Thomas Jefferson on Separation of Church and State

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

melon

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Messages
11,790
Location
Ásgarðr
The Danbury Baptist Association, concerned about religious liberty in the new nation wrote to President Thomas Jefferson, Oct. 7, 1801.

Sir, Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyd in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the United States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty -- That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals -- That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men -- should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cald you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association.

Nehh Dodge
Ephram Robbins The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson




Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut were persecuted because they were not part of the Congretationalist establishment in that state.

On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Gentlemen:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

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 the 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson

Thoughts?

Melon
 
Thomas Jefferson:

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short

Jefferson again:

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

More Jefferson:

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill."

Thoughts?

Melon
 
John Adams on Christianity:

"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"

Also Adams:

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:

"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

Thoughts?

Melon
 
Here's Thomas Paine, famous American Revolutionary writer:

"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."

"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."

"It is the duty of every true Deist [belief in a god who created the world, but is now distant; also the religion of Jefferson] to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."

"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance."

And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.

Thoughts?

Melon
 
Here's James Madison, fourth President of the U.S. and writer of the Constitution:

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote:

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Thoughts?

Melon
 
So where did the idea of "one nation, under God" come from?

These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Among those who confuse Christianity with the founding of America, the rise of conservative Baptists is one of the more interesting developments. The Baptists believed God's authority came from the people, not the priesthood, and they had been persecuted for this belief. It was they - the Baptists - who were instrumental in securing the separation of church and state. They knew you can not have a "one-way wall" that lets religion into government but that does not let it out. They knew no religion is capable of handling political power without becoming corrupted by it. And, perhaps, they knew it was Christ himself who first proposed the separation of church and state: "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto the Lord that which is the Lord's."

In the last five years the Baptists have been taken over by a fundamentalist faction that insists authority comes from the Bible and that the individual must accept the interpretation of the Bible from a higher authority. These usurpers of the Baptist faith are those who insist they should meddle in the affairs of the government and it is they who insist the government should meddle in the beliefs of individuals.

Thoughts?

Melon
 
Good luck. I posted some of these in the pledge thread and not one person had any comments--or at least they hadn't when I stopped reading that thread. I thought it would spark pages and pages of lively discussion, but nada.
 
joyfulgirl said:
Good luck. I posted some of these in the pledge thread and not one person had any comments--or at least they hadn't when I stopped reading that thread. I thought it would spark pages and pages of lively discussion, but nada.

Sometimes, you need to beat people over the head with the truth. Of course, that doesn't mean that they'll listen.

Melon
 
Melon,

Sometimes I think you go too far. Most of our conservative posters find comfort in their reconstructed history. The fact that it is flat out wrong matters less to them, than their need to believe this false history.

If they are smart they will bury their heads in the sand, until this thread falls off the first page. They might get angry and lash out at you. Or we could get the reply where they cut and paste your post, followed by a page and one half rebuttals that make little sense to anyone. But give the author a sense of satisfaction that he is right. All rights come from God, blah, blah, more nonsense.

Good post, Melon.

Chain.
 
chain is right Melon

I am sorry folks, all two or three of you, but this is just way too intense right now for my abcessed brain.

Please let me go and stick my head back in the sand please now.:sexywink:
 
A few things:

-The last sentence in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association ("I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem") is obviously not a Deist sentiment. But then again, we all know Jefferson was a intriguing figure, a man of many self-contradictions.

-James Madison evidently never heard of the Quakers.

-Nothing in any of the documents above refutes the statement that the protection of individual liberties is a precept of natural law (i.e., law that reflects an objective conception of what is good and what is not). The vast majority of Americans today would probably ascribe the content of natural law to God and not some "universal moral code" floating in space, and I suspect that most of the Americans who lived in revolutionary times would agree, whether they were formal church members or not.
 
Last edited:
chain said:
Melon,

Sometimes I think you go too far. Most of our conservative posters find comfort in their reconstructed history. The fact that it is flat out wrong matters less to them, than their need to believe this false history.

If they are smart they will bury their heads in the sand, until this thread falls off the first page. They might get angry and lash out at you. Or we could get the reply where they cut and paste your post, followed by a page and one half rebuttals that make little sense to anyone. But give the author a sense of satisfaction that he is right. All rights come from God, blah, blah, more nonsense.

Good post, Melon.

Chain.

And it was a good post by Melon, aside from the unnecessary cheap shot at the end.

And the content of your post is...?
 
Last edited:
Nothing in the above references says that GOD=church or religion. The vast majority of Americans today feel that GOD does not = Church or religion. The Pledge will continue to have "Under GOD" apart of it.
 
chain said:
Melon,

Sometimes I think you go too far. Most of our conservative posters find comfort in their reconstructed history. The fact that it is flat out wrong matters less to them, than their need to believe this false history.

If they are smart they will bury their heads in the sand, until this thread falls off the first page. They might get angry and lash out at you. Or we could get the reply where they cut and paste your post, followed by a page and one half rebuttals that make little sense to anyone. But give the author a sense of satisfaction that he is right. All rights come from God, blah, blah, more nonsense.

Good post, Melon.

Chain.

You know, I just looked through the thread on the court decision concerning the pledge, and you know what what? I can't seem to find your rebuttal of that "All rights come from God, blah, blah, more nonsense."

IN FACT, I can't seem to find a SINGLE post of yours in that thread, chain. I suppose I just missed your replies, the result of having my head in the sand, naturally.

You know where that "head in the sand" imagery comes from? The ostrich, an ugly, flightless bird. I would like to raise the spectre of another flightless bird: the CHICKEN.

As in, only a CHICKEN would criticize a "reply where they cut and paste your post, followed by a page and one half rebuttals that make little sense to anyone" and ABSTAIN from actually engaging the rebuttal.

Only a CHICKEN would call the idea that rights are God-given "nonsense," do so without a SINGLE argument, and do so in a thread other than in where the argument was mentioned.

Only a CHICKEN would make sidelong comments about somebody else's posts, and do so without the bravery of making the observation within the appropriate thread or naming names.

But, surely, you're more straight-forward than to do that, aren't you?

Come on. Come out and play.

Come to the pledge thread. Show me how you can derive human rights from the natural universe. Show me that the Founding Fathers were largely atheists, or at least agnostics. Show me how the "under God" clause violates the meaning or the intent of the Constitution.

Show me who's my intellectual superior.

Bubba
 
What else can we come to expect from Melon!? I've been reading this forum for a long time and his posts are always predictable. He has claimed in the past that he can't be characterized with political labels, but he is such a disgustingly kneejerk liberal that it's almost laughable. I wish the history of this form could be accessed (from a while ago) because I could easily quote Melon as saying that he will no longer post political messages here anymore. The fact that he can't even keep to his promises speaks volumes about his character. He'll claim that he's a conservative in some issues, but those of us (who don't have a liberal bias) with experience reading his posts know that he constantly tries to incite conservatives with something procative so he can insult them.

"Sometimes, you need to beat people over the head with the truth" - Melon
Frankly I'm pretty sick of his arrogance and rudeness, so I felt it was time for me to reciprocate. :madspit:
 
garibaldo said:
What else can we come to expect from Melon!? I've been reading this forum for a long time and his posts are always predictable. He has claimed in the past that he can't be characterized with political labels, but he is such a disgustingly kneejerk liberal that it's almost laughable. I wish the history of this form could be accessed (from a while ago) because I could easily quote Melon as saying that he will no longer post political messages here anymore. The fact that he can't even keep to his promises speaks volumes about his character. He'll claim that he's a conservative in some issues, but those of us (who don't have a liberal bias) with experience reading his posts know that he constantly tries to incite conservatives with something procative so he can insult them.

"Sometimes, you need to beat people over the head with the truth" - Melon
Frankly I'm pretty sick of his arrogance and rudeness, so I felt it was time for me to reciprocate. :madspit:

Dear dear Garibaldo...

Lest we forget that, like Achtung Bubba, we are not to ever speak again either. Do you remember?

I see now..."liberals" are mean. Are you going to cry now? These are direct quotes from everyone's favorite "Founding Fathers." It doesn't get more direct than, "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." But that's right...everyone who challenges that is just a mean-old liberal who refuses to conform?

I will continue to beat people over the head with the truth; no fuzzy reverse-P.C. historical revisionism to give conservatism a euphoric high. History is pretty damn concrete...except when people forget their history and accept propaganda in its place.

As usual, in the "compassionate" conservative manner, you decide to go on personal attacks, rather than actually comment on the substance of my thread. Reminds me of how Newt Gingrich slammed Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988 for vetoing a bill in Massachusetts to require students to say the Pledge of Allegiance before school, and used it to say that he was "anti-American."

I am not going to be some spineless Democrat, who refuses to make up their own opinion outside of the Republican opinion, for fear that the South won't vote for them come election time. If you can't take the heat, then get the hell out of this place. Make a contribution to this forum, rather than your hit-and-run personal attacks against me.

Other than that, leave me alone. I will not warn you again. This is the last time I shall speak to you, before I remind the mods of our prior consent decree and expect them to enforce it.

Melon
 
melon said:


If you can't take the heat, then get the hell out of this place. Make a contribution to this forum, rather than your hit-and-run personal attacks against me.


Good point, melon. I think all of us, whether "liberal" or "conservative", need to try and remind ourselves of this. The point of this place is to discuss issues, not personalities.
 
melon said:

Thoughts?


Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, James Madison, and I have differing thoughts on Jesus, the Bible, and Christianity.

melon said:

So where did the idea of "one nation, under God" come from?

The 83rd Congress of the United States.

Melon, if you're trying to make the point that Jefferson believed in the idea of the separation of church and state, I won't argue with you there. If you're trying to make the point that some of the "founding fathers" were not the Christians they are often made out to be, again, I've got no argument.

But if you're trying to say that the U.S. Congress has made a law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof by establishing a statement containing the words "under God" as the official pledge of the United States.....I don't see how your above quotes lead to that conclusion. So Thomas Jefferson considers the apostle Paul and the Pope, among others, to be the anti-Christ. Ok. Adams stated that the U.S. government wasn't founded on Christianity. No problem. Thomas Paine hates the Bible and, presumably, Christianity. I had no idea he felt that way. But, none of those things show me why this act of Congress in 1954 violates the Constitution. In all honesty (and I'm not trying to be a smart-ass) I may just not be smart enough to figure it out from the quotes you've provided. Maybe you need to spell it out for me. From what I've read in the other "pledge" thread, there's no constitutional problem here. This act of Congress did not establish a religion, and it did not prohibit the free exercise of religion. If people don't like it, I think they should get Congress to designate a new pledge, or drop the official pledge idea.

Thoughts?

Spiral
 
joyfulgirl said:
Good luck. I posted some of these in the pledge thread and not one person had any comments--or at least they hadn't when I stopped reading that thread. I thought it would spark pages and pages of lively discussion, but nada.

Well, I can speak for no one else, but I can tell you that I DID read your quotes - and I've just now re-read them - and I simply did not find them germane to the discussion. I thought Sting2 responded well, by reminding everyone the difference between "religion" and "God," so I felt no need to chime in.

As far as I can tell, your quotes can lead to the conclusions that some of the Founding Fathers were not Christians and had a certain disdain and distrust of organized religion. Many were deists, those who believed in a God who created the universe then "left the building." Given that the quotes came from the middle of the Enlightenment - and when most nations had official churchs who made legitimate the rule of the king - it's not a bit surprising.

However, while it's clear that they did not want the U.S. Government to sanction a chuch (in the manner of the Church of England or Rome), it's not clear that they meant MORE than that.

It's certainly not clear that the name of God was NEVER to be uttered by the government.

I believe, honestly, that if such a thing WERE clear, someone would have posted the evidence by now, rather than clouding the issue with irrelevancies about how some of the Founders were deists and not Christians.

(And while there's a huge gap between deists and Christians - the latter believing in divine intervention, the former denying the possibility - there's still one common bond: a belief in God.)


I could actually address most of the quotes, but I believe I need only deal with three, for the moment:

"...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." - John Adams

This is probably the closest ANY of the comments come to suggesting something relevant, like rights do not come from God. But there's a MUCH more reasonable interpretation of this quote about the "pretense of miracle or mystery:" Adams was probably criticizing royalty's so-called divine right to rule. I'd bet this has much more to do with King George III than our eventual use of the "under God" clause.

I would need to see the context to be convinced otherwise.


"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ?make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,? thus building a wall of separation between church and State." - Thomas Jefferson

Again, here it seems like Jefferson is opposing the idea of a state-run or -approved church, of an American analogue to the Church of England. HENCE, his belief that there should be no external (read: government) influence on an individual's religious beliefs.

To say that this somehow proves that Jefferson would have also opposed the current form of the pledge is to stretch, without justification, the meaning of Jefferson's words.

It's like this: in order to fit "under God" into the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment, you have to stretch it FAR beyond what it obviously prohibits (i.e., state-run churches). To do that, you've given this quote, but you're ALSO stretching IT beyond its obvious meaning (again, opposition to state-run churches).

I've yet to see a quote to justify that stretch, the closest being the final quote:

"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

You COULD try to read the first part of this quote to mean that liberties do not come from God. But the second half ("the legitimate powers of government...") make clear the meaning:

Jefferson basically supports equal protection under the law, regardless of the religious beliefs of those involved. That says nothing - absolutely nothing - about the source of our rights.


But there ARE two quotes I've given that illuminate Jefferson's opinions on the source of liberty:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

(Let us not forget: the Declaration of Indepedence was DRAFTED by Thomas Jefferson.)

And let's quote Senate Bill 2690, the Senate's important upholding of the Pledge and the motto:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

...

(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and later the Nation's third President, in his work titled `Notes on the State of Virginia' wrote: `God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.'.



I believe that the intent of the Constitution - as determined by the other words and deeds of the Founding Fathers - clearly allows for the government to profess a belief in a very vague notion of God.

In their totality, all of these quotes do NOTHING to refute my claim.
 
I did have a point to this thread, and I shall make it clear now. My point was to disprove the common fallacy that "our Founding Fathers" were upright Christian men who would be angered at our current secular state. On the contrary, I think that our Founding Fathers were probably our most anti-religious presidents. Most certainly, I will not disagree that most of our presidents have had a profound Christian sentiment in regards to our nation. William McKinley, president from 1898-1901 (I believe), was a Methodist minister, who conquered the Philippines with the hope of converting them (never mind the fact that the Philippines had been Catholic for nearly 300 years :huh:).

Do I ultimately mind whether you all believe in the "one nation, under God" bit in the Pledge of Allegiance? Certainly not. I'm personally indifferent, as I don't need such a line in the pledge to express my faith in God. Even Jesus made it clear that the best prayers were said in private, behind closed doors. However, I just want to make it clear that history cannot be contorted to support this. Our Founding Fathers were deists (Jefferson's mention of "the Creator" is a distinct deist reference to God) and unitarians. Dwight Eisenhower, who inserted the "under God" phrase, entered it out of proselytization to make us distinct against the atheistic Soviet Union, rather than true faith. The Pledge of Allegiance, itself, was written in 1898 by a political socialist. Believe what you want, everyone, but, please, leave history intact.

Melon
 
Oh, I see. Are we just completely forgetting history now? You are the Newt Gingrich of the left. Let me refresh your memory and be the ghost of Melon past:

02-08-2002
Post Title: CBO Rates Bush Tax Cut Plans
You basically posted a negative article on Bush's economic plan and said NOTHING. You literally posted a negative opinion about the plan, which someone else came up with and didn't say a word.

02-07-2002
Post Title: Republican Lie #1
Again, you posted a negative post about Republicans from the Wall Street Journal and really didn't engage in any arguements except to parrot what the article said and come to the mistaken conclusion that since you think the WSJ is conservative, that even the conservatives recognize their own lies, which is flawed logic. This post didn't demonstrate anything except that you pay particular attention to GOP-bashing articles. There is no thoughtful analysis here.

09-30-2001
Post Title: Democracy Held Hostage
You basically posted a long article by Salon.com (notoriously liberal) questioning what the Republicans can do with our freedom of speech in wartime. You didn't offer any analysis and the post quickly died.

09-04-2001
Post Title: I'm a kid in a political candy store...
You listed three Republicans who weren't planning to come back and said "All I can say is keep it coming!!". Then a conservative retorts and you reply with "And with the dumbest Republican president in decades (perhaps even beating such past winners as Warren Harding and Ulysses Grant), it's not bloody likely." That's all!


02-07-2002
Post Title: How to argue like Rush Limbaugh
You just basically posted a long list of insults towards a famous conservative in an OBVIOUS attempt to be flamed. You also go on to imply that user "the HORROR" is stupid and you say that he's a troll though his only crime was pointing out an opinion, which sulawesigirl14 agreed with.

02-07-2002
Post Title: Rush Limbaugh: "His Highness" Speaks on the Environment
I can't believe how many anti-conservative posts you made in one day. Were you having your liberal period? This post is basically copied verbatim from: http://www.bestofmaui.com/rush.html or a similar site. Normally people have some self-respect and actually quote their sources instead of just posting it and letting people assume it was your own research that came to these conclusions. You basically just waited for the inevitable conservative to come in and get flamed. You even claim in this post that you did this in retaliation to "liberal bashing" that you've noticed lately, which is sad.

08-11-2001
Post Title: Bush: A Pro-Life Hypocrite?
You post an article and ask for opinions as usual. Nothing special to add from you in addition to the link (as always). You're just waiting for the conservatives to start in so you can attack with your mindless crap

08-14-2001
Post Title: I don't like conservatism
This is Melon's most outrageous posting. He starts with "I think conservatism is inherently evil. I think it is evil wearing a shroud of goodness...perhaps the greatest evil of them all. I think it is conservatives that advance the destruction of the world in their attempts to 'save the world.' And, of course, I cannot prove this. It is something that has sat in the annals of my conscience for years." Doesn't seem like he's trying to stir things up? Does that seem like thoughtful debate? His views are insane in this post. He claims that conservatives don't give you "free choice" while liberals do. He goes on to predict what "we" would do the following: "liquor would probably be banned, all non-Christians would be either killed or wholly silenced, homosexuals would be killed, movies would be censored, free speech would be censored, schools would teach nothing but tripe interspersed with religion, science would die altogether as all things that contradict the Bible would be made devoid" There's, of course, no proof of any of this. He also feels like he doesn't need to give any proof when he makes bold statements like "Conservatism tends to expouse religion, but they are wrong 75% of the time". Where does he get the 75% figure from? Your guess is as good as mine. The funniest part is where he says he doesn't want conservatives to take what he wrote personally at the end! HAHAHA

Basically, I want to point out to all of your other kneejerk liberals who inevitably rise to defend him that his history on this board is rarely a thoughtful one. His is one of the most biased, conservative-hating people on this board. Perhaps the most! The pursuit of the truth should be as unbiased as possible. So when he says something bold like "I will continue to beat people over the head with the truth", know that his truth starts as the standard liberal status quo and continues as he adds evidence to support that view. Truth should be obtained from a fairly nonpartisan approach to both sides and eventual reconciliation. I can't say that I'm perfect at this, but he definitely takes the cake. You accuse me of going on personal attacks, but if you look at what I've just posted, you've called people morons, stupid, and made wicked generalizations about the evils of conservatives, which is a like a mass slap in the face. If you wanted a detailed analysis of why I hate you, there it IS. Your idle threats against me are silly and childish. Perhaps you should go back to whortense or any other alternate account (don't the mods have a problem with this?) and leave this despicable character behind. :yes:
 
I have sufficiently warned you, and now I shall be bringing this to the appropriate authorities. I shall let them do as they wish.

Melon
 
That's right, Melon. Avoid the voice of your critics. Run and tell mommy as little children do.
 
Cant we all just get along

garibaldo your first post to melon was pretty unnecessary.

Why dont we let it rest.
 
Fine, I agree that the first post was just a flame. I just wanted everyone to know the history of this user.
 
They can figure it out for themselves.

Thank you for your cooperation.
 
garibaldo said:
Fine, I agree that the first post was just a flame. I just wanted everyone to know the history of this user.

...and everyone doesn't give a shit.

Goodbye, garibaldo. By far, my most favorite forum troll. When you can actually formulate an actual opinion on an actual academic subject, I'd love to hear it. In the meantime, you're simply a broken record. Would you like me to post your history? It's actually quite simple to recite, though; a bunch of incoherent posts, where you ignore the topic at-hand and spend all your time insulting me. How time-worthy indeed...

Melon
 
Back
Top Bottom