Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[DOC]

If you consider a post (my 467 above) that points out that your post 460 contains NO evidence of the point you were supposedly making (which is a simple statement of fact) then your definition of derogatory comment about you clearly means "any disagreement or pointing out of error in my posts is derogatory" which is fine - but means all responses to you have been , by the false way you define derogatory, derogatory. If you use the standard meaning of derogatory, then neither it or my post 479 were derogatory - they merely noted errors in your posts. So, if that is the case, feel free to respond
to my 467 or 479 or both.

My comment about derogatory posts was directed at wahrheit (post 476). After he comes in and tells me a post he wants me to respond to that does not have derogatory comments about me (other than the 467 and 479 you just mentioned) I'll get back to your request.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

My comment about derogatory posts was directed at wahrheit. After he comes in and tells me a post he wants me to respond to that does not have derogatory comments about me (other than the 467 and 479 you just mentioned) I'll get back to your request.

You know what would be the best way to make your detractors stop making fun of you?

Being right.

Try it. Provide evidence to support your claims and then you'll have the last laugh.

 

[DOC]

You know what would be the best way to make your detractors stop making fun of you?

Being right.

Try it. Provide evidence to support your claims and then you'll have the last laugh.

Lincoln's second inaugural address, Washington's 1st inaugural address, and the last one or two paragraphs of the popular President Coolidge's inaugural are just some of the evidence I've presented in support of my claims.

 

[drkitten]

Lincoln's second inaugural address, Washington's 1st inaugural address, and the last one or two paragraphs of the popular President Coolidge's inaugural are just some of the evidence I've presented in support of my claims.

And none of them support your claim -- none of them are relevant to Jefferson, and in fact, two of them are demonstrably dated after Jefferson's death.

 

[kmortis]

I don't know how comprehensive this list is, or even how accurate, but I cannot find Leo Pfeffer in any list of ACLU-involved court proceedings going back to the 20's.

I did find a reference to a Leo Pfeffer on the Rhode Island ACLU affiliate website (http://www.riaclu.org)

DiCenso v. Robinson. (1971) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a state law providing salary supplements to parochial school teachers. Milton Stanzler, Leo Pfeffer, Richard Zacks.

Don't know (but suspect so) if he's the same Leo Pfeffer (I mean, really, how many Leo Pfeffers can there be out there?), but he did seem to be involved in a Church/State case.

 

[kmortis]

DOC,
You started a thread on Thomas Jefferson's supposed religiosity. It's mutated into a meta threat about Church/State separation. You provide very low quality citations for your statements, and then expect us to agree with you because...um, well, I don't know why you expect us to agree with you, to be honest. Here's some facts for you.

1) TJ was such a good Christian that the media of the day (e.g. all the newspapers that weren't the Philadelphia Aurora) would consistently refer to him as an atheist. (source "American Aurora" by Richard Rosenfeld)
2) His Bible has all reference to the supernatural removed (source "The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazereth" by Thomas Jefferson)

3) A significant proportion of the FFs were, in fact, Deists. Granted, some were devout Christians, but of the ones that most Americans can easily name, they were almost to a man a Deist. Washington is a bit more inscrutable due to his total silence on the topic of religion. Thomas Paine (for certain) and TJ (probably) were the closest to being atheistic. All of this is interesting, but not really all that important. What is important is that they ALL; Deists, Atheists, Christians all of them agreed that the Federal Government wasn't to be in the Religion business. (Later, it was agreed that the States weren't either, but that's for a separate thread).

 

[DOC]

1) TJ was such a good Christian that the media of the day (e.g. all the newspapers that weren't the Philadelphia Aurora) would consistently refer to him as an atheist. (source "American Aurora" by Richard Rosenfeld)

The media of the day must not have read the Declaration of Independence where Jefferson said we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights.

2) His Bible has all reference to the supernatural removed (source "The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazereth" by Thomas Jefferson)

I guess he wasn't the only "doubting Thomas" who ever lived, but he did claim he was a Christian as was pointed out earlier in the forum. Also the doubting Thomas from the bible ended up being a missionary to the country of India and Jefferson approved of federal money for a Catholic priest to work with the Indians for seven years as was mentioned earlier. So even though they had some doubts at a time in their life, that didn't stop them from spreading the gospel.

3) A significant proportion of the FFs were, in fact, Deists. Granted, some were devout Christians, but of the ones that most Americans can easily name, they were almost to a man a Deist. Washington is a bit more inscrutable due to his total silence on the topic of religion. Thomas Paine (for certain) and TJ (probably) were the closest to being atheistic. All of this is interesting, but not really all that important. What is important is that they ALL; Deists, Atheists, Christians all of them agreed that the Federal Government wasn't to be in the Religion business. (Later, it was agreed that the States weren't either, but that's for a separate thread).

Here's a website that says 27 of the 56 founding fathers had Christian seminary degrees. It also talks about the Deist myth.

http://www.creationists.org/churchandstate.html

 

[Hawk one]

So Doc, when are you going to be honest enough to admit Jefferson talked about separation of Church and State, and that the expression is far older than from 1947? Or will you continue to lie about this, despite your own holy book forbidding you from telling falshehoods?

 

[DOC]

So Doc, when are you going to be honest enough to admit Jefferson talked about separation of Church and State, and that the expression is far older than from 1947? Or will you continue to lie about this, despite your own holy book forbidding you from telling falshehoods?

Oh, there is no doubt that Jefferson talked about church and state. I've mentioned that all along. But its the misleading interpretation of Jefferson's "wall of separation" metaphor that is unfortunate. See post #61. And even former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renquist agrees it has been misinterpreted and should be abandoned by the legal system. (post #380)

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Lincoln's second inaugural address, Washington's 1st inaugural address, and the last one or two paragraphs of the popular President Coolidge's inaugural are just some of the evidence I've presented in support of my claims.

The only things you shown are:

1. Most Americans, from the Revolution to present, believe in "God."
2. Politicians, to keep their jobs, have to at least look like they supporting the beliefs of their constituency regardless of what the Bill of Rights says. (Again, this is nothing new.)
3. You have no concept of how to frame an argument. It's like you have ADD, drifting from one non sequitur point gleaned from fundie web sites to another. Pick point and stick to it!

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

See post #61.

Again, you're pointing us back to a source we've shown to be as dishonest a theocrat as you are.

I hate to tell you this, but you lost this debate long before it started. Give up. Better yet: Give up AND go away.

We have better things to do with our time than refuting your right wing Christian bulls--t.

And even former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renquist agrees it has been misinterpreted and should be abandoned by the legal system. (post #380)

And what source are you citing? Another article by yet another fundie who is quoting Renquist's dissent in a case where the court affirmed the "separation of church and state" that you and your fellow theocrats so despise?

You're really desperate when you start quoting the sore losers, DOC. Again, save yourself further embarrassment and go away.

 

[DOC]

Again, you're pointing us back to a source we've shown to be as dishonest a theocrat as you are.

I've noticed a few people in this forum like to say we've done this and we've done that, but they rarely give a post # to back it up.

You're really desperate when you start quoting the sore losers, DOC. Again, save yourself further embarrassment and go away.

I think former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renquist deserves more respect than being called a sore loser. He simply had a dissenting opinion which is his right.

 

[DOC]

I guess Benjamin Franklin could be called a Founding Father. This website has an interesting letter Franklin wrote to Thomas Paine about the importance of religion.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=93

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

I've noticed a few people in this forum like to say we've done this and we've done that, but they rarely give a post # to back it up.

Then I suggest you re-read the entire thread. If you can't see it... well, I can't complete that sentence without violating forum rules.

I think former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renquist deserves more respect than being called a sore loser. He simply had a dissenting opinion which is his right.

You do realize that we Supreme Court decides law by the majority opinon, and not the dissenting? The case in question was decided 6-3 against the theocrats.

We don't base law on dissenting legal opinions.

 

[DOC]

You do realize that we Supreme Court decides law by the majority opinon, and not the dissenting? The case in question was decided 6-3 against the theocrats.

We don't base law on dissenting legal opinions.

Actually Renquist was talking mostly about the 1947 Everson case and not the 6-3 case. That 1947 case was a 5-4 decision and was actually ruled in favor of the state. But it was that 1947 case that first created the "legal concept" of Separation of Church and State and that was what Renquist was talking about in Post # 380.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I guess Benjamin Franklin could be called a Founding Father. This website has an interesting letter Franklin wrote to Thomas Paine about the importance of religion.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=93

More quotes from Franklin.

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

Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist. - Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography

I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it. - Benjamin Franklin, from Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion, 1728

The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason. - Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard, 1758

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Here's a website that says 27 of the 56 founding fathers had Christian seminary degrees. It also talks about the Deist myth.

http://www.creationists.org/churchandstate.html

I agree with the Deism thing being way overstated by separationists, but I'm going to call BS on half of the founding fathers having seminary degrees. Especially from a Creationist website since they tend to lie a lot.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Actually Renquist was talking mostly about the 1947 Everson case and not the 6-3 case. That 1947 case was a 5-4 decision and was actually ruled in favor of the state. But it was that 1947 case that first created the "legal concept" of Separation of Church and State and that was what Renquist was talking about in Post # 380.

More twisting and weaving...eh?

According to what I read Renquist's argument in that case is that Jefferson didn't have anything to do with the writing of the Bill of Rights since he was abroad and ergo the "separation of church and state" is not the proper interpretation of the First Amendment, right?

OK, what did James Madison, the man who did write the Bill of Rights have to say on the topic of church and state? Well, he wrote the Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments that oppose a bill that would have authorized tax support for Christian ministers in the state of Virginia.

In a letter to College of Charleston president, Jasper Adams, who shared your opinion that Christianity should have dominion over the state, he wrote:

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation [Emphasis mine] between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions & doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst by an entire abstinence of: the Govt from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, & protecting each sect agst trespasses on its legal rights by others.

(In other words, the legal concept of "separation of church and state" did exist before 1947 and was written about by someone other than Jefferson in the Danbury Baptist Letter, particularly someone who wrote the First Amendment to begin with.)

In a 1792 article, Madison wrote that "...mysteries belong to religion, not to government...So in the institutions of man let there be no mystery..."

Of course, you no doubt dance around these facts by the changing the subject; dredge up strawmen arguments about the ACLU, Leo Pfeffer, and Hugo Black,; invoke the "scholarship" of James Kennedy and the other fundie swine you've cited throughout this thread, and make more of a jackass of yourself than you already have.

So, take my previous advice and give up.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I did find a reference to a Leo Pfeffer on the Rhode Island ACLU affiliate website..

That's definately the same Leo Pfeffer, but since DiCenso v. Robinson was decided in 1971, it hardly evidences the claim that Pfeffer was an "ACLU lawyer" especially with regards to Lemon back in '47 as most of the accomodationist websites (and DOC) claim.

 

[skeptifem]

I dont see the point of this thread at all. Its like saying that the founding fathers owned slaves.... so what? it doesnt really mean anything. Everyone signed the same stuff saying that the state and religion are to remain seperate, so thats what we do. If I signed something saying that there is a seperation of church and state and it was official to the country's policy it would mean ****all for me to say the opposite at any point in time because what was signed into law is what stands. it wouldnt matter, even if it wasnt bs. I guess I am just struggling with WHY anyone would start this type of discussion in the first place, its pretty meaningless.