Another US Patriot passes away.. - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-06-2008, 04:24 PM   #166
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
Ok, here's what I understand:

On the 30th of April Washington was inaugurated President of the republic. The ceremony took place in the open gallery of the old City Hall (afterward called Federal Hall), on the site of the present Custom-House, in the presence of a vast multitude. Washington was dressed in a suit of dark brown cloth and white silk *stockings (note potentail Gaydar situation), all of American manufacture. His hair was powdered and dressed in the fashion of the day, clubbed and ribboned. The oath of office was administered by Robert R. Livingston, then chancellor of the State of New York. The open Bible (then and now the property of St. John's Lodge of Freemasons of the City of New York), on which the President laid his hand, was held on a rich crimson velvet cushion by Mr. Otis, Secretary of the Senate. Near them were John Adams, who had been chosen Vice-President; George Clinton, Governor of New York; Philip Schuyler, John Jay, General Knox, Ebenezer Hazard, Samuel Osgood and other distinguished men. After taking the oath and kissing the sacred book reverently, Washington closed his eyes and in an attitude of devotion said: "So help me God!" The Chancellor exclaimed, "It is done!" and then turning to the people he shouted, "Long live George Washington, the first President of the United States." That shout was echoed and re-echoed by the multitude, when the President and the members of Congress retired to the Senate Chamber, where Washington pronounced a most impressive inaugural address. At the conclusion, he and the members went in procession to St. Paul's Church (which, with the other churches, had been opened for prayers at nine o'clock that morning), and there they invoked the blessing of Almighty God upon the new government. The first person who grasped Washington's hand in congratulation, after the ceremony, was Richard Henry Lee, his friend from childhood, to whom he had written when they were boys nine years of age-"I am going to get a whip-top soon, and you may see it and whip it." How many human whip-tops had these staunch patriots managed since they wrote their childish epistles!
<>
It would be good if you cited the source you're copying.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 05:03 PM   #167
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 09:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Actually I find it much harder to be right all the time. That's a lot of pressure.
Especially as you so rarely accomplish it.........
__________________

__________________
toscano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 05:05 PM   #168
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 09:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
#500=my hero.



<>

mormon-on-christian man-love.......eeeewwwwwwww.........
__________________
toscano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 06:30 PM   #169
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
as has been said before, despite your claims to their Jesus-freak-ness, all the references to any sort of deity are intentionally, purposefully, knowingly vague. there's an appeal to a common creator upon which a faith in the people to govern themselves *without* some sort of divine right of kings is predicated upon. since we're all the same, no one's god is more "right" than anyone else's god. and no atheist is ever "wrong." this is absolutely a part of our history, and to point that out is actually critical to the creation of a secular society whereupon the state doesn't interfere with anyone's church, and vice versa.

these men were well aware of the divine right of kings, of the inquisition, of the crusades. they were very well aware of what humans can do when they tell the masses that god wants them to go to war, to invade, etc. (and, gosh, that just happened again pretty recently didn't it?)

so in order to get religion off our backs, to get religion *out* of the creation of, say, a war policy, or an economic policy, what you do is give a clear rationale for the merit of all people, their inalienable human rights. who bestows that? could be Vishnu, Zeus, God, Allah, or Nature. the important thing is that the government doesn't care beyond establishing basic equality in the eyes of the government for people of all faiths or non-faiths. pray as hard as you want, you're still not going to get to vote twice. be a super-duper shiny Christian, you're still going to have to win election on your own.

so all this legwork to make the FF's out to be pious, bible-and-a-gun men taming the great American wilderness for the creation of a kingdom to glorify Jesus is *precisely* what these men were trying to avoid. maybe that's what an individual might see himself as doing -- but that's never, ever the project of the government.
You can be sure of two things. The Founders owned and knew how to use guns and they owned and read Bibles. Franklin and Jefferson, while not Christians, studied the Bible their entire life with Jefferson famously cutting out of his Bible passages he deemed supernatural.

The FF wanted rights to be inalienable and natural so as to be both universal and irrevocable. This required an entity above government to which men and governments would be held accountable. In doing this they linked the cause of liberty to God or the Creator while avoiding sectarian associations, imagery or symbols. This was their model for federal (not state) government.
Not able to establish or disestablish a religion yet never ever meaning it to be totally devoid of religious virtues or influence.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 07:03 PM   #170
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Which was not all that uncommon until after WWII. Watch some old movies or Laurel & Hardy or The Three Stooges. Read about traveling profession sports teams, Vaudeville, stage or circus troupes of old. About sleeper cars on trains and boats.

Families were bigger and houses were smaller and people didn't give it a second thought.
Are some people immune to double entendres?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 07:11 PM   #171
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by toscano View Post
mormon-on-christian man-love.......eeeewwwwwwww.........
Religions should be capitalized. It's not only courteous, it's proper grammar.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 07:20 PM   #172
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 09:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Religions should be capitalized. It's not only courteous, it's proper grammar.
I'll be happy to treat mormonism and christianity and their god the same as i'd treat Buddhism for example when the followers of those religions treat all members of our society as equal and don't spend tens of millions of dollars to bring about the insitutionalizing of discrimination against them.
__________________
toscano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 07:26 PM   #173
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I wasn't referring to you. But be careful about Paine. The Founders had little sympathy for the bloody excesses of the French Revolution and its attacks on traditional Christian doctrines and they dismissed Paine's Age of Reason summarily. No American cemetery would accept his remains after his death.
The infidelity of Paine is important, it clarifies the attitudes that were present at the time.
Quote:
And people can't take opposite sides of an issue on secular terms? Economic and political factors were used to argue for and against slavery as well.
Yes, because any position can be argued, the difference is that few people would justify abolition on the same basis that others justified slavery.
Quote:
And surly then you'd be against any federal holiday to celebrate the life of a preacher who used biblical arguments and reasoning to make his case for public policy change.
He did use religious language and reasoning, but also hung around with a lot of leftist atheists, it wasn't ultimately religious arguments that made it into the law. There isn't anything particularly wrong with recognising the achievements of a person, irregardless of their religous affiliation; that is a perfectly secular position.
Quote:
Naturally I disagree with your whole premise here. Imposing religion on people is wrong but imposing secular values on religious people is OK? Well, same-sex marriage is 0 for 30 so clearly more than fundamentalist Christians are voting against it.
You are not going to be coerced into entering a gay marriage, your Church is not going to be coerced into sanctifying gay marriage, the existence of a liberty is not an imposition on those that choose not to practice it.

Your effectively admitting that the consistent anti-discrimination position which is for gay rights is invalid because your religious beliefs say that you shouldn't practice homosexuality. The wonderful thing about a free society is that you are allowed to choose, having that choice there isn't imposing upon you; unless you feel really bad about having to fight the homosexual urge, and gay marriage naturally makes it harder
Quote:
But you seem to be saying that values derived from religion (unless you're a black icon) should be disqualified in public policy making and are always inferior to those derived from, say, pop culture or science journals.
Yes, please be more flippant, I have addressed the issue of religious people being allowed to hold positions and act out of conviction but you are denigrating the morality of atheists and freethinkers. There are diverse types of moral reasoning, science answers the how of our moral capacities (why we feel revulsion, hatred, compassion and love) but we can look to philosophies for the ought. An atheist who adopts a system like the harm principle to rationalise what is right and what is wrong, something I have done to some degree, produces a pretty solid value system, one which is more justified than appealing to a contradiction.
Quote:
Separation of church and state was apparently not important enough to actually put in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. But I'm sure we could go on and on about how to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.
The first amendment does separate church and state, there is consistent precedent for that interpretation and it was the position of Thomas Jefferson.
Quote:
Again, if you use theocracy I'm going to ask which specific theology because I might join your fight.
A theocracy need not be sectarian, a recognition of a supernatural deity by the government would make it a theocracy, what you are saying is that you are alright with theocracy, provided its your man in charge.
Quote:
Of course, that's not what happens in the real world is it? What actually occurs is what G.K Chesterton observed. “Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God."
Yes, I am a slave to the state, I think that communism is cool and we should worship a dear leader; if you take 100 atheists and 100 Christians at random it would be a fair bet the atheists would be more skeptical towards government.

Labeling atheists as communists, and alluding to the state religions created by totalitarian regimes, says nothing of liberty loving people who think the role of the state is not to interfere with their private beliefs; take a corollary of the separationist position, the state is not allowed to force your Church to stop reading bits of the bible that are discriminatory, or to make it recognise gay marriage, or become unitarian; this is because of separation of church and state, assuming that it promulgate atheism and sin rather than protects religious liberty and maximises freedom is nonsensical.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 07:31 PM   #174
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
You can be sure of two things. The Founders owned and knew how to use guns and they owned and read Bibles. Franklin and Jefferson, while not Christians, studied the Bible their entire life with Jefferson famously cutting out of his Bible passages he deemed supernatural.

The FF wanted rights to be inalienable and natural so as to be both universal and irrevocable. This required an entity above government to which men and governments would be held accountable. In doing this they linked the cause of liberty to God or the Creator while avoiding sectarian associations, imagery or symbols. This was their model for federal (not state) government.
Not able to establish or disestablish a religion yet never ever meaning it to be totally devoid of religious virtues or influence.
The creator is the universe!

It is a perfectly sound statement of how humanity was created that is logically consistent with a declaration of a creator, pantheism is a legitimate interpretation; especially in light of natural rights argument.

Also you just pointed out the Jefferson bible, as he was extracting the good parts of the Christian philosophy and dumping the distortions and evil; this is exactly the position which Christians do not take, they accept it as revelation and will hold discriminatory positions on the basis of it. What place is there for executing homosexuals in a moral bible?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 09:08 PM   #175
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
The FF wanted rights to be inalienable and natural so as to be both universal and irrevocable. This required an entity above government to which men and governments would be held accountable. In doing this they linked the cause of liberty to God or the Creator while avoiding sectarian associations, imagery or symbols. This was their model for federal (not state) government.
Not able to establish or disestablish a religion yet never ever meaning it to be totally devoid of religious virtues or influence.
I think you're basically correct on all of the above. However that in no way translates into "the FF would have been evangelical fundamentalists with the same highly politicized goals as James Dobson and his ilk. " It's ALSO a stretch to say that they would have been left-leaning atheists. We really can't know and really it doesn't matter. After all these are the same guys that were okay with me being 3/5 of a person so they're not the Final Word. These men were products of their time.

But--and I'm addressing INDY and Diamond specifically--neither of you have provided any scriptural support for your position that the nation must acknowledge God (and let me just say that any references to OT Israel don't count because we know that was a theocracy and that's not what you're arguing for, right?). Because if it's not clear that God commands that we foist our faith upon everyone else or make everyone else show due deference to it, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on as far as I'm concerned.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 09:12 PM   #176
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:59 AM
Joseph Smith argued for a theodemocracy.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 09:20 PM   #177
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Joseph Smith argued for a theodemocracy.
I wondered what the Mormon scriptures might have to say on this. I'll wait for Diamond to confirm.

I would assume they would be less inclined to foist their faith on others since they suffered so much persecution in the early days of their history.

But, I'm pretty sure Diamond also knows that arguments from the BOM or the other texts wouldnt' be as compelling to me since I'm not LDS. Plus appealing to those scriptures would make it difficult for him and INDY to continue to stand shoulder to shoulder on this issue.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2008, 11:14 AM   #178
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
After all these are the same guys that were okay with me being 3/5 of a person so they're not the Final Word. These men were products of their time.


thank you for reminding us of this. it's incredibly important.

so often, in our excitement to claim history for our own selfish purposes and to justify our contemporary political beliefs, we forget how flawed our forefathers were due to their time. any sort of essentialism -- be it in government, or the understanding of marriage -- is always flawed. such "timeless truths" about whatever are contemporary concoctions where the past is never understood on it's own terms. it's merely made to serve the present moment.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2008, 03:36 PM   #179
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I would assume they would be less inclined to foist their faith on others since they suffered so much persecution in the early days of their history.
Yeah, you'd think that.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2008, 06:18 PM   #180
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Yeah, you'd think that.


see, the difference is that they know they're right; they've picked the right God, and they're just doing their best to help us poor fools who have yet to accept it. you see, for every inch they push, they bring the rest of us that much closer to being saved, and for an eternity, they'll say, "you see? i was right. told you so. now, aren't you glad i insisted on Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays? it makes me feel so smug happy that you've been saved as well."
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com