Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Agenda 21, Secular Humanism, and the Animalization of Americans
Conservative Underground ^ | 15-Sep-2009 | Linda Kimball

Posted on 09/18/2009 9:22:24 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

The murderous secular humanist religions of Communism and Nazism were spawned by the anti-God/utopian tradition of Revolutionary France. The Black Book of Communism, an 800- page compendium of the crimes of Communist regimes worldwide, graphically details the terror, torture, man-made famine, mass deportations, starvation, and massacres undertaken on behalf of revolutionary utopian ideals. The reality of Communism, which claimed to be an emissary of the Enlightenment, of universal brotherhood, and of happiness for all as envisioned by Gracchus Babeuf, turned out to be not only a sadistic engine for unimaginable evil but also the creator of hells on earth.

The book’s authors point to Communism’s “biological and zoological strain of thinking” as the engine of evil that proved itself to be a most effective means of denying the humanity of Communism’s millions of victims. “This strain of thinking,” explained Stephane Courtois, “is why so many of the crimes of Communism were crimes against humanity, and how Marxist-Leninist ideology managed to justify these crimes to its followers.” (The Black Book of Communism, p. 751)

Biocentrism: the Biological/Zoological Strain of Thinking

Biocentrism or ecocentrism, terms synonymous with today’s sustainable development/global warming crowd, is the “biological and zoological strain of thinking” in disguise. Biocentrism is antithetical to America ’s Judeo-Christian worldview in that it not only reduces man to a soulless ape, but makes his life less valuable than cockroaches, earthworms, spotted owls, trash fish, grizzlies, alligators, and wolves. Those who trace the genesis of ideas, such as Donald Worster, point to Charles Darwin as the most important spokesman for the biocentrism attitude. In short, Darwin ’s theory of evolution, the malignant heart of biocentrism, leads to contempt and even hatred towards humanity.

“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.” (Earth First! Journal editor, John Daily)

“To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.” (Yale professor Lamont Cole)

Biocentrism and its morally-warped system of philosophy and morality thrive right here in America . Communism (multiculturalism/ Cultural Marxism) and its diabolical mother, Secular Humanism, plus its twisted sisters, Postmodernism and Cosmic Humanism (New Age global warming crowd) are now the predominant way of thinking in most of America’s power centers. At the heart of each of these systems beats the black heart of Darwinian biocentrism.

Dr. James Dobson notes, “The Secular Humanist system....has outstripped Judeo- Christian precepts in the universities.... judiciary.... federal bureaucracy, in business, medicine, law, psychology, sociology....arts, in many public schools, and to be sure, in the halls of Congress.” (Understanding the Times, David A. Noebel, p. 7)

Every day in our public schools, America’s children are “animalized” through the teaching of Darwinian evolutionary propaganda. Though some are able to resist this dehumanizing spiritual attack, many more are not. Of those who cannot, some will go on to join the ranks of anti-God, anti-America, anti-human revolutionaries, thereby becoming accomplices in the destruction of the nation that nourishes and protects them. Others will become practical atheists who, having no faith in God, will not fight for a nation founded on Judeo-Christian precepts. From a secular humanist point of view, these are desired outcomes because:

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States.” (Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund)

These things are occurring because for nearly two centuries Secular Humanists and revolutionary fellow travelers - having infiltrated and taken control of this nation’s education establishment - incrementally replaced our nation’s founding Judeo-Christian moral and philosophical worldview and history with a revolutionary catechism. The effect of this has been to not only undermine and delegitimize our nation’s traditional ideas and institutions but to also reverse and upend the natural order, all of which is leading to the destruction of our civilization.

“To destroy a people, you must first sever their roots.” (Alexander Solzhenitsyn)

Teaching to this nation’s future leaders, jurists, lawmakers, government workers, teachers, etc., the ideas and philosophies of men and women such as Comte, Marx, Malthus, de Sade, Rousseau, Reich, Freud, Darwin, Nietzsche, Lenin, Stalin, Heidegger, Adorno, Lukacs, Gramsci, Sanger, Marcuse, Dewey, Kinsey, Derrida, and Foucault, for example, has unleashed a devastating wave of corruption, debauchery, political correctness, chaos, pathologies, crime, narcissism, raw powergrabbing, and abandonment of allegiance towards these United States of America, all of which paves the way for the rise of a socialistic, sustainably developed New World Order.

An alternative power structure necessary for deconstructing our Constitutional Republic has been created. This “shadow government” of interlocking relationships and mutually reinforcing agendas consists of, for example, the New Left, the Democratic machine, environmental organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, Audubon Society, and The Wildlife Federation; big money foundations, such as Heinz, Mott, Blue Moon, Turner, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund; federal and state fish and wildlife departments, and of course, the United Nations. In hot pursuit of their North American Union project, the power and money hungry Transnational Right aids and abets the destructive process.

With the exception of the dissident voices of “intolerant, racist/haters” like Christians and other true Conservatives, the majority of Americans have passively acquiesced to being told that they are mindless, soulless apes. They also allow their children to be animalized and even told that as apes, they share a common heritage with earthworms. In light of this, the following question bears asking: Why should anyone, let alone the narcissists who are busily deconstructing our nation, respect and serve such a people?

If Antonio Gramsci were alive, he would be gratified by how well his plan for the slow and gradual destruction of America from the inside is working.

Agenda 21: The Utopian Fantasy

Agenda 21 was adopted at the 1992 UN Conference in Rio de Janeiro. This 300-page document contains 40 chapters loaded with recommendations to micro-manage virtually every facet of human existence. Agenda 21 is not a treaty but a “soft-law” policy document that does not require Senate ratification. Some of the key players involved in its production and adoption are Al Gore, Ted Turner, and Maurice Strong. President George H.W. Bush signed it and President Clinton issued Executive Order No. 12852, which created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development.

In his, “Sustainable Development: Transforming America,” Henry Lamb provides us with a vignette of the emerging utopia. Speaking only of America, he says:

“Half the land area of the entire country will be designated ‘wilderness areas’ where only wildlife managers and researchers will be allowed. These areas will be interconnected by ‘corridors of wilderness’ to allow migration of wildlife… Wolves will be as plentiful in Virginia and Pennsylvania as they are now in Idaho and Montana . Panthers and alligators will roam freely from the Everglades to the Okefenokee and beyond.... Transportation between sustainable communities (islands of human habitation)....will be primarily by light rail systems....highways that remain will be super transport corridors, such as the “Trans- Texas Corridor” now being designed....” (Ecologic Special Report, Dec. 1, 2005)

Property Acquisition Schemes

“The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.”(John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, Ed., Vol. VI, p.9)

The Wildlands Project, written by Dr. Reed Noss, who is under contract with The Nature Conservancy, is one such scheme. It has never been debated or voted on by elected officials. Nevertheless, it is being implemented through backdoor initiatives. Through its use thus far, 106.5 million acres have been acquired by being designated as wilderness since 1964.

Henry Lamb reports that not only is eminent domain a key “land-taking” strategy but:

“In the West, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are driving ranchers off the land by reducing grazing allotments…people who have recreational cabins on federal land, are discovering that their permits are not being renewed. The Fish and Wildlife Service is forcing people off their land through designations of “wetlands,” and “critical habitat”....” (Lamb, op. cit.)

The biocentric Endangered Species Act makes use of spotted owls, plants, trash fish, alligators, grizzlies, wolves, and more to run people off their land. Within the space of one week in 2006, three young Florida women were attacked by so-called “managed” alligators. All three women died gruesome deaths. “Managed” wolves are likewise useful for terrorizing landowners, especially when said owners have been criminally deprived of the basic right of self defense.

An article entitled, “Wolf Management Program Actions Show Children are Expendable,” in the Wolfcrossing blog speaks of the outrage, despair, and sense of helplessness felt by landowners handcuffed by politically correct Department of Fish and Wildlife regulations that elevate the welfare of wolves over that of people, thus leaving them helpless in the face of marauding wolves.

Sister Flash writes, “Recently a little boy was encircled by Mexican wolves....the Luna pack circled him for more than five minutes.” One month later, wrote Sister Flash, the pack attacked a family dog as it followed its 8-year old owner (a girl) who was going to feed the family's horses. Thirty days later, “the (same) little girl’s beautiful black quarter horse (Six) was trapped in his corral and brutally slaughtered by the same wolves.... (More recently) a small dog named Maggie was attacked protecting her child’s play yard, right off the front porch....” (http://wolfcrossing.org/blog/? p=235)

Not only have the wolves not been removed, but the notorious alpha male - who had been relocated from Arizona to New Mexico for hanging around a schoolyard in Blue, AZ - has been declared “no longer a threat,” by the complicit New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.

“In the beginning, God created....” is the core presupposition on which Western civilization advanced for more than two millennia. Its highest expression is in our Declaration of Independence, where it serves as the ultimate source of our unalienable rights. This presupposition is condemned by most western policy makers and by the UN, all of whom prefer the biocentric view:

“Human happiness, and....fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet....until such time as homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” (David Graber, research biologist with the National Park Service)

“....Christianity (has set) humans apart from nature (and) converted the world into a warehouse of commodities for human enjoyment.” (Global Biodiversity Assessment, p. 787)

In a chilling portent of things to come, M. Macnab, a respondent to the Wolfcrossing article, spoke to all Americans when she warned:

“We here in ‘wolf recovery territory’ know all to well what horrible encroachments on our rights can occur when state and federal officials violate their true purpose. Life without basic rights to protecting one’s family and property is not at all pleasant and this careless and lawless disregard for others welfare will, if not checked…become the standard for all.”


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: 1992; agenda21; babeuf; blackbookofcommunism; csd; econuts; eminentdomain; gracchusbabeuf; henrylamb; mauricestrong; moralabsolutes; natureconservancy; northamericanunion; strong; un; wildlandsproject
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-702 next last
For this and more great commentary, please go to our archive page and check out past issues! Also, please sign up for CU FREE every other Tuesday!
1 posted on 09/18/2009 9:22:25 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: spirited irish; GodGunsGuts; metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; marron; wagglebee

Ping!


2 posted on 09/18/2009 9:23:08 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (There are only two REAL conservatives in America - myself, and my chosen Presidential candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Ayn Rand was an Atheist.

The prominent Founding Fathers shared her views.


3 posted on 09/18/2009 9:24:29 AM PDT by OldSpice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Ping!


4 posted on 09/18/2009 9:25:23 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Thanks for the ping!


5 posted on 09/18/2009 9:26:57 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OldSpice
No they didn't. The only one even coming close - and he wasn't exactly "prominent" - would be Thomas Paine, and even a cad like Benjamin Franklin called him to the mat for his attacks on religion.

It's interesting you mention Ayn Rand. She - and modern libertarianism in general - are not classical liberalism. They are a Romantic (mis)interpretation of classical liberalism.

6 posted on 09/18/2009 9:27:35 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (There are only two REAL conservatives in America - myself, and my chosen Presidential candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Dirty little secret among the left is their absolute desire to depopulate this planet by any means possible.


7 posted on 09/18/2009 9:28:16 AM PDT by Le Chien Rouge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Hurray for the CU archive page! This works perfect for me because I have so many passwords now that I can’t keep track of them anymore!


8 posted on 09/18/2009 9:28:40 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

“Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires.”

— John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814

“What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because of suspected heresy? Remember the Index Expurgato-rius, the Inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter, and the guillotine; and, oh! horrible, the rack! This is as bad, if not worse, than a slow fire. Nor should the Lion’s Mouth be forgotten. Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years.”

— John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814, quoted by Norman Cousins in In God We Trust: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), p. 106-7, from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

“God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.”

— John Adams, “this awful blashpemy” that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion

“... the Common Law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or knew that such a character existed.”

— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Major John Cartwright, June 5, 1824.

“In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the want of it.”

“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.”

— Benjamin Franklin

“The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity.”

“Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.”

— The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831. One might expect a modern defender of the Evangelical to play with the meaning of “Christianity,” making it refer only to a specific brand of orthodoxy, first sentence quoted in John E Remsberg, Six Historic Americans, second sentence quoted in Paul F Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 14-15


Imagine current presidential candidates making such opinions heard out loud. They need to feign belief, like Obama.


9 posted on 09/18/2009 9:34:54 AM PDT by OldSpice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Great article, thanks for posting it. It reminds me of something that has intrigued me for a long time. I have visited the Shenandoah Mts. of Virginia many times, and each time I go I am made aware of the people who used to live in those mountains till the 1930’s. They were re-located when the U.S. government decided that the land they had lived on since before the Revolution would better serve a growing affluent population as a tourist destination rather than as their home. Eugenics promoting social workers declared that since the people were , in their opinion, backwards, it would be to their best interest to move. Here again we see where the government and its minions of pseudo intellectuals know better than the actual individual.


10 posted on 09/18/2009 9:39:33 AM PDT by sueuprising
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Thanks for posting.


11 posted on 09/18/2009 9:42:21 AM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

BM


12 posted on 09/18/2009 9:58:03 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldSpice; Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Ayn Rand was an Atheist. The prominent Founding Fathers shared her views.

That isn't going to fly here on FR. We know better.

Try it over at DU.

13 posted on 09/18/2009 10:07:19 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Le Chien Rouge
More like they see the “great unwashed masses” as a threat to there being an “Intellectual Elite” running things. They feel that they are superior to us all. No differant then having a King and an aristocracy running things for the “greater good’. Freedom is great just not for the “average” person. we are in there opinions to stupid to know better. They thing Springer is a documentary, not what it really is. A scripted show. But they need to learn that if you keep poking that sleeping Tiger and it doesn't respond the first time you were lucky to walk away. You do it over and over and then one day the Tiger eats you.
14 posted on 09/18/2009 10:08:42 AM PDT by JimC214
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Yawn... see #9.


15 posted on 09/18/2009 10:12:39 AM PDT by OldSpice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OldSpice; Alamo-Girl; spirited irish; Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; r9etb; GodGunsGuts; metmom; ...
Ayn Rand was an Atheist. The prominent Founding Fathers shared her views.

No, I don't think that's quite right OldSpice. Not that Ayn Rand wasn't an atheist. She was. What I'm driving at is Ayn Rand shared some of the Founding Fathers' views. She simply edited out all the parts she disagreed with.

For instance, she was glad to accept bennies like unalienable rights. But she thought she could ignore the Founding Fathers' insistence that the only thing that makes a right unalienable is because it is the direct grant of the Creator. And of course, this Creator is the God of Judeo-Christian tradition, itself the major bulwark of natural law theory.

The way the Founding Fathers understood the idea of unalienable right — e.g., life, liberty, property (or "pursuit of happiness") — was to see it as something imbued in human nature itself. And it was the Creator Who directly did the "imbuing" when He created man.

Sneer at that, anyone who wants to. But you'd be sneering at the Founding Fathers if you did.

According to natural law theory, God, being Creator and ultimate authority of His creation, is thus universally superior to the State — i.e., to any human system of government — in the order of natural justice. From whence it follows that no State has the power or authority to set aside, abridge, tamper with, etc., any direct grant of God.

In short, the Founders knew something that Rand didn't: It is the authority of God alone that authenticates and defends the natural, unalienable rights of every human person.

Natural law/natural justice — the basis of American justice — is "natural" because it is founded in God. All other systems of "justice" are founded in the ideologies of transient intellectuals.

Evidently Rand thought that unalienable rights could be secured on some other basis than that which the Founding Fathers insisted upon. But she never really tells us what that basis is.

I gather the dear lady just had an enormous blind spot.

Meanwhile, natural law theory is under attack and traduced from all sides nowadays — as Linda Kimball's splendid article so cogently documents.

16 posted on 09/18/2009 10:28:46 AM PDT by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; OldSpice

I think Whittaker Chambers perfectly summed up why Ayn Rand is not a traditional conservative (as opposed to our founding fathers) when he wrote “Big Sister is Watching You.” Here’s a link to it over at National Review:

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp


17 posted on 09/18/2009 10:34:18 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: OldSpice
The prominent Founding Fathers shared her views.

I can't think of one who was an atheist. I can think of several who were Deists.

Is that what you mean ?

18 posted on 09/18/2009 10:39:24 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

INDEED.

AS DO A LOT OF pontificators, even some hereon.


19 posted on 09/18/2009 10:43:56 AM PDT by Quix (POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 2 presnt: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: OldSpice
The prominent Founding Fathers shared her views.

You are misinformed.

20 posted on 09/18/2009 10:43:56 AM PDT by metesky (My retirement fund is holding steady @ $.05 a can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
And of course, this Creator is the God of Judeo-Christian tradition, itself the major bulwark of natural law theory.

You are right on many points, but not that one.

Jefferson wrote that phrase, and Jefferson was a Deist.

In fact, during the debate over the Declaration, it was moved to insert "Our Lord, Jesus Christ" after "Creator".

It was defeated. So while certainly some Founders were Christian, quite obviously they all weren't, or that amendment would have passed.

21 posted on 09/18/2009 10:47:47 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; OldSpice
Thank you oh so very much for your beautiful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

I'm not sure our FRiend could appreciate the relevance of inalienable rights. As I recall OldSpice is not American but British - is that right, OldSpice?

At the root, a right which is inalienable, endowed by our Creator, is not a right the government can take away. It was our legal and moral standing for declaring independence from England.

Should a future government attempt to take away those inalienable rights, the citizens of America would have the same legal and moral standing as they did with the Declaration of Independence to hit the "reset" button.

And as many here will testify, that is the underlying reason for the 2nd Amendment - the right to keep and bear arms.

22 posted on 09/18/2009 10:56:23 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jimt; Alamo-Girl; OldSpice; spirited irish; Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; r9etb; xzins; ...
Jefferson wrote that phrase, and Jefferson was a Deist.

You are missing my point. Which is: Even Deists embrace the idea of the Creator God, Who endues all created things with an inviolable, inalienable nature (which the State is forbidden to transgress).

Jefferson — that marvelous "American sphynx" — was almost certainly a Deist. The same is alleged of Franklin. So what??? Both embraced the Creator God which at the very least we can say is an Old Testament concept.

The fact is all the Framers were wholly enculturated into the Judeo-Christian tradition. This despite they were all highly educated men, mainly classically trained, and children of the Enlightenment. Many Christian denominations (except it seems Catholic) were represented in their ranks.

But they did not want in any way to establish a theocracy: No State preference should ever be given to any particular religious denomination, including their own. The language "Our Lord, Jesus Christ" as a modifier of "the Creator" would have offended against the very principle of freedom of religion that they were trying to establish, by seeming to favor one particular type of religious belief over all others.

But to say that the government should not favor any particular religion is not the same as saying that the government should be hostile to religion. Particularly in the case where frankly religious ideas stand at the very foundation of our system of individual liberty under equal laws and justice.

23 posted on 09/18/2009 11:16:55 AM PDT by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Every day in our public schools, America’s children are “animalized” through the teaching of Darwinian evolutionary propaganda.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ping for later.

24 posted on 09/18/2009 11:17:59 AM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Indeed. Very well said, dearest sister in Christ!
25 posted on 09/18/2009 11:44:27 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jimt

Deism was a politically-correct form of Atheism, for the time.

See the quotes I posted.

It certainly wasn’t Christianity, with the very divinity of Christ being denied.


26 posted on 09/18/2009 11:46:53 AM PDT by OldSpice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Nowadays?

Let's do a review... and go back to 1834:

"But you are told that our ancestors brought with them the Common Law of England, and that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. There are in the books some sayings of the English Judges that Christianity is a part of the Common Law, and one of the most distinguished among those, who have held this doctrine, is the celebrated Sir Matthew Hale. But this Judge is one of those Judges, who have condemned persons for witchcraft, and the ermine of his judicial robes was stained with the blood of the innocent victims of superstition. Sir Matthew Hale would be as good authority to sustain a prosecution for witchcraft, as to sustain the present prosecution against the defendant, by establishing that Christianity is a part of the Common Law of England. Indeed Sir Matthew Hale was the great authority in Massachusetts to sustain the prosecutions for witchcraft which disgraced our early history. What is the Common Law of England ? It is called the customs of immemorial antiquity handed down by tradition, among the English people. Now during the period of the existence of the Common Law, England has had all kinds of religion ? Has the Common Law embraced all those kinds of religion ? Are they parts of the Common Law ? Yet one must be as well as another, or else none of those various kinds of religion are parts of the system. The Common Law is older than Christianity. In the earliest times of British history, the British religion was the dark superstitions of the Druids, the Priests of Mona's isle, who worshipped in the deepest recesses of the woods, and offered up the horrid sacrifice of human victims to the objects of their idolatry. Is this religion a part of the Common Law? When the Romans came they brought with them the Gods of Rome, and Caesar, who found London a great place, and as Shakespeare tells us in Richard the Third, built the Tower, bore with him the God of War and the other Gods of his Country. Did the religion of ancient Rome become a part of the Common Law of England ? When the Saxons invaded Britain, they brought with them their Gods of War, Woden and Thor ? Did the Saxon religion become a part of the Common Law ? Yet two days in the week in England and the United States, Wednesday and Thursday bear the names of their Deities, and have perpetuated the memory of these " fabled Gods " even to the present day. It was not till the reign of Claudius, the successor of Tiberius in whose reign Jesus Christ was crucified, that Christianity was introduced into England, by means of the conversion of a noble Jady, by a missionary from Rome. Up to that period surely, Christianity was no part of the Common Law of England. The religion of England has been often changed, and the dates of the changes, are well known, and some of them are recent affairs. But the Common Law is of immemorial antiquity, and as old as the native Britons, say the English law books, and therefore these various kinds of religion, introduced within legal memory, and can be no part of this system of immemorial antiquity. England, after the introduction of Christianity, embraced the Catholic religion."

 

 

Link

27 posted on 09/18/2009 11:50:53 AM PDT by OldSpice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Both embraced the Creator God which at the very least we can say is an Old Testament concept.

The Old Testament mythology has its god as an over-dramatic individual, DIRECTLY interfering in human affairs.

Deism is the polar opposite of such a concept- in that its main ideology is that there is no such interference- a mere stepping stone to formal Atheism.

28 posted on 09/18/2009 11:54:34 AM PDT by OldSpice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jimt

Ping to #27 and #28.


29 posted on 09/18/2009 11:55:34 AM PDT by OldSpice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Crazy Creationists cannot seem to decide if acceptance of the theory of evolution makes you a humanist who worships humanity, or an anti-humanist who denigrates mankind.
30 posted on 09/18/2009 11:57:34 AM PDT by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimt
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.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

I disagree that voting down that provision in any way indicated the religious preference of those that voted. As a Christian I would have voted it down as well, and for exactly the reasons Thomas Jefferson provides - that this should be a nation of religious freedom.

31 posted on 09/18/2009 12:02:51 PM PDT by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Probably of greater immediate interest to most of us than the religious, or lack of religion, views of Hamilton, Paine, or Ayn Rand is the goal of the Agenda 21 and the goals of the Wildlands and Rewilding Projects.
32 posted on 09/18/2009 12:07:00 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

One of the distinctions the article misses is the difference between the general period of the enlightenment (which helped spawn classical liberal thought in the old Whigs) and that step child imitation, the French Enlightenment.

Gertrude Himmelfarb does a good job of distinquishing between the three enlightement traditions pointing out the English-Scotish enlightenment which held religion essential to the fostering of moral men was so successful at creating real liberty and prosperous civil society that two other traditions sprange from it with end-goals to improve it but still achieve its benefits.

The first was empirical and took place in America using empirical elements of what worked in the American setting. The second imitation failed as the French, followed by others later, rejected empirical tests and substituted rationalism and metaphysical concepts all stated out with rigid logical constructs.

Hayek agrees in The Constitution of Liberty and spells out that distinction clearly in chapter four.

We can’t seperate all the history while claiming to reference it as this author does.


33 posted on 09/18/2009 12:11:40 PM PDT by KC Burke (...but He has made the trains run on time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: OldSpice

The Founding Father’s could not have shared Ayn Rand’s because Ayn Rand did not exist before them for them to agree with her. They were not atheists as you are implying.

She may have shared some of their views, but I doubt you could find anyone on the planet who didn’t share the same view as someone else on the planet at some point or other. It proves nothing.

And you can *yawn* all you want, but your posting history contains plenty of evidence that you’d be more suited for posting at DU.


34 posted on 09/18/2009 12:13:45 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke; betty boop
Gertrude Himmelfarb does a good job of distinquishing between the three enlightement traditions pointing out the English-Scotish enlightenment which held religion essential to the fostering of moral men was so successful at creating real liberty and prosperous civil society that two other traditions sprange from it with end-goals to improve it but still achieve its benefits.



"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God."

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814, using the term atheist to mean one who lacks a god belief, not one who is without morals, as was a common use of the term in Jefferson's day



"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world."

-- John Adams, "this awful blashpemy" that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion


 

35 posted on 09/18/2009 12:15:34 PM PDT by OldSpice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Le Chien Rouge

....and its a shame that the majority of FReepers still don’t recognize the coming NWO of which Agenda 21 is just a small part.


36 posted on 09/18/2009 12:16:07 PM PDT by Halgr (Once a Marine, always a Marine - Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; jimt; metmom; OldSpice; spirited irish; Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; r9etb; xzins; ...
At the root, a right which is inalienable, endowed by our Creator, is not a right the government can take away. It was our legal and moral standing for declaring independence from England.... Should a future government attempt to take away those inalienable rights, the citizens of America would have the same legal and moral standing as they did with the Declaration of Independence to hit the "reset" button.

Oh, dearest sister in Christ, I couldn't agree with you more on this question!

Thus you quite correctly note:

And as many here will testify, that is the underlying reason for the 2nd Amendment - the right to keep and bear arms.

Amen to that! There's nothing like logic to "connect the dots"....

Meanwhile, we have the spectacle of Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar or whatever, who not only argues that animals have the "natural" (???) right to sue human beings in court, but that the interpretation of the Framer's meaning of the Second Amendment increasingly in vogue nowadays is increasingly anhistorical the farther out in time we go.

Sunstein's argument goes that the original understanding of the RKBA is inseparable from the idea of a "state" militia. It has nothing to do with such inconsequential things as, say, the individual right of self-defense or protection of property. Only the "common defense" — under State oversight and regulation — was envisioned by the Framers.

Thus according to Sunstein, it was the "common defense" (under State regulation, etc.) that the Framers had in mind when they were crafting the language of the Second Amendment. Where this "bogus" notion of personal self-defense came from — i.e., that the Second Amendment protects the individual rights of life, liberty, and property against all comers individual or corporate — was the hallucination of right-wing-conspiracy-freak groups of fairly recent vintage.

It is these people who are distorting the pristine meaning of the Framers' intentions! And it is simply criminal that such people are slandering the Bill of Rights in that way!!! Thus cynically misleading their own fellow citizens! Shame on them! (So when can we start arresting them?)

Are you as sick as I am, of the total inversion of reality that these idiots are trying to perpetrate on the American people right now?

Sigh....

People, stand in Truth or you WILL be blown away by the tumultuous winds that are coming....

Thank you ever so much for writing, dearest sister in Christ!

37 posted on 09/18/2009 12:19:10 PM PDT by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Sharing an idea needn’t imply chronological order.

Two people who have never met each other, could share the same ideas.

Example: The concept of the yearly calendar, that was shared by disparate, ancient cultures around the world.

...

I’m sure you are deeply uncomfortable with those quotes by the Founding Fathers that I’ve posted above.


38 posted on 09/18/2009 12:19:29 PM PDT by OldSpice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

If the 2nd Amendment was truly honoured in spirit, civilians should be able to own, maintain and use jet fighters and nuclear weapons.


39 posted on 09/18/2009 12:22:26 PM PDT by OldSpice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: OldSpice
I’m sure you are deeply uncomfortable with those quotes by the Founding Fathers that I’ve posted above.

The problem is those quotes are not representative, nor have you considered them in context. You can prove a lot of bizarre things by quote mining. It is nonsense to try to portray the Founders as a whole as anti-Christian, yet here you are trying to do it. Consider a more balanced evaluation of their worldview instead of anachronistically trying to force them into an alien mold.

40 posted on 09/18/2009 12:27:55 PM PDT by Liberty1970 (Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

“Thomas More, Thomas More, riding through the glen,
Thomas More, Thomas More, with his band of men, ...”


41 posted on 09/18/2009 12:29:34 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

The quotes are quite independent- they are not the script of a play the Founding Fathers took part in- they are from private letters and other documents, written with conviction and intent.


42 posted on 09/18/2009 12:30:29 PM PDT by OldSpice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: OldSpice

I would suggest reading books like “On Two Wings” which copiously cite original letters, minutes of meetings and contemporarnious sources about the founders and framers beliefs. No honest reading would place any significant percentage outside practicing Christian belief.

Randian Objectivism as a Rationalist construct-ideology has more in common with the French Enlightenment than with the American Enlightement. I find its followers espousing positions that plain Burkeian conservatives have held for fifteen decades before Rand started selling books and started selling seminar seats.


43 posted on 09/18/2009 12:33:06 PM PDT by KC Burke (...but He has made the trains run on time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Great article......humanize animals—animalize humans. The left has done a pretty good job witnessing what’s going on in California with the ‘Delta smelt’. What was Nietzsche doing in that line up?


44 posted on 09/18/2009 12:35:32 PM PDT by Electric Graffiti (Yonder stands your orphan with his gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldSpice
As is typically the case, your quotes are out of context, and don't support the argument you are trying to make.

— John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814

Evidence of anti-Catholicism? Yes. Pretty typical, when you consider that colonial and early post-colonial America were overwhelmingly Protestant, and the day and age still lent itself to a good deal of open conflict between sectarians.

Evidence of anti-Christianity per se? No.

John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

Again, a statement address Catholicism, and incidentally, a sentiment which any Baptist in early America would have shared.

John Adams, “this awful blashpemy” that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion

At best an evidence of his Deism, not the type of atheism expounded by Ayn Rand.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Major John Cartwright, June 5, 1824.

Has nothing to do with Christianity at all, except to note the antiquity of the ancient Anglo-Saxon legal system. Not sure why you think this one is relevant at all.

Benjamin Franklin

It's commonly accepted that Franklin was a Deist, which again, does not substantiate your apparent belief that he was a Randian-style atheist.

The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson

Dr. Wilson is simply incorrect in his assertions. If Washington was "no professor of religion", then why was he baptised by immersion at the hands of his Baptist chaplain, John Gano - a baptism that Washington ASKED FOR? Likewise, John Quincy Adams, who had been President but a short time prior to this "sermon", was also noted for his Christian beliefs.

Sorry, but your arguments simply either don't stand, or else are irrelevant because they don't support the argument you seem to be trying to make. And besides, if you want to play the dueling quotes game, then how about these:

"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." (John Adams)

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (John Adams)

"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 a gift from 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, and that His justice cannot sleep forever." (Thomas Jefferson, incidentally suggesting he might have been a bit more theistic than a true Deist)

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." (Thomas Jefferson)

" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." (Charles Carroll)

"God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." (Benjamin Franklin, quoting the Bible even)

" have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me." (Alexander Hamilton)

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” (John Jay) "What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ." (George Washington)

"Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity....and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system." (Samuel Adams)

"A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven." (James Madison)

"“I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them…we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this Divine Book, above all others, constitutes the soul of republicanism.” “By withholding the knowledge of [the Scriptures] from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds." (Benjamin Rush)

"“If moral precepts alone could have reformed mankind, the mission of the Son of God into our world would have been unnecessary.” (Benjamin Rush)

"Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience." (James McHenry)

Clearly, these men were not Randian atheists. The notion that the Founders were all a bunch of atheists is fantasy, and nothing more. Granted, I don't believe them all to have been Christians. I do not think that Jefferson, Franklin, or Madison were. I think Washington, Henry, Jay, and several of the "minor" ones were. Regardless, they all were animated by the sense and understanding that the Christian religion was the best foundation for civil society. Whether by conviction, or simply out of pragmatism, these men sought the promotion of Christian principles.

45 posted on 09/18/2009 1:07:12 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (There are only two REAL conservatives in America - myself, and my chosen Presidential candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OldSpice; Alamo-Girl; jimt; spirited irish; Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; r9etb; xzins
And you are going to make everything rely on a single speech of a single man, one Andrew Dunlap, and derive an entire theory of the Good Society and/or the Just State on that basis?

On a man who evidently brings a full-fledged anti-Christian, even an anti-religious bias to the table?

Well, if this is the way you think you ought to conduct your own "intellectual business," then we must part company.

The way I read it, this passage reflects little more than Dunlap's ad hominum attack on Sir Matthew Hale. I don't see any substantive argument on the part of any substantive issue at work here. Dunlap is so busy trying to destroy his opponent that the issues that evidently divide them aren't even mentioned, let alone seriously engaged.

If you are at all interested in the truth of reality, it seems to me you have to look beyond or below the superficial appearance of things. A "fact" on the periphery cannot shed by itself any light on the substance of that in which it is involved as a peripheral item.

Think of an iceberg: What appears above the surface cannot suffice to explain the phenomenon of the iceberg. To know the complete "system" of the iceberg, you must penetrate below mere appearance, to the depths below.

That's a whole lot of work, right there. Evidently, Dunlap thought he could spare himself the pains simply by destroying his opponent.

We see this sort of thing all the time nowadays, in our own public discourse....

46 posted on 09/18/2009 1:33:02 PM PDT by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

No, you missed the point of that excerpt- that such arguments are not “new”, and that it echoes the same opinion John Adams, Jefferson, among others, held:

“... the Common Law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or knew that such a character existed.”

— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Major John Cartwright, June 5, 1824 (see Positive Atheism’s Historical section)

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law.”

— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Christianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address.


47 posted on 09/18/2009 1:44:30 PM PDT by OldSpice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Those quotes are independent. There is no "context" that could alter the thoughts expressed by the Founding Fathers in support of their antagonistic stance toward belief in meddlesome higher powers. Those are from private letters, expressing private opinions, in confidence, and away from the public glare; and not from any play the Founding Fathers took part in, that could make them "out of context".

As for the list of quotations in the rest of your post, they are pointless as they are mostly opinions the Founding Fathers held early on in their lives. The quotes I posted reflect their final stance on the issue.

 

George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a Universalist who denied the existence of Hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washington uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.

-- George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX)


John Adams, the country's second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievements" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

-- The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by James Peabody, p. 403 (1973, Newsweek, New York NY) Quoting letter by JA to Jefferson April 19, 1817, and in reference to the treaty, Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June, 1814.



Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said: "I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" and wrote:

"The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."

-- Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814.


James Madison, fourth president and Father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense.

 

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."


"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

-- The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785.

...

Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the "God" referred to was the "God of Nature", and the laws those "written in the "Great Book of Nature."

-- Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolph Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York, NY.) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man and A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press, Inc., New York, NY.)

 

48 posted on 09/18/2009 1:57:55 PM PDT by OldSpice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: OldSpice; Alamo-Girl; jimt; metmom; spirited irish; Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; r9etb; xzins; ...
If the 2nd Amendment was truly honoured in spirit, civilians should be able to own, maintain and use jet fighters and nuclear weapons.

Well of course they should, dear OldSpice, and that by Constitutional principle!

But the practical fact of the matter is that jet fighters and nuclear weapons, etc., are beyond the financial means and competence of everybody except the State itself. The State will ALWAYS have an advantage in this regard. And we civilians pay for/fund their privilege in this regard.

So you can wave this red flag all day long if you want to. It has no practical bearing on actual reality. It is a pure abstraction, "all sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Notwithstanding, as it turns out, no citizen nowadays can pass muster with what the Second Amendment requires of us. For, post Miller at least, what the Second Amendment requires is that citizen-held firearms must be "military-style firearms" in order to be protected by the Second Amendment.

You may recall this was the test that Miller failed to satisfy when the Supreme Court heard his case back in 1939. The Court (ironically it seems from today's perspective) found him "guilty" because it held his sawed-off shotgun was not a "military-style firearm."

I gather the Court had never before heard of the gattling gun, et al.

Notwithstanding, in United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court held that WRT private arms in citizen hands, the firearms the Second Amendment protects are preeminently those which are directly comparable to whatever state-of-the-art armaments are in use by the duly-constituted official military forces of the day.

To put this into perspective, Switzerland has long constitutionally required all able-bodied [male] citizens to own, maintain, and know how to operate military-style firearms as a basic duty of citizenship. Upshot: Nobody invades Switzerland. The Swiss citizenry is the "constitutional militia," not any other formal, government-sanctioned military body. (I do believe that Switzerland does not maintain a standing army.)

49 posted on 09/18/2009 2:13:11 PM PDT by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: OldSpice
Thanks a lot for your last post, dear OldSpice.

I could say it was illuminating, just to be polite.

But it really wasn't.

For you evidently uncritically prefer the testimony of "experts" (in context or out of context) rather than actually having to perform your own personal analysis/critique of the ideas they advance.

I can love a Thomas Jefferson — but only up to a point. Whatever he said in public, or ultimately thought of himself, he is no god to me.

Could such a statement make any sense to you at all?

50 posted on 09/18/2009 2:21:01 PM PDT by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-702 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson