washington:

And raise you Abraham Lincoln:

If you can dismiss George Washington's words as merely the most ceremonial of deisms, then I can certainly dismiss what John Adams told a bunch of pirates in order to get a treaty written. Which, do you think, has more authority?

First, John Adams didn't write the Treaty of Tripoli, he signed it. Second, go read scholars who have studied Washington's relationship with Christianity. In a time when EVERYONE belonged to a church, his actual beliefs are ambiguous. He was clearly pro-Christian, but I don't see any evidence that he believed in the divinity of Jesus.

Second, you've missed the point completely. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written by a group of people, some of which were Christian, some were deists, and some were arguably atheist, though they had to profess a religion for political and social reasons. The dominant thinkers were largely non-Christian, and our founding documents reflect that. Not only do you have the first amendment, but the word "God" never appears in the Constitution. THis is the legacy of Kant and his contention that whether or not there is a God, we must go about our laws and rules as though there wasn't.

Once again, you've been completely vague concerning the actual influence of Christianity on our nation. It's possible I won't even disagree with you, but when you claim that the US is a "Christian nation," I find that as absurd as if you were to say that gravity were a "Christian discovery" because Isaac Newton went to church.

Stone Island

23rd February 2009, 03:39 PM

The Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written by a group of people, some of which were Christian, some were deists, and some were arguably atheist, though they had to profess a religion for political and social reasons. The dominant thinkers were largely non-Christian, and our founding documents reflect that. Not only do you have the first amendment, but the word "God" never appears in the Constitution. THis is the legacy of Kant and his contention that whether or not there is a God, we must go about our laws and rules as though there wasn't.
Before I answer anything else, let's just point out that that's absurd on its face and patently false.

Please, don't project.

If Adam's trying to assure some pirates that America isn't a Christian nation is the law of the land, does that make adding "In God we trust" to the Pledge the law of the land too?

Dr Adequate

23rd February 2009, 04:01 PM

In addition, the First Amendment prohibition on religious establishments only extended to the Federal Government. State governments could establish any religion they wanted. Madison was, of course, only involved in the comparatively trivial task of writing a Bill of Rights for the entire nation. However, it is not clear from this that he thought it right that the imposition of religious tyranny should be delegated to state legislatures. On the contrary, that he thought the opposite is clear from his references to "the experience of Virginia" as a consequence of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom:

The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.

Freedom from a religious establishment was certainly something they could all agree upon. Mistaking a creche on a court house lawn for a religious establishment is a great and enduring error on the part of some our more misguided and over-enthusiastic civil libertarians [...] Is this the same as prohibiting public recognition of the U.S.'s Christian heritage, non-denominational prayers at certain public events, or the like?

That would depend, in my view, on whether the government merely permits such things or whether it pays for them.

To quote from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical".

Thomas Jefferson, you may recall, was so pleased with this statute that he left instructions that his authorship of it should be recorded on his gravestone, though he didn't think it worth mentioning that he was also the third president of the United States.

You may also remember that he was opposed to the statute mentioning Jesus in any way:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. - Jefferson, Autobiography

My own quote-mine from Madison's A Memorial and Remonstrance: You take a passage in which he's arguing against spending public money on promoting Christianity as a point on your side? Wow, that is quote-mining. Have you ever thought of becoming a creationist?

However, freedom from a religious establishment doesn't wash away the fundamentally religious character of the new nation, and shouldn't lead you to ignore the fundamental importance of religious liberty. I am not ignoring the fundamental importance of religious liberty. I am maintaining it, in exactly the sense in which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison conceived it.

Stone Island

23rd February 2009, 04:10 PM

I think that it's also important, when looking at the history of religion in the United Stats, and underapreciated on these boards, to note the difference in American attitude towards "religion" and the Church. The Church was either an established Anglican presence, hostile to liberty, and allied with the King, or a Popish plot which was itself slavish.

Religion, on the other hand, was a kind of worship free of the force of the state. As Jefferson points out, it's important that the force of the government reach to actions only, it has nothing to do with opinions. To somehow eliminate from public life religious sentiments would be itself tyrannically overreaching.

The Founders were fully anti-clerical, but they were not in any sense anti-religious.

Second, the Foundations of the Revolution were informed socially, legally, and philosophically by religious thought. According to B. Bailyn, in Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, the influence of Covenant Theology, while limited, in the sense that it was theological, and parochial, in the sense that it was drawn from local sources, was nevertheless important, and informed the notion that the American revolution was coming at a special time to a special people. Was it at odds with other aspects of Enlightenment thought? Sure. But so was the notion that the American revolution was justified from an understanding of the received tradition of British Constitutionalism.

Dr Adequate

23rd February 2009, 04:25 PM

Before I answer anything else, let's just point out that that's absurd on its face and patently false. Oh yes? Jefferson, Franklin, Paine and Adams were all clearly non-Christian. Who do you have in mind among the "dominant thinkers" to counterbalance them?

If Adam's trying to assure some pirates that America isn't a Christian nation is the law of the land, does that make adding "In God we trust" to the Pledge the law of the land too? Those words do not in fact appear in the pledge either as written or amended; nor do they specify the Christian God.

As far as the Treaty of Tripoli goes, I refer you to Article VI of the constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

joobz

23rd February 2009, 04:29 PM

I think that it's also important, when looking at the history of religion in the United Stats, and underapreciated on these boards, to note the difference in American attitude towards "religion" and the Church.
It's strange then that the first amendment would say
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Perhaps they meant to say "church"? Or was this simply a strawman you are arguing?

The Founders were fully anti-clerical, but they were not in any sense anti-religious.
Considering that nobody said that the founders (which represents a diverse body of individuals who all have conflicting views) as being anti-religous, you are arguing a strawman.

Are you sure your even currently enrolled at a university?

Stone Island

23rd February 2009, 04:30 PM

joobz

23rd February 2009, 05:59 PM

TraneWreck

23rd February 2009, 06:05 PM

Proposition: the First Amendment in no way prohibits the giving of nondiscriminatory aid to religion.

Evidence: the First Congress appointed Chaplains and "request[ed] that Washington issue a thanksgiving proclamation (Ariens and Destro, 2002, 90)."

Thomas Jefferson offered a treaty to the Senate that paid for a priest and provided funds to build a church.

Conclusion: So, something like the Office of Faith Based Initiatives, is well in line with the Founder's understanding of the limitations of the First Amendment.

Look, I have no idea what you're trying to prove. You've still never bothered to explain what you think the US being a "Christian nation" entails. So now I read these random factoids and wonder how they can be remotely relevant.

Thanksgiving isn't now, nor has it ever been an explicitly religious holliday. It's possible some religions have chosen to encorporate their ideology into the feast, but it doesn't involve anything Christian.

Thomas Jefferson set aside money for a church to assist in the conversion of Native Americans. If you want to claim the shameful subjugation of the American Indian as proof of Christianity at work, go right ahead. You can take the Japanese internment camps while you're at it.

On a more serious note, that was in an era before secular schools, so any education initiative had to go through the church. So once again, you have to explain yourself before any sense can be made of that.

As for the opening proposition, it's phrased so poorly it's nonsensical. The first amendment, among other things, prevents the establishment of religion. It is now the duty of the current culture to decide whether faith-based-initiatives constitute an establishment. There is nothing in the simple text of the first amendment that settles that question one way or the other. The Supreme Court now uses the Lemon Test to decide such issues. If you want to argue that faith-based initiatives are ok, you're going to have to show that they meet the 3 criteria of Lemon.

Stone Island

23rd February 2009, 09:15 PM

Thanksgiving isn't now, nor has it ever been an explicitly religious holliday. It's possible some religions have chosen to encorporate their ideology into the feast, but it doesn't involve anything Christian.
Not turkey, thanksgiving to God.

Thomas Jefferson set aside money for a church to assist in the conversion of Native Americans.
Just seems to me to be at odds with the claim that he was against any entanglement of government and religion. If Adam's treaty was authoritative regarding his understanding of whether the U.S. is a Christian nation or not, it seems to be that Jefferson's use of public funds for religious indoctrination would be at least as good.
On a more serious note, that was in an era before secular schools, so any education initiative had to go through the church. So once again, you have to explain yourself before any sense can be made of that.
It's still public money going towards a religious end.

As for the opening proposition, it's phrased so poorly it's nonsensical. The first amendment, among other things, prevents the establishment of religion.
Poorly phrased? Tell that to Ariens and Destro. In any case, the OP was about whether the current stand towards the connection between government and religion is traditional or not.

Stone Island

23rd February 2009, 09:19 PM

joobz

23rd February 2009, 09:49 PM

thanksgiving to God, appoint chaplains, and then pass the first ten amendmentsLet me help you identify what the founders found important, of those points you listed, you mentioned
ceremony, ceremony,and WRITTEN IN THE LAW OF THE LAND

Now, you tell me which one holds ultimate meaning to the founding fathers.

ETA: Don't you think it's a bit sad of the christian right to hold so dearly to these little scraps of trivial ceremony as though they were equal to the constitution?

Dr Adequate

23rd February 2009, 10:18 PM

If the Founders were so decidedly set against religious entanglement with government, why would one of the first things they did be to direct the President to offer up thanksgiving to God, appoint chaplains, and then pass the first ten amendments, the first of which, according to some, invalidates the other actions?

There might be a problem coming up with parsimonious explanation that would satisfy Michael Newdow. You appear to be confusing the "Founders" with the 1st Congress.

Your "thanksgiving to God" claim could do with some sort of quotation or reference, since you've been wrong such a lot lately. However, I conceive that the First Amendment allows the President to thank God for whatever he likes.

As far as Congressional chaplains go, let's hear from James Madison again (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html):

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles:

...

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense.

As to why Congress should both adopt a Bill of Rights and afford themselves a privilege that the author of that Bill thought was "a palpable violation of Constitutional principles", I can only conjecture that he knew what it meant better than they did.

Upchurch

24th February 2009, 09:32 AM

Stone Island

24th February 2009, 10:11 AM

You appear to be confusing the "Founders" with the 1st Congress.
There was some non-trivial overlap.

(By the way, what did Jefferson or Adams have to do with the writing of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights?)

I'm as sloppy as anyone on this point, but here is a nice distinction for the words Founder and Framer:

Founder: signed the DOI
Framer: involved in drafting the Constitution
First Congress: not an insignificant number of Framers and Founders

Adams and Jefferson were Founders but not Framers.
Madison was a Framer, but not a Founder, and was a member of the First Congress.
Adams was Vice President, and thus President of the Senate, during the First Congress while Jefferson was Washington's Secretary of State.

In his early drafts of the First Amendment, which was introduced as "no religion shall be established by law..." Madison said, "He believed that the people feared that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and established a religion to which they would compel others to conform.... if the word 'national' were introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent (Ariens and Destro, 2002, 82)."

"Under God" in the Pledge, or "In God We Trust" on Coins, a Chaplain in Congress, or a cross memorializing men and women who gave their lives for this country (http://www.latimes.com/classified/jobs/career/la-na-supreme-court-cross24-2009feb24,0,4243786.story), hardly establish a national religion or compel others to conform to some particular form of religious worship, do they?

Stone Island

24th February 2009, 10:13 AM

Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Day Proclamation: (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html)

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our sasety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington

TraneWreck

24th February 2009, 10:30 AM

There was some non-trivial overlap.

(By the way, what did Jefferson or Adams have to do with the writing of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights?)

I'm as sloppy as anyone on this point, but here is a nice distinction for the words Founder and Framer:

Founder: signed the DOI
Framer: involved in drafting the Constitution
First Congress: not an insignificant number of Framers and Founders

Adams and Jefferson were Founders but not Framers.
Madison was a Framer, but not a Founder, and was a member of the First Congress.
Adams was Vice President, and thus President of the Senate, during the First Congress while Jefferson was Washington's Secretary of State.

In his early drafts of the First Amendment, which was introduced as "no religion shall be established by law..." Madison said, "He believed that the people feared that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and established a religion to which they would compel others to conform.... if the word 'national' were introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent (Ariens and Destro, 2002, 82)."

"Under God" in the Pledge, or "In God We Trust" on Coins, a Chaplain in Congress, or a cross memorializing men and women who gave their lives for this country (http://www.latimes.com/classified/jobs/career/la-na-supreme-court-cross24-2009feb24,0,4243786.story), hardly establish a national religion or compel others to conform to some particular form of religious worship, do they?

Your summation of the framers and founders was simple and ridiculous. Just because people weren't in the room, that doesn't mean their ideas weren't influential. For example, Thomas Jefferson proposed the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1779 (which, I might add, was the work he was most proud of). You'll notice that it contains the essence of the establishment clause. Thus, to claim that Jefferson wasn't a framer is technically true, but they used his work to define the basic liberties our nation holds dear.

Also, you have yet to offer me a reason why I should care what they said about god. The US at the time of the ratification of the Constitution was a religiously homogeneous society. Thus Sunday off, crosses in public, and a bunch of babble about god. What was practical then is no longer practical. The population has changed, our knowledge of the world has changed, and we have a few centuries of genocide in the name of Jesus behind us. Just like we moved away from slavery and strong federalism, we have moved away from entanglements between church and state. George Washington referring to god (note the lack of anything uniquely christian in that speech) is no more of an argument for current religion/state practices than his owning of slaves is an argument for holding men in bondage.

TraneWreck

24th February 2009, 10:33 AM

Such a bizarre thread that misses some very obvious questions.

What parts of the Constitution reflects Christian teachings? Where are the principles of the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount?

Is it illegal to not honor one's parents, to take the Lord's Name in vain, or to place other gods before Him? Are we, by law, required to turn the other cheek? After 9/11, did we resist not evil? In our courts, do we judge not, least we be judged?

As a nation, we're barely Christian in our behavior, let alone codified in our government, laws, and traditions.

This is an excellent point. John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and centuries of English civics were the foundation of our Constitution, not Jesus and the Bible.

Incidently, I would love to see how long a nation founded on "turning the other cheek" would last. Seems to me that we wouldn't have made it past 1812 if we even got past that Revolutionary War thing.

Stone Island

24th February 2009, 11:22 AM

This is an excellent point. John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and centuries of English civics were the foundation of our Constitution, not Jesus and the Bible.
Locke would certainly be against an established, national church (as would I). However, he also wrote, regarding the Magistrate,

It may indeed be alleged that the magistrate may make use of arguments, and, thereby; draw the heterodox into the way of truth, and procure their salvation. I grant it; but this is common to him with other men. In teaching, instructing, and redressing the erroneous by reason, he may certainly do what becomes any good man to do. Magistracy does not oblige him to put off either humanity or Christianity; but it is one thing to persuade, another to command; one thing to press with arguments, another with penalties. This civil power alone has a right to do; to the other, goodwill is authority enough. Every man has commission to admonish, exhort, convince another of error, and, by reasoning, to draw him into truth; but to give laws, receive obedience, and compel with the sword, belongs to none but the magistrate. And, upon this ground, I affirm that the magistrate's power extends not to the establishing of any articles of faith, or forms of worship, by the force of his laws. For laws are of no force at all without penalties, and penalties in this case are absolutely impertinent, because they are not proper to convince the mind. Neither the profession of any articles of faith, nor the conformity to any outward form of worship (as has been already said), can be available to the salvation of souls, unless the truth of the one and the acceptableness of the other unto God be thoroughly believed by those that so profess and practise. But penalties are no way capable to produce such belief. It is only light and evidence that can work a change in men's opinions; which light can in no manner proceed from corporal sufferings, or any other outward penalties.

Locke will later argue that he's not against a national church, per se, only one that requires obedience through force.

Does a set of the Ten Commandments on the Court House lawn, or a cross on public land memorializing the fallen in war, imply an intent to change men's opinions by force, or include penalties or other forms of corporal suffering?

D'rok

24th February 2009, 11:38 AM

Locke would certainly be against an established, national church (as would I). However, he also wrote, regarding the Magistrate,

Locke will later argue that he's not against a national church, per se, only one that requires obedience through force.

Does a set of the Ten Commandments on the Court House lawn, or a cross on public land memorializing the fallen in war, imply an intent to change men's opinions by force, or include penalties or other forms of corporal suffering?

Did Locke write your laws, or did he establish the liberal tradition from which your laws spring?

If I recall correctly, Locke also argued that atheists couldn't be trusted to hold to their contracts. Do you wish to argue that this means American atheists should be dis-enfranchised or otherwise deprived of civil liberty?

You seem to have tacitly acknowledged that your country has a liberal tradition. In your view, then, is it an appropriate manifestation of "the philosophy of conservatism" to draw out these kinds of interpretations from classical liberal thinkers?

joobz

24th February 2009, 11:41 AM

Does a set of the Ten Commandments on the Court House lawn, or a cross on public land memorializing the fallen in war, imply an intent to change men's opinions by force, or include penalties or other forms of corporal suffering?
Is that the wording in the consitution? I'm curious. Can you provide me where the consitution says this?

D'rok

24th February 2009, 11:51 AM

Stone Island

24th February 2009, 11:57 AM

Did Locke write your laws, or did he establish the liberal tradition from which your laws spring?

Yes and No. I'm reading John M. Dunn's The Political Thought of John Locke (Cambridge, University Printing House; 1969) now and he's alive to the contradictory heritage of Locke's arguments.

Achán hiNidráne

24th February 2009, 12:14 PM

What parts of the Constitution reflects Christian teachings? Where are the principles of the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount?

Well let's see:

20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,
20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

And how about...

23:13 And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.

and these...

23:24 Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.

31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death

13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
13:11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.
13:12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,
13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;
13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;
13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

If this country in principle and law were founded on so-called "Judeo-Christianity" like SI and so many other American theocrats contend, how does these quotes of scripture authored by their inerrant and absolute deity fit with this piece of American law?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The perfect, inerrant, indisputable high holy book of the Christians clearly states that we are not to worship an other god than Yahweh and put to death anyone found doing otherwise. It states that any nation discovered to be worshiping other gods are to the "put to the sword." (On the other hand, this might explain Bible-beater Dubbya's foreign policy in the Middle East.) Yet, despite SI's vision of the founders as Christian sages inspired by their, they make the freedom to worship (or not) the faith of your choice the very first amendment of the list of freedoms we American citizens have. How does this figure?

It doesn't! The reality is obvious: the founders based the Bill of Rights upon their own tragic experiences with European autocracy with its stamp acts, star chambers, state religions, and "divine right of kings." It was not inspired by Christian teachings (and certainly not the teachings embraced by American conservatives) and was, in fact denounced as a "godless document" at the time.

Besides Oral Roberts, Liberty, and other fundy diploma mills, I have to wonder at what sort of "university" would consider arguments such as SI's worthy of PhD candidacy?

Achán hiNidráne

24th February 2009, 12:25 PM

If I recall correctly, Locke also argued that atheists couldn't be trusted to hold to their contracts. Do you wish to argue that this means American atheists should be dis-enfranchised or otherwise deprived of civil liberty?

Considering SI's sleazy implication in previous threads that atheists can't be considered good citizens and his equivocation of atheists with child molesters, I think his answer would be a resounding "yes" followed by "hang them from a tree until dead."

TraneWreck

24th February 2009, 12:28 PM

Locke would certainly be against an established, national church (as would I). However, he also wrote, regarding the Magistrate,

Locke will later argue that he's not against a national church, per se, only one that requires obedience through force.

Does a set of the Ten Commandments on the Court House lawn, or a cross on public land memorializing the fallen in war, imply an intent to change men's opinions by force, or include penalties or other forms of corporal suffering?

Look, I like your effort, but this is getting tedious. Despite the fact that I have asked you time and time again to clarify what you mean when you say the US is a "Christian nation," you haven't provided a bit of argument. I think your goofy mistake here follows from that basic inadequacy.

The group of men who developed the social and political theory that was ultimately codfied as the Constitution were heavily INFLUENCED by the philosophy of John Locke. That DOES NOT mean that every theory of John Locke can be used as a constitutional amendment. THis point is so simple that I can't even imagine what you thought your point was.

Literally every question I have asked you has gone unaswered. We are not, therefore, having a conversation. You are merely quoting a group of people without provide any context or subsantial point. In addition, you often misinterpret what those people were saying and pretend like ceremonial or philosophical discourse is binding legal precedent. It's truly bizarre.

D'rok

24th February 2009, 12:31 PM

Considering SI's sleazy implication in previous threads that atheists can't be considered good citizens and his equivocation of atheists with child molesters, I think his answer would be a resounding "yes" followed by "hang them from a tree until dead."That must be this "compassionate conservatism" I've heard so much about.

TraneWreck

24th February 2009, 12:37 PM

In the "arguing by cherry-picked quotations" spirit of this thread, this from Mr. Locke:

"Things never so indifferent in their own nature, when they are brought into the Church and Worship of God, are removed out of the reach of the Magistrate's Jurisdiction; because in that use they have no connection at all with Civil Affairs. The only business of the Church is the Salvation of Souls: and it no ways concerns the Common-wealth, or any Member of it, that this, or the other Ceremony be there made use of."

Thank you for that quote. The foundational flaw in the OP's often rambling arguments is that he assumes Locke, Jefferson, and even Lincoln were living and writing in a society that was identical to ours. During that period of history the Church had FAR greater responsibilities than they do now. THey were schools, hospitals, art galleries, concert halls, and generally provided services that could not be provided by secular institutions because they didn't exist. In addition, the political influence of the Church made it necessary to constantly refer to God in your philosophy. There's a reason many of the great modern philosophers like Descartes and Spinoza ended up living in the Dutch Republic. That was one of the few places you could think without pressure from the church.

You have to understand that basic fact about life to properly interpret the writings you are continually quoting. The prevalent dynamic of thinking people of that era (as highlighted by that quote) was to begin to separate civil functions from church functions. That was process that hadn't ended in 1787, and still continues.

But pretending like taking Sundays off shows that the Constitution is just an iteration of Biblical thought is silly.

joobz

24th February 2009, 12:54 PM

The group of men who developed the social and political theory that was ultimately codfied as the Constitution were heavily INFLUENCED by the philosophy of John Locke. That DOES NOT mean that every theory of John Locke can be used as a constitutional amendment. THis point is so simple that I can't even imagine what you thought your point was.
I found that to be utterly baffling. Equally bizarre is how SI attempted to imply that matters of ceremony held equal wieght with the written constitution.

Literally every question I have asked you has gone unaswered. We are not, therefore, having a conversation. You are merely quoting a group of people without provide any context or subsantial point. In addition, you often misinterpret what those people were saying and pretend like ceremonial or philosophical discourse is binding legal precedent. It's truly bizarre.
This is why I find it near impossible to believe that he's a political science student, let alone one whose an "All-but-defended" poltical science PhD candidate (as he has claimed).

Wally

24th February 2009, 03:09 PM

This is why I find it near impossible to believe that he's a political science student, let alone one whose an "All-but-defended" poltical science PhD candidate (as he has claimed).

If your doctoral dissertation is bad enough, can they take away your masters???:confused:

Upchurch

24th February 2009, 03:15 PM

Does a set of the Ten Commandments on the Court House lawn, or a cross on public land memorializing the fallen in war, imply an intent to change men's opinions by force, or include penalties or other forms of corporal suffering?
You're dodging the question.

...and missing the point.

Holler Hoojer

25th February 2009, 05:43 AM

Actually, "separation of church and state" isn't all that tradition, at least not in its modern formulation.

First, it's not Constitutional, but you knew that.

Second, it was meant to protect churches from government, not the other way around.

Third, for a while supporting it was a sure-fire way to kill your political career.

Fourth, it was used by a Protestant religious establishment (the state) to discriminate against Catholics (a particular Church).

Finally, it's come to meant what it means today.

Which is the "real" tradition?

It's OK to have personal opinions; it's not OK to have personal facts. Separation of church and state is tradition and is specifically stated in the first amendment to the Constitution. There are two distinct, somewhat conflicting parts: no establishment; and, free expression. The establishment bar protects the state from the church; the free expression clause protects the church from the state. You may also read Mr. Jefferson's comments about the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the document which provided the basis for religious freedom in the first amendment. Mr. Jefferson clearly identified the church as being the greater danger.

Discrimination against, and repression of, specific churches was based in state law, not federal. That is, Massachusetts persecuted Quakers, Virginia persecuted Baptists, Maryland persecuted Protestants, and so on. Establishment churches were always specific to individual states.

Holler Hoojer

25th February 2009, 06:31 AM

Holler Hoojer

25th February 2009, 06:45 AM

The established church was Anglican in places, Catholic in others, Congregationalist in yet others, and non-existent in still others. Further, you cannot say that the Founders were fully anti-clerical. Mr. Jefferson certainly appears so, but not Mr. Madison. And what of Muhlenberg's War Sermon? Can one say the Reverend Muhlenberg was anti-clerical? I think not.

Ah, excuse me. I missed your post limiting the definition of Founder to signers of the DOI. I certainly don't agree with that definition, but that would refute a lot of my point.

Foster Zygote

25th February 2009, 06:49 AM

Ah, excuse me. I missed your post limiting the definition of Founder to signers of the DOI. I certainly don't agree with that definition, but that would refute a lot of my point.

I wouldn't worry about it. As has been pointed out to Stone Island on a number of occasions, the DOI is not a legal document and does not establish any of the laws governing the United States.

Upchurch

25th February 2009, 08:54 AM

I wouldn't worry about it. As has been pointed out to Stone Island on a number of occasions, the DOI is not a legal document and does not establish any of the laws governing the United States.
Huh. Stone Island and Claus would get along famously.

KingMerv00

25th February 2009, 10:14 AM

OK, somone has to say it: I don't care what the founders thought.

They have been suffering from a severe case of deadness for a little while now.

Herzblut

25th February 2009, 11:01 AM

Incidently, I would love to see how long a nation founded on "turning the other cheek" would last.
Not nations, but certain social movements might be founded on it. Rather than the names mentioned here, some others spring into mind like Tolstoi, Ghandi, Thoreau or MLK.

Stone Island

25th February 2009, 12:28 PM

It's OK to have personal opinions; it's not OK to have personal facts. Separation of church and state is tradition and is specifically stated in the first amendment to the Constitution.

Oh, really? Specifically?

Stone Island

25th February 2009, 12:30 PM

Ah, excuse me. I missed your post limiting the definition of Founder to signers of the DOI. I certainly don't agree with that definition, but that would refute a lot of my point.

We throw around the word "Founder" a lot. There were plenty of ministers whose sermons and pamphlets were instrumental to the acceptance of the DOI and the logic and argument of the revolution itself. They were Founders, in some broad conception, too. Framers are, of course, specifically those who worked on the Constitution itself.

The logic of Constitutionalism owes something to the notion of a covenant and covenant theology is an important ingredient in the development and maturing of our Constitutional order.

Stone Island

25th February 2009, 12:36 PM

Just bye the bye,

It would be appropriate to ask which part of Locke's thought, in the preceding comments, I am denominating his "philosophy of religion"? For a striking feature of Locke's thought is that religious considerations enter into all parts of his thought; Locke's philosophy as a whole bids fair to be called a Christian philosophy (Ashcraft 1969). It is artificial to isolate part of his thought as his philosophy of religion. Worse, it is misleading to do so. Our common practice of treating seventeenth- and eighteenth-century European philosophers as if they were secular philosophers does most of them a very ill turn (Chappell, 1994, 174).From Nicholas Wolterstorff's "Locke's philosophy of religion" in The Cambridge Companion to Locke, edited by Vere Chappell.

KingMerv00

25th February 2009, 12:38 PM

SI, if their religious beliefs were so important for the running of the government, why didn't the founders/framers include them in the Constitution?

Stone Island

25th February 2009, 12:43 PM

Look, I like your effort, but this is getting tedious. Despite the fact that I have asked you time and time again to clarify what you mean when you say the US is a "Christian nation," you haven't provided a bit of argument. I think your goofy mistake here follows from that basic inadequacy.

Just to reiterate, here is what the op said:

the founding of the country was based on an understanding of and working through of Christianity

If there is a less controversial statement to be made about the connection between state and religion in the founding of the country I can't think of it.

That that statement thens puts the burden of proof on me to show how Leviticus was incorporated into the Constitution I doubt.

Upchurch

25th February 2009, 01:24 PM

That that statement thens puts the burden of proof on me to show how Leviticus was incorporated into the Constitution I doubt.
Doesn't have to be Leviticus. How about any Christian principles?

KingMerv00

25th February 2009, 01:27 PM

Doesn't have to be Leviticus. How about any Christian principles?

Triune God = triune government?

Stone Island

25th February 2009, 01:59 PM

Doesn't have to be Leviticus. How about any Christian principles?

Again, that's not what I wrote, but just for the sake of argument, I'll bite: which Christian principles did you have in mind?

KingMerv00

25th February 2009, 02:21 PM

the founding of the country was based on an understanding of and working through of Christianity

Define "based on" and "understanding of".

Upchurch

25th February 2009, 02:38 PM

Again, that's not what I wrote, but just for the sake of argument, I'll bite: which Christian principles did you have in mind?
How about the ones you were referring to when you said:
Based on this schema, various sorts of public religious practice, especially the kind the SCOTUS refers to as ceremonial deism, but also creches, displays of the 10 commandments, the realization that the founding of the country was based on an understanding of and working through of Christianity, etc..., ought to be preserved.

Stone Island

25th February 2009, 02:42 PM

How about the ones you were referring to when you said:
Which Christian principles do you think I'm referring to?

Upchurch

25th February 2009, 02:54 PM

Which Christian principles do you think I'm referring to?
I'm no mind reader. I've already suggested a few that you could have meant: The Ten Commandments and the teachings from the Sermon on the Mount.

Did you have anything in mind?

Foster Zygote

25th February 2009, 02:56 PM

Which Christian principles do you think I'm referring to?

Well you can't come right out and tell us that, can you? That would require that you state a concrete position and defend it. It's much less risky to avoid making any sort of specific argument so that you can keep shifting the goal-posts around at will.

joobz

25th February 2009, 03:02 PM

Well you can't come right out and tell us that, can you? That would require that you state a concrete position and defend it. It's much less risky to avoid making any sort of specific argument so that you can keep shifting the goal-posts around at will.
Perhaps he's biding time to read D'souza for more excellent arguments.

Foster Zygote

25th February 2009, 03:13 PM

Perhaps he's biding time to read D'souza for more excellent arguments.

You mean like me becoming an atheist so that I could remain monogamously faithful to my wife for all twenty years of our relationship in rebellion against the morals of the Christian god?

KingMerv00

25th February 2009, 04:27 PM

Which Christian principles do you think I'm referring to?

This would be a lot less painful if you just answered like an adult.

Stone Island

25th February 2009, 04:32 PM

I'm no mind reader. I've already suggested a few that you could have meant: The Ten Commandments and the teachings from the Sermon on the Mount.

Did you have anything in mind?

Individualism and equality.

Upchurch

25th February 2009, 04:39 PM

Individualism and equality.
These are Christian principles? Individualism, so long as you believe these things or you will die eternally?

What Bible are you reading?

eta: I'm drawing a blank on a Christian principle relating to equality, pro or con. To what are you referring?

Stone Island

25th February 2009, 04:45 PM

These are Christian principles? Individualism, so long as you believe these things or you will die eternally?

What Bible are you reading?

eta: I'm drawing a blank on a Christian principle relating to equality, pro or con. To what are you referring?

Individualism and equality are two principles that result from a working out of Christianity. It's not an accident that those ideas found fruition in the Christian West.

TraneWreck

25th February 2009, 04:53 PM

Just to reiterate, here is what the op said:

If there is a less controversial statement to be made about the connection between state and religion in the founding of the country I can't think of it.

That that statement thens puts the burden of proof on me to show how Leviticus was incorporated into the Constitution I doubt.

A "working through and understanding of Christianity?"

If that's the statement you're standing behind, then you're just comically wrong. I will cease trying to interpret your posts as making sensible arguments. There is a difference between ideas and theories developed by Christians and Christian theories. Kant was very clear that his religious commitments were useless in a discussion of ethical and social construction. Locke was primarily influential on the Founders and Framers because of his theories on separation of church and state and his concept of property rights. He also happened to be Christian, but unelss you think "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" is the foundational theory behind the establishment clause (the intervening 1800 years of European history being the obvious contrary point), you will struggle to find any Biblical source for the civic concept of the United States.

The actual philosophical legacy begins with Greece. Notice that Renaissance and subsequent Enlightenment were fueled by the rediscovery of Aristotle and Plato, not from the translation of a new gospel. Remember that Aquinas was so overwhelmed by Aristotle that he spent his life trying to reconsile his religious commitments with the often contrary rational philosophy.

Certainly Christianity and the power of the churches in Europe is an essential part of our cultural heritage. But the actually useful elements of our culture (science, reason, law, etc) have little in common with anything you can find from Biblical sources. The best you can say is that you as a Christian take pride in all the Christians who came up with the good ideas.

But please, draw me a line between something in the Bible and one of the Articles of the Constitution.

D'rok

25th February 2009, 04:54 PM

Just bye the bye,

From Nicholas Wolterstorff's "Locke's philosophy of religion" in The Cambridge Companion to Locke, edited by Vere Chappell.

Yes, Locke was both a Liberal and a Christian. Which probably explains why he advocated such a bright line separation of church and state. However, it doesn't explain why you seem to be citing him as support for the opposite proposition.

Individualism and equality are two principles that result from a working out of Christianity. It's not an accident that those ideas found fruition in the Christian West.

Actually, I have to agree with SI here. The Liberal conception of humans as rights-bearing, autonomous and equal flows directly from the Christian conception of humans as soul-bearing, and equal before God. (Particularly true post-reformation). In a certain sense, Liberalism is secular Christianity.

TraneWreck

25th February 2009, 04:55 PM

Individualism and equality are two principles that result from a working out of Christianity. It's not an accident that those ideas found fruition in the Christian West.

Show us the reasoning. You have this nasty habit of claiming things without bothering to provide argument.

Start with something in the Bible and show how it grew into individual rights. Because I will stand by Jefferson who went out of his way to carve those rights away from the sensless block of granite that was the European religious tradition.

TraneWreck

25th February 2009, 04:57 PM

Actually, I have to agree with SI here. The Liberal conception of humans as rights-bearing, autonomous and equal flows directly from the Christian conception of humans as soul-bearing, and equal before God. (Particularly true post-reformation). In a certain sense, Liberalism is secular Christianity.

But the "soul" as defined by Christendom (immaterial, separate existence) was a Greek concept brought to Christianity through Paul. Plato is your source for those ideas, not Jesus.

D'rok

25th February 2009, 05:06 PM

But the "soul" as defined by Christendom (immaterial, separate existence) was a Greek concept brought to Christianity through Paul. Plato is your source for those ideas, not Jesus.

I know. But the Christians claimed Plato as their own. There is a more-or-less direct line from the Greeks to the Christian thinkers to the Enlightenment Liberals to modern secular Liberalism. (With a period of early-Islamic thinkers in there somewhere that kept the Platonic tradition alive during the Dark Ages). Passing it through Christianity was an important part of making it liberal. It still doesn't mean that America is a Christian nation or that the Constitution is a document of Christian principles.

Herzblut

25th February 2009, 05:13 PM

TraneWreck

25th February 2009, 05:20 PM

ris

I know. But the Christians claimed Plato as their own. There is a more-or-less direct line from the Greeks to the Christian thinkers to the Enlightenment Liberals to modern secular Liberalism. (With a period of early-Islamic thinkers in there somewhere that kept the Platonic tradition alive during the Dark Ages). Passing it through Christianity was an important part of making it liberal. It still doesn't mean that America is a Christian nation or that the Constitution is a document of Christian principles.

I can agree with that. Obviously Christians and the Church have played their role in the Western Liberalism we understand today. I would just note that the relationship between Christian dogma and that line of thinkers and scientists that ran from Plato to Jefferson was often contentious. Aquinas, who is often touted as the greatest Christian philosopher, was condemned and was on the verge of being labled a heretic because of his passion for Aristotle. Descartes had to flee to the Netherlands, and we all know what happened to Galileo. The list goes on and on as every major thinker of the modern era had to appease the church.

So it seems to me that the Declaration of Independence, the First Amendment, and the other revolutionary ideas of that era came to be IN SPITE of the church, not because of it. That being said, a great many people that the wold simply couldn't do without were Christian--Bach, Shakespeare, Locke, Newton--but when you assess whether it was christianity itself, as a pose to the social role the church played, that made these people great, or helped spawn their ideas, I don't see any reason for that. For example, Bach's talent would have shone through if there had been 9 disciples instead of 12. THe specifics of the religion were irrelevant.

TraneWreck

25th February 2009, 05:22 PM

And you think ideas like "equality" were brought forward by those Greek slaveholders?

But they were brought forward by Conquistadors, Crusaders and Inquisitors?

Yes, the Greek ideas were the foundation of democracy and human rights, that doesn't mean that they emerged fully formed.

To even pose that question you must have a perverse understanding of how ideas and theories influence subsequent generations.

And by the way, how many years was the Bible used as the primary justification for Western slavery? Let's see, somewhere around the fall of the Roman empire to 1865...

Cavemonster

25th February 2009, 05:25 PM

And you think ideas like "equality" were brought forward by those Greek slaveholders?

Equality as defined by Christian slaveholders? yes

D'rok

25th February 2009, 05:29 PM

I can agree with that. Obviously Christians and the Church have played their role in the Western Liberalism we understand today. I would just note that the relationship between Christian dogma and that line of thinkers and scientists that ran from Plato to Jefferson was often contentious. Aquinas, who is often touted as the greatest Christian philosopher, was condemned and was on the verge of being labled a heretic because of his passion for Aristotle. Descartes had to flee to the Netherlands, and we all know what happened to Galileo. The list goes on and on as every major thinker of the modern era had to appease the church.

So it seems to me that the Declaration of Independence, the First Amendment, and the other revolutionary ideas of that era came to be IN SPITE of the church, not because of it. That being said, a great many people that the wold simply couldn't do without were Christian--Bach, Shakespeare, Locke, Newton--but when you assess whether it was christianity itself, as a pose to the social role the church played, that made these people great, or helped spawn their ideas, I don't see any reason for that. For example, Bach's talent would have shone through if there had been 9 disciples instead of 12. THe specifics of the religion were irrelevant.I mostly agree.

There is a reason why we still read Aquinas and Augustine and the gang during the pursuit of a liberal arts education. They are important signposts for who we are as a culture. There is a tradition within Christianity that includes self-reflection and an attempt to reason philosophically (in the Greek sense) from Christian first principles. It isn't all dogma and oppression.

It took a Christian, Locke, to write "A Letter Concerning Toleration".

TraneWreck

25th February 2009, 05:36 PM

I mostly agree.

There is a reason why we still read Aquinas and Augustine and the gang during the pursuit of a liberal arts education. They are important signposts for who we are as a culture. There is a tradition within Christianity that includes self-reflection and an attempt to reason philosophically (in the Greek sense) from Christian first principles. It isn't all dogma and oppression.

It took a Christian, Locke, to write "A Letter Concerning Toleration".

Fair enough. I will concede that a great many thinker, Christian or otherwise, has been influenced by the non-Divine claims of Jesus--The Sermon on the mount and such. Given the crass, violent world that was midieval/modern Europe, the ideas of charity and grace are striking.

Herzblut

25th February 2009, 05:56 PM

To even pose that question you must have a perverse understanding of how ideas and theories influence subsequent generations.

Sure. All those Greek societies based on totally self-evident, unreflected chattel slavery clearly had a strong positive influence on the propagation of ideas like equal human rights.

Skeptic Ginger

25th February 2009, 06:00 PM

..., the realization that the founding of the country was based on an understanding of and working through of Christianity, etc..., ought to be preserved. In addition, the oft lamented mixing of religion and politics, as opposed to the separation of church and state, really isn't a problem at all, at least not for a conservative.Conservatives who are among or who have joined with Evangelicals love to rewrite history.

TraneWreck

25th February 2009, 06:02 PM

Sure. All those Greek societies based on totally self-evident, unreflected chattel slavery clearly had a strong positive influence on the propagation of ideas like equal human rights.

You've clearly never read Plato or Aristotle, much less the playwrights or historians, so there's no real point in casting pearls before swine.

That being said, the fact that legal slavery persisted in the United States during the entirety of Thoreau's life doesn't mean that you dismiss his work as pro-slavery. Things don't happen instantaneously and ideas generally precede action by a great deal of time.

I assume you're trying to be funny or get a rise out of me, but my god, what possible profession could avail itself of such limited thinking?

paximperium

25th February 2009, 06:12 PM

Sure. All those Greek societies based on totally self-evident, unreflected chattel slavery clearly had a strong positive influence on the propagation of ideas like equal human rights.
Wait a minute...didn't Christianity arose from Jewish/Roman societies that held slaves. Using your "logic"(an insult to the word), Christianity apparently never gave rise to equal rights :rolleyes:

Herzblut

25th February 2009, 06:28 PM

You've clearly never read Plato or Aristotle, much less the playwrights or historians, so there's no real point in casting pearls before swine.

Just point us to the passage where they repudiated slavery.

Herzblut

25th February 2009, 06:41 PM

Wait a minute...didn't Christianity arose from Jewish/Roman societies that held slaves. Using your "logic"(an insult to the word), Christianity apparently never gave rise to equal rights :rolleyes:
Romans inherited the institution of slavery from the Greeks or the Jews?

paximperium

25th February 2009, 06:51 PM

Romans inherited the institution of slavery from the Greeks or the Jews?
Are you claiming that Jews were not slave holders or are you going to claim that they "inherited" it from the Egyptians?

D'rok

25th February 2009, 06:52 PM

Just point us to the passage where they repudiated slavery.Aristotle, Book I of The Politics at 1245a(12) to 1255b(15). He partially repudiates slavery. Quite progressive for the time. Things have continued to progress since then.

ETA: Actually, there was significant backsliding in the interim. The slavery that Aristotle repudiated was arguably the kind of slavery practiced in America.

Herzblut

25th February 2009, 06:59 PM

Are you claiming that Jews were not slave holders or are you going to claim that they "inherited" it from the Egyptians?
Why are you always answering a question by a counter question?

TraneWreck

25th February 2009, 07:06 PM

Aristotle, Book I of The Politics at 1245a(12) to 1255b(15). He partially repudiates slavery. Quite progressive for the time. Things have continued to progress since then.

This is an important point. Herzblut is asking a useless question. It is irrelevant whether or not Aristotle specifically refuted slavery (though the sections above come quite close to satisfying the unecessary condition). What matters is how his methodology and philosophy was applied through the ages. It's the same as if I claimed that Isaac Newton's work was foundational for Einstein's relativity and you said, "but Newton didn't know the speed of light." Obviously it was a starting point, not the culmination or realization of full liberty.

I might also add that slavery in Greece was significantly different from slavery in teh US in the 19th century. There were many different levels of slaves, the had varying degrees of rights, but it certainly was brutal.

TraneWreck

25th February 2009, 07:08 PM

Why are you always answering a question by a counter question?

Because your questions are idiotic and nonsensical. For some reason several of us are actually trying to converse with you. Thus we are attacking the absurd logic, factual errors, and generally silliness of your posts. You are correct in blaming us for taking you seriously.

Herzblut

25th February 2009, 07:15 PM

Aristotle, Book I of The Politics at 1245a(12) to 1255b(15). He partially repudiates slavery. Quite progressive for the time. Things have continued to progress since then.

Excellent! I'll try to chase down an online quote. But I admit I don't see this "continued progress" over the centuries, to be honest. Except in the very recent past, say after WW2.

Herzblut

25th February 2009, 07:34 PM

Obviously it was a starting point, not the culmination or realization of full liberty.

Obviously, it wasn't a starting point at all. It didn't start anything remotely similar to abolishment of slavery. Who knows, maybe it's because

Most philosophers of Classical antiquity defended slavery as a natural and necessary institution; Aristotle believed that the practice of any manual or banausic job should disqualify the practitioner from citizenship. Quoting Euripides, Aristotle declared all non-Greeks slaves by birth, fit for nothing but obedience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity#Slavery_in_Greece

Foster Zygote

25th February 2009, 07:38 PM

TraneWreck

25th February 2009, 07:44 PM

Excellent! I'll try to chase down an online quote. But I admit I don't see this "continued progress" over the centuries, to be honest. Except in the very recent past, after WW2.

That's because you've decided that you have to observe the behavior of culture. And I don't believe anyone argued for continued progess in so far as societal behavior is concerned. It goes in fits and spurts, and what we call the Dark Ages was a great step backwards. The Greek legacy that we are discussing was passed through a great many thinkers and scientists (generally at the risk of condemnation from the Church) and eventually found its way into the foundational philosophy of American civics.

Roughly speaking, here's how that continuum goes (with obviously a great many thinkers left out): Plato->Aristotle->Rome->lost to the Dark Ages, Plato and Aristotle kept alive in the Muslim world->rediscovery of Plato and Aristotle by Aquinas->Descartes->Locke->Kant and Hume->Rousseau, Voltaire->Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, etc.

Obviously that's a rough sketch and the arrows don't mean that these people agreed with one another on a great many issues, it's simply a portion of the line of thinkers that gave us our Constitution. This is different than asking what society each of those people lived in.

TraneWreck

25th February 2009, 07:52 PM

Obviously, it wasn't a starting point at all. It didn't start anything remotely similar to abolishment of slavery. Who knows, maybe it's because

Most philosophers of Classical antiquity defended slavery as a natural and necessary institution; Aristotle believed that the practice of any manual or banausic job should disqualify the practitioner from citizenship. Quoting Euripides, Aristotle declared all non-Greeks slaves by birth, fit for nothing but obedience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity#Slavery_in_Greece

I don't know how else to say this. Your mind is so literal that it's impossible to move forward on this discussion. We are talking about the development of human rights throughout the ages. With respect to the culture that Aristotle grew up in, his ideas were highly revolutionary. For example, in Politics he rejects the notion that all conquered people must be slaves. He does so by arguing against the idea that superior power justifies any act against a subjugated people. Many Greek slaves became such because they were defeated in war.

Now you can think like a third grader and point out that he supported a kind of slavery, but no one is arguing against that. The rational ethical system set out by Aristotle is the basis of the social contract theories developed by Locke and others in teh Modern Era. It is not the case that our civic system was written out in every detail 25 centuries ago.

Advancement does not mean completion, and when you just tool around on wikipedia for out of context or irrelevant factoids you are remaining wholly ignorant of the rich content of Aristotelian thought.

Herzblut

25th February 2009, 08:19 PM

That's because you've decided that you have to observe the behavior of culture. And I don't believe anyone argued for continued progess in so far as societal behavior is concerned.

Respecting human rights, or spurning them, is a matter of societal behavior.

It goes in fits and spurts, and what we call the Dark Ages was a great step backwards.

No, the Roman Empire was the big step backwards. A slave in Rome wasn't worth anything.

The Greek legacy that we are discussing was passed through a great many thinkers and scientists (generally at the risk of condemnation from the Church) and eventually found its way into the foundational philosophy of American civics.

Fairy tale. Greek legacy was passed through by the Church itself, monks translated and copied the work of Aristotle and others, and made Aristotle the predominant philosopher for many centuries.

This is different than asking what society each of those people lived in.
It's not my fault that you dodge this decisive question.

Herzblut

25th February 2009, 08:23 PM

Advancement does not mean completion, and when you just tool around on wikipedia for out of context or irrelevant factoids you are remaining wholly ignorant of the rich content of Aristotelian thought.
Change does not mean advancement whatsoever. You postulate advancement while you have to prove it.

TraneWreck

25th February 2009, 09:47 PM

Change does not mean advancement whatsoever. You postulate advancement while you have to prove it.

Aristotle advances the principle that losing a war does not justify enslavement along with other comtemporarily radical positions. He roots his ethics in reason.

Aristotelian empiricism is reintroduced to the West through Aquinas in the 13th century. He developes a virtue-based ethics rooted in reason, like Aristotle. In addition to requiring just treatment of all men, Aquinas argues that we must treat animals humanely. He is forced into house arrest and many of his works involving Aristotle are declared heresy.

Descartes begins the school of rationalism a few centuries later (I'm skipping steps for brevity). He roots philosophical knowledge in reason, but argues that science may only be learned through experience, thus the modern commitment to the scientific method. Note that Descartes had to relocate in order to avoid condemnation from the Church.

Locke begins the English school of empiricism shortly thereafter. He arguably starts the concept of liberalism by stressing the separation of church and state. Based on the intellectual legacy beginning with the Greeks, Locke asserts concepts of liberty and social contract that serve as the foundation of our civics. Locke, like Descartes and many others, had to flee to the Netherlands.

Kant comes around a few years later to broker a compromise between rationalism and empiricism. He argues that the limits of human reason deny us the ability to ever know whether there is a god or afterlife. Thus ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics cannot have a divine foundation. This separation of thought serves as a basis for maintaining secular civics.

Then you have Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume and endless others that would take years to fully describe, but the end result is the Bill of Rights and Constitution. All of these thinkers were consciously known to the major thinkers of that day, and the Enlightenment ideas like separation of church and state are codified into law for the first time. We are a nation founded on a commitment to the reason and the scientific method in direct contradiction to the official stance of the church at that time.

Now I suppose you could argue that none of that amounted to advancement because women were denied rights and slaves abounded in the new republic. But that would require ignoring all the distance that was traveled. The legacy of western thought is the consistent development of reason and science. At any indivudial step (including the present) you could point out injustices, but I really don't know how you can describe the above as anything other than progress.

TraneWreck

25th February 2009, 10:06 PM

Respecting human rights, or spurning them, is a matter of societal behavior.

Are you serious? Of course it is, but just because the dominant culture doesn't support human rights, that doesn't mean contrary thought isn't advancing. As I have said continually, I am talking about the legacy of thought that led to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Your church was often doing its best to destroy that legacy.

This is such a simple point I can't even begin to understand your problem. Once again, The US supported slavery during the entirety of THoreau's life, yet we would not call his writing pro-slavery.

In fact, the reason human rights were so horrible throughout the last 2000 years is BECAUSE the church ignored the writings of more enlightened citizens.

No, the Roman Empire was the big step backwards. A slave in Rome wasn't worth anything.

Rome advanced significantly concepts of civic life and legal systems. Of course it wasn't a human rights utopia, but to ignore the influence that their system of government had on the Western world is insane. THere's a reason the "Dark Ages" begin after its collapse.

Fairy tale. Greek legacy was passed through by the Church itself, monks translated and copied the work of Aristotle and others, and made Aristotle the predominant philosopher for many centuries.

Do you bother to do any research before you make these claims?

Aristotle was popularized through Aquinas because Gerard of Cremona translated some of his works from Arabic. The popularity lead William of Moerbeke to translate them into Latin. Aquinas got a hold of these translations and demanded the rest, thus begins the repopularization of Aristotle in the West.

If you read Aquinas he often refers to and argues against "The Commentator." This is Averroes, an Arab philosopher also known as Ibn Rushd. It was the spread of Averroism that popularized Aristotle and generated calls for translations. Look, the "second teacher" Al-Farabi, was second to Aristotle. The Arab world kept Aristotle alive when the Europeans were mired in their "Dark Ages."

Let me also add that the basis for Aquinas' house arrest and near condemnation from the church was his Aristotelian writings that were declared heresy.

So please, don't come in here with some fable about the church and Aristotle.

It's not my fault that you dodge this decisive question.

It's not decisive at all (or even really sensical) unless you believe that all bad acts of a civilization must be transferred to any writer who lives therein. Galileo, Descartes, Locke, Aquinas and many others kept reason and humanity alive in the face of wayward civilizations. Just because the Inquisition was going on in Spain, that doesn't mean every writer from Spain supported it. It often takes many generations for those iconoclastic theories to gain official voice, but the legacy of thinkers is clear.

I'm not even arguing that point with you. Societies have moved forward and backward continually. The 20th century saw the greatest commitment to human rights in the history of the world, Stalin, and Hitler. This point is beyond contest.

25th February 2009, 10:44 PM

So, Stone Island, you'd support having a large pentagram erected on the Court House lawn to commemorate Wiccan holidays? How about we construct a large wicker man for Druidic ceremonies on the White House lawn? Would you support that as well?

I would...

quixotecoyote

25th February 2009, 10:45 PM

25th February 2009, 11:06 PM

See, I don't mind the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall, or Nativities on the lawn. I don't mind Christmas trees in the public square, or the closing of banks on Christmas day... as long as I see evidence that other faiths are being similarly represented. Let's have the Wiccan Rede on the courthouse wall. Let's see Quan Yin meditating on her lotus blossom on the lawn. Let's see some menorahs on the public square, and watch the banks close on Ramadan. Then I would feel a little better about the church/state thing.

But until people are willing to accept atheist tracts next to the Ten Commandments, or put up with statues of Kali next to their nativity scenes, why should I have to put up with the Christian garbage cluttering up my view?

Locally, a stone company has started carving TC statues and giving them away to businesses, which the court here has said is completely legal to display (being on private property and all). I deeply approve - now I know where not to spend my money.

Herzblut

26th February 2009, 12:32 AM

Your church was often doing its best to destroy that legacy.

I'm not aware I have got a church. Which is it?

In fact, the reason human rights were so horrible throughout the last 2000 years is BECAUSE the church ignored the writings of more enlightened citizens.

Nonsense.

Aristotle was popularized through Aquinas because Gerard of Cremona translated some of his works from Arabic. The popularity lead William of Moerbeke to translate them into Latin. Aquinas got a hold of these translations and demanded the rest, thus begins the repopularization of Aristotle in the West.

If you read Aquinas he often refers to and argues against "The Commentator." This is Averroes, an Arab philosopher also known as Ibn Rushd. It was the spread of Averroism that popularized Aristotle and generated calls for translations. Look, the "second teacher" Al-Farabi, was second to Aristotle. The Arab world kept Aristotle alive when the Europeans were mired in their "Dark Ages."

What are you talking about? Europeans were actually a major part of your "Arab world" - for 700 years the Iberian Peninsula was under Arab rule, man!

The Commentator was a 12th century European, born and raised in (now) Southern Spain. Arabic was one important liturgical language in Europe.

However, the Arabic school re-translated Aristotle from ancient Syriac texts, Syriac being an Aramaic kind of language spoken by Christians and Muslims and replaced by Arabic in the 7th or 8th century. Arabic was actually not quite existing previously.

Primarily a Christian medium of expression, Syriac had a fundamental cultural and literary influence on the development of Arabic which replaced it towards the end of the eighth century. Syriac remains the liturgical language of Syriac Christianity.
(Wiki)

Intentionally (or not) you insinuate that William of Moerbeke translated from Arabic, which is false. William translated directly from Greek into Latin the complete work of Aristotle, which had been maintained also in church libraries. For several of William's translations, the Greek texts have since disappeared: without him the works would be lost.

William also translated mathematical treatises by Hero of Alexandria and Archimedes. Especially important was his translation of the Theological Elements of Proclus (made in 1268), because the Theological Elements is one of the fundamental sources of the revived Neo-Platonic philosophical currents of the 13th century.

The Vatican collection holds William's own copy of the translation he made of the greatest Hellenistic mathematician, Archimedes, with commentaries of Eutocius, which was made in 1269 at the papal court in Viterbo. William consulted two of the best Greek manuscripts of Archimedes, both of which have since disappeared.
(Wiki)

To ignore totally the importance of the Church for the survival of many Hellenistic manuscripts is insane, sorry.

Let me also add that the basis for Aquinas' house arrest and near condemnation from the church was his Aristotelian writings that were declared heresy.

What? Thomas' writings were never "declared heresy" by "the church". The same Church that pronounced Thomas a Saint, "teacher of the church" and what have you? You honestly want to make us believe that the Church's arguably greatest theologian had lived in clinch with his Church? I can't take you serious enough anymore to keep correcting your posts, I'm afraid.

Dr Adequate

26th February 2009, 12:37 AM

Individualism and equality. We must have been reading different Bibles.

1 Peter 2 13-18 ---

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right [...] Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Romans 13 1-6 ---

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

You got that? "The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

I bet the Founding Fathers are sorry now they're all burning in Hell.

It's not too late for your sinful nation to repent and acknowledge Elizabeth II as your rightful Queen.

D'rok

26th February 2009, 05:19 AM

Locke begins the English school of empiricism shortly thereafter. He arguably starts the concept of liberalism by stressing the separation of church and state. Based on the intellectual legacy beginning with the Greeks, Locke asserts concepts of liberty and social contract that serve as the foundation of our civics. Locke, like Descartes and many others, had to flee to the Netherlands.

Couple of quibbles. I don't think it's accurate to call Locke an empiricist. Nor is it accurate that he started the concept of liberalism. If that can be pinned down to any one thinker (which is a little bit fallacious anyways), it would have to be Hobbes. Granted, Hobbes used liberty and the social contract to justify absolute monarchy, but he starts from the premise of natural rights and consent of the governed. (More accurately, he starts with the premise of man as mechanism (levers and pulleys metaphors, etc) and the universe as matter in motion, which he uses to develop his civic premises).

D'rok

26th February 2009, 05:32 AM

Fairy tale. Greek legacy was passed through by the Church itself, monks translated and copied the work of Aristotle and others, and made Aristotle the predominant philosopher for many centuries.This is both true and false. Monks also re-used parchments of philosophical works to write liturgical works over top of the original writing. Cicero's Republic is a prime example. I'm not sure if the Church did that to any of Aristotle's works, but all of the writings we have from him are in the form of lecture notes rather than polished pieces like Plato's. It's an open question what happened to his actual writings, if they ever existed.

calebprime

26th February 2009, 06:33 AM

I was surprised to hear what D'rok said, but it's supported by this:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aristotl.htm

"The works of Aristotle fall under three headings: (1) dialogues and other works of a popular character; (2) collections of facts and material from scientific treatment; and (3) systematic works. Among his writings of a popular nature the only one which we possess of any consequence is the interesting tract On the Polity of the Athenians. The works on the second group include 200 titles, most in fragments, collected by Aristotle's school and used as research. Some may have been done at the time of Aristotle's successor Theophrastus. Included in this group are constitutions of 158 Greek states. The systematic treatises of the third group are marked by a plainness of style, with none of the golden flow of language which the ancients praised in Aristotle. This may be due to the fact that these works were not, in most cases, published by Aristotle himself or during his lifetime, but were edited after his death from unfinished manuscripts.

(bolding mine)

I don't know if this is dependable, but it seems like it is.

TraneWreck

26th February 2009, 10:00 AM

I'm not aware I have got a church. Which is it?

[QUOTE=Herzblut;4465285]
Nonsense.

Weighty, substantive argumentation.

What are you talking about? Europeans were actually a major part of your "Arab world" - for 700 years the Iberian Peninsula was under Arab rule, man!

The Commentator was a 12th century European, born and raised in (now) Southern Spain. Arabic was one important liturgical language in Europe.

However, the Arabic school re-translated Aristotle from ancient Syriac texts, Syriac being an Aramaic kind of language spoken by Christians and Muslims and replaced by Arabic in the 7th or 8th century. Arabic was actually not quite existing previously.

Primarily a Christian medium of expression, Syriac had a fundamental cultural and literary influence on the development of Arabic which replaced it towards the end of the eighth century. Syriac remains the liturgical language of Syriac Christianity.
(Wiki)

Intentionally (or not) you insinuate that William of Moerbeke translated from Arabic, which is false. William translated directly from Greek into Latin the complete work of Aristotle, which had been maintained also in church libraries. For several of William's translations, the Greek texts have since disappeared: without him the works would be lost.

William also translated mathematical treatises by Hero of Alexandria and Archimedes. Especially important was his translation of the Theological Elements of Proclus (made in 1268), because the Theological Elements is one of the fundamental sources of the revived Neo-Platonic philosophical currents of the 13th century.

The Vatican collection holds William's own copy of the translation he made of the greatest Hellenistic mathematician, Archimedes, with commentaries of Eutocius, which was made in 1269 at the papal court in Viterbo. William consulted two of the best Greek manuscripts of Archimedes, both of which have since disappeared.
(Wiki)

To ignore totally the importance of the Church for the survival of many Hellenistic manuscripts is insane, sorry.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I was trying to cover as much ground as I could without writing an encyclopedia.

First, I have been sloppy in conflating "Europe" with the "West." As I'm sure you know, Spain, which is part of Europe, was not part of what we identify as the West during that period because it was under Muslim rule which ran from about the 8th century to the 15th century. The was constant fighting in that area, with Spanish groups taking territory from the Moors and Vice Versa. Toledo, were much of this philosophy originates, was maintained as a seat of learning and was safe for Catholics.

Thus, when Avveroes began his influential school of thought that was largely based on Aristotle, his work spread through the Arab world. There are NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, Western philosophers writing about Aristotle at this time. This is because they didn't know who he was.

As for the order, due to the popularity of Avveroes and other muslim thinkers Gerard of Cremona goes to Toledo in the 12th century, learns Arabic, and translates many writings, inculding some of Aristotle, into Latin. A half century later, BECAUSE of the popularity of those Arabic-> Latin translations Aquinas, worried that the translations from Spain were error-ridden, asks William of Moerbeke to translate everything he could find. He translated them from Greek texts that have since been lost.

Though the manuscripts were kept by the church, they were just on a shelf gathering dust. Just because you have something, that doesn't mean you are using it. Aquinas does not refer to any Christian commentators on Aristotle, because there aren't any. If you want to claim that the church served as an unwiting wearhouse for those writings, fine, but they weren't using them, only Arabs were.

What? Thomas' writings were never "declared heresy" by "the church". The same Church that pronounced Thomas a Saint, "teacher of the church" and what have you? You honestly want to make us believe that the Church's arguably greatest theologian had lived in clinch with his Church? I can't take you serious enough anymore to keep correcting your posts, I'm afraid.

From wikipedia, as i am tired of thinking, "In 1277, the same bishop of France, Etienne Tempier, who had issued the condemnation of 1270 issued another, more extensive condemnation. This new condemnation was aimed to clarify that God's absolute power transcended any principles of logic that Aristotle or Averroes might place on it.[39] More specifically, it contained a list of 219 propositions that the bishop had determined to violate the omnipotence of God, and included in this list were twenty Thomistic propositions. Their inclusion badly damaged Aquinas' reputation for many years."

and: "On 10 December 1270, the bishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier, issued an edict condemning thirteen Aristotlelian and Averroistic propositions as heretical and excommunicating anyone who continued to support them.[27] Many in the ecclesiastical community, the so-called Augustinians, were fearful that this introduction of Aristotelianism and the more extreme Averroism might somehow contaminate the purity of the Christian faith. In what appears to be an attempt to counteract the growing fear of Aristotelian thought, Aquinas conducted a series of disputations between 1270 and 1272: De virtutibus in communi (On Virtues in General), De virtutibus cardinalibus (On Cardinal Virtues) De spe (On Hope)."

I worded the church's attitude towards Aquinas a little strongly. Portions of his Aristotelian philosophy were condemned, and as you can read above, principles from Aristotle were considered heresy. Aquinas lectured to try and prove that they weren't. Thus, we have Aristotelian principles defended by Aquinas that if you believed in them, the church would excommunicate you. I don't know how that could be more clear.

Aquinas' reputation was reconstructed in his later years and after his death, but his unapologetic commitment to the reason of Aristotle deeply worried the church. So it is completely disingenuous to say that the church has been a supporter of Aristotle.

Once again, you ignore the process. Just because the church behaves a certain way now, that doesn't mean they do so willingly. Catholics have acknowledged evolution, but obviously they fought against it tooth and nail until they so clearly lost the debate and conceded. The same thing is true of Aquinas and Aristotle.

TraneWreck

26th February 2009, 10:03 AM

TraneWreck

26th February 2009, 10:05 AM

Couple of quibbles. I don't think it's accurate to call Locke an empiricist. Nor is it accurate that he started the concept of liberalism. If that can be pinned down to any one thinker (which is a little bit fallacious anyways), it would have to be Hobbes. Granted, Hobbes used liberty and the social contract to justify absolute monarchy, but he starts from the premise of natural rights and consent of the governed. (More accurately, he starts with the premise of man as mechanism (levers and pulleys metaphors, etc) and the universe as matter in motion, which he uses to develop his civic premises).

I will stick by Locke as an empiricist, but perhaps I was sloppy in dubbing him the originator of liberalism. I was trying to go through that in leaps and bounds, and obviously Locke owes a great debt to Hobbes and others.

Locke argued against Descartes on the topic of innate ideas. Locke famously thought the human mind was a white paper and all knowledge was a posteriori. That seems to be definitively empiricist to me.

D'rok

26th February 2009, 11:07 AM

I will stick by Locke as an empiricist, but perhaps I was sloppy in dubbing him the originator of liberalism. I was trying to go through that in leaps and bounds, and obviously Locke owes a great debt to Hobbes and others.

Locke argued against Descartes on the topic of innate ideas. Locke famously thought the human mind was a white paper and all knowledge was a posteriori. That seems to be definitively empiricist to me.

We might be using different definitions of empiricist, but I see your point.

Also, it's probably accurate to call Locke the originator of the American liberal tradition, or at least the most important one.

TraneWreck

26th February 2009, 12:08 PM

We might be using different definitions of empiricist, but I see your point.

Also, it's probably accurate to call Locke the originator of the American liberal tradition, or at least the most important one.

There's a certain amount of sloppiness to be expected when we paint with such broad strokes.

Dr Adequate

26th February 2009, 11:11 PM

We must have been reading different Bibles.

1 Peter 2 13-18 ---

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right [...] Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Romans 13 1-6 ---

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

You got that? "The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

I bet the Founding Fathers are sorry now they're all burning in Hell.

It's not too late for your sinful nation to repent and acknowledge Elizabeth II as your rightful Queen. Hey, Stone Island?

joobz

26th February 2009, 11:23 PM

Hey, Stone Island?
I see you don't know SI very well.
He doesn't respond well to points which he can't address. He's likely to plonk you if you press him.

I mean, he's only a PhD candidate in political science. It's not like we should expect him to make logically consistant arguments regarding american government.

Herzblut

27th February 2009, 02:48 AM

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I was trying to cover as much ground as I could without writing an encyclopedia.

First, I have been sloppy in conflating "Europe" with the "West." As I'm sure you know, Spain, which is part of Europe, was not part of what we identify as the West during that period because it was under Muslim rule which ran from about the 8th century to the 15th century.

Well, I think this view is disputable. For me, the Western tradition embeds a remarkable Arabic impact, which forms part of it. My personal affection for the Spanish language and Spain, in particular Andalucia, makes me aware of that quite clearly. The Alhambra in Granada overwhelms me each time I see it. What a one-and-only beautiful masterpiece. Spanish includes a lot of words of Arabic origin. They sound very "unlatin", take azafata.

Though the manuscripts were kept by the church, they were just on a shelf gathering dust.

Until being translated by William. You can't say it was factually wrong what I wrote. The church did contribute enormously to the survival of many Hellenistic scripts. I just wanted to clarify that, since you sounded as if you denied that completely.

I worded the church's attitude towards Aquinas a little strongly.

A little, yes. :D Again, I responded because you suggested a wrong picture about the importance of Thomas within the RCC, which is paramount.

Catholics have acknowledged evolution, but obviously they fought against it tooth and nail until they so clearly lost the debate and conceded. The same thing is true of Aquinas and Aristotle.

Sorry to not share your judgment.

paximperium

27th February 2009, 03:33 AM

Why are you always answering a question by a counter question?
Because of your inability or refusal to ever clearly answer a question.

You insinuate things or give vague and useless answers. One has to wonder why?

paximperium

27th February 2009, 03:34 AM

Herzblut

27th February 2009, 05:17 AM

Ahhhh, I smell a dishonest movement of a goalpost. Not surprising at all.
Your wife is cooking?

D'rok

27th February 2009, 05:19 AM

Your wife is cooking?

This crosses the line.

paximperium

27th February 2009, 05:41 AM

This crosses the line.
Not really. I'm not married and he's out of anything relevant to say.

Herzblut

27th February 2009, 05:44 AM

Not really. I'm not married and he's out of anything relevant to say.
Right. It wasn't relevant, I was just joking. That's the best kind of response to many of your posts anyhow.

paximperium

27th February 2009, 05:49 AM

Right. It wasn't relevant, I was just joking.
No you are doing what you always do. Throwing red herring around in a sad attempt to deflect a valid argument.

That's the best kind of response to many of your posts anyhow.
No. The best kind of response to my post is to actually answer the question or have any relevant points to make instead of sidestepping and running away from things you cannot or refuse to answer.

TraneWreck

27th February 2009, 08:37 AM

Well, I think this view is disputable. For me, the Western tradition embeds a remarkable Arabic impact, which forms part of it. My personal affection for the Spanish language and Spain, in particular Andalucia, makes me aware of that quite clearly. The Alhambra in Granada overwhelms me each time I see it. What a one-and-only beautiful masterpiece. Spanish includes a lot of words of Arabic origin. They sound very "unlatin", take azafata.

The Western Tradition has a significant Muslim influence because of how they interacted in Spain during that era. For that period of history the West and Near East were warring, antagonistic cultures along the lines of the Soviets and the Americans. It is therefore useful and informative to make a distinction between those traditions. The cultures influenced one another over time, but they remained distinct. You cannot ascribe the work of Arab philosophers to Christians. It doesn't make any sense at all. That would be like saying the Soviets promoted movements for international institutions of human rights and justice because the Americans did, and as we can see now, Russia is heavily influenced by US culture. You're making a sloppy argument.

It is simply false, no Western philosopher following the fall of the Roman Empire discusses Aristotle until Aquinas. And he did so because of Aristotle's popularity in the Arab world.

Until being translated by William. You can't say it was factually wrong what I wrote. The church did contribute enormously to the survival of many Hellenistic scripts. I just wanted to clarify that, since you sounded as if you denied that completely.

Yes, the church was an unwitting wearhouse. They saw no value in those manuscripts save for the fact that eventual they could scribble copies of the Bible over them. This was their role. They contributed nothing to thought or philosophy.

A little, yes. :D Again, I responded because you suggested a wrong picture about the importance of Thomas within the RCC, which is paramount.

Of course he's important, the point is that his commitment to reason had him walking a tightrope at the end of his life. He lectured in defense of Aristotelian premises that the church declared heretical. What isn't clear about that?

Remember the book of letters from Mother Teresa that were just published? The ones where she expresses doubt in the truth of her religion? When she is cannonized, do you think the Nazi pope will make reference to her lack of faith? Or will they just talk about here cheritable work?

Sorry to not share your judgment.

Unfortunately for you, the Catholic church did share my judgment. That's why they declared acceptance of Aristotelian principles grounds for excommunication. Please explain in more that one frivolous sentence how that amounts to support and promotion of Aristotle.