Fox News And God Proclamation

NightG1 said:

Evasion noted. Why don't you tell me?

You are correct that you did not answer, or even acknowledge, my question. Care to, or are you heading straight for .plonk.?

NightG1 said:

It doesn't matter what the Creator they were talking about actually was. They ascribe no authority, ask no benefit, and give no credit to this creator for any aspect of the governance of man. It could hardly be more clear that they were intending to create a nation governed by principles of humanism, and not religion.
Interesting assertion, but just that. "Creator" was mentioned in DofL, remember? You think the FF were "humanists"? Bullsh*t; they would imo have a collective heart attack if they could see the US judiciary pronunciamentos happening today and over the last 45+- years.

Andonyx said:

It seems to me as though he's saying either his argument, or the argument of the man being interviewed is NOT that American law and structure is rooted in a CHRISTIAN creator belief, but that there is evidence that it is rooted in SOME belief in a divine creator.
Thanks, A.

Er, some other interpretation of my posts is possible for anyone having 6th grade comprehension or better?

I remain amazed & amused. ;)
 
Silicon said:
C'mon,

Everyone knows that Christianity is the only religion with a creation story.

Therefore, if you cite a creator, there's only one possible religion or worldview you could subscribe to, the Christian God!

Oh? Aside from Islam and Judaism (duh!), you should check out the relevant portions of Ovid's Metamorphoses (Greco/Roman).

Plenty of other creation stories too. Not necessarily with as much emphasis on the creator.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:

Plenty of other creation stories too. Not necessarily with as much emphasis on the creator.

I took his silly(er, + con;) ) comments as a joke. Maybe your interpretation is the correct one though. :) Perhaps we'll find out.
 
hammegk said:
Interesting assertion, but just that.
It was my assertion, not NightG1's. And it isn't "just" an assertion, it's an opinion based rationally on the facts.
"Creator" was mentioned in DofL, remember?
Yes. I remember, and am referring to that very mention.
You think the FF were "humanists"?
I certainly said no such thing. I don't care if the Founders were humanists or not. It's irrelevant. They created a nation with a government based on a humanistic foundation, not a religious one. That's what we're talking about here.
Bullsh*t; they would imo have a collective heart attack if they could see the US judiciary pronunciamentos happening today and over the last 45+- years.
That's just an assertion, and not a particularly interesting one. Even if the Founders were Bible thumping fundies, that in itself lends no credibility to the notion that this country is founded on Christianity, or religion, or the Tooth Fairy. Read the foundational documents, and it is clear that this country was founded on the notion that the sovereignty necessary for the legitimate exercise of governmental power must be granted by the people, and does not flow from some divine source.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:


Concepts like freedom are not unique to the Bible nor is commerce which were two of the biggest, if not the two biggest concepts this country was founded on.

The concepts of liberty and equality were brought here by the Puritans, while commerce was brought by the profiteers who settled in the south.
 
Brown said:
The notion that endowment of rights did not come from the king was contrary to prevailing Christian principles, which held that the king's power came from God. In the push for independence, many people were reluctant to challenge what they viewed as the king's divine right to rule. Publications such as Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" persuaded many that the purported divine right wasn't legitimate.

Some see the reference to the "Creator" as embracing the Christian viewpoint. And yet, independence itself was fundamentally contrary to the Christian viewpoint that the king ruled by divine right.

The way I understand it, they were cutting out the middle man, the king. We have inalienable rights given by the Creator. "Inalienable" meaning those rights can't be surrendered to anyone, not even a king.

That is not any kind of endorsement of Christianity or any religion. It is possible to acknowledge a God without endorsing religion.
 
Michael Redman said:
It was my assertion, not NightG1's. And it isn't "just" an assertion, it's an opinion based rationally on the facts.

Interesting that we both have the same set of facts, yet interpret them so differently. Such is life.


I don't care if the Founders were humanists or not. It's irrelevant. They created a nation with a government based on a humanistic foundation, not a religious one. That's what we're talking about here.
As you interpret the facts, apparently so, although we could sidetrack into what is a "religious basis".


That's just an assertion, and not a particularly interesting one. Even if the Founders were Bible thumping fundies, that in itself lends no credibility to the notion that this country is founded on Christianity, or religion, or the Tooth Fairy. Read the foundational documents, and it is clear that this country was founded on the notion that the sovereignty necessary for the legitimate exercise of governmental power must be granted by the people, and does not flow from some divine source.

Good straw man, but has little to do with my remarks, does it?


Luke T. said:

The concepts of liberty and equality were brought here by the Puritans, while commerce was brought by the profiteers who settled in the south.
Didn't you forget the smilies? If not, again, nice totally unfounded by fact assertion.
 
Hmmm, it seems to me though that if the statment, "endowed by their creators," can be taken as evidence for the association of divine being with the foundation of our societal structures, then by the same token the phrase, "of the people, by the people, and for the people," can be taken as evidence against....
 
hammegk said:

Didn't you forget the smilies? If not, again, nice totally unfounded by fact assertion.

Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville (1835).

From Chapter II:

The emigrants who came, at different periods to occupy the territory now covered by the American Union, differed from each other in many respects; their aim was not the same, and they governed themselves on different principles...

...The men sent to Virginia were seekers of gold, adventurers without resources and without character, whose turbulent and restless spirit endangered the infant colony, and rendered its progress uncertain. The artisans and agriculturalists arrived afterwards; and, although they were a more moral and orderly race of men, they were in nowise above the inferior classes of England. No lofty conceptions, no intellectual system, directed the foundation of these new settlements....

...the emigrants of New England brought with them the best elements of order and morality-they landed in the desert accompanied by their wives and children. But what most especially distinguished them was the aim of their undertaking. They had not been obliged by necessity to leave their country; the social position they abandoned was one to be regretted, and their means of subsistence were certain. NOr did they cross the Atlantic to increase their wealth; the call which summoned them from the comforts of their homes was purely intellectual; and in facing the inevitable sufferings of exile their object was the triumph of an idea.

The emigrants, or, as they deservedly styled themselves, the Pilgrims, belonged to that English sect the austerity of whose principles had acquired for them the name of Puritans. Puritanism was not merely a religious doctrine, but it corresponded in many points with the most absolute democratic and republican theories. It was this tendency which had aroused its most dangerous adversaries. Persecuted by the Government of the mother country, and disgusted by the habits of a society opposed to the rigor of their own principles, the Puritans went forth to seek some rude and unfrequented part of the world, whre they could live according to their own opinions, and worship God in freedom....

...A democracy, more perfect than any which antiquity had dreamed of, started in full size and panapoly from the midst of an ancient feudal society.

Is my assertion founded well enough for you, hammegk?
 
Luke T. said:


Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville (1835).

Is my assertion founded well enough for you, hammegk?

Truly, ROTFLMGDFAO! Got something a little more recent, with some facts, rather than unfounded-by-fact French Idiot speculations?

Or maybe you can find something in the Bible? Or Koran? Or???
 
hammegk said:


Truly, ROTFLMGDFAO! Got something a little more recent, with some facts, rather than unfounded-by-fact French Idiot speculations?

Or maybe you can find something in the Bible? Or Koran? Or???

I take it you have never heard of this book, Democracy in America, or you wouldn't be so quick to scoff. It is one of the most respected and revered political science books ever written. No one of any import, Right, Left or Center, scoffs at it. A true rarity.

And de Tocqueville quotes at great length from documents of the period to back up his statements. Something more recent? What is better than going to the source, hammegk? Nothing.
 
We are, after all, talking about the belief in God in our founding fathers centuries ago. Exactly how do you propose to back that up with something recent, hammegk?
 
Luke T. said:


I take it you have never heard of this book, Democracy in America, or you wouldn't be so quick to scoff. It is one of the most respected and revered political science books ever written. No one of any import, Right, Left or Center, scoffs at it. A true rarity.
Other than those who scoff at something mis-named poly-sci. It actually is poly - what - stupid - crap - can - I - get - published.


And de Tocqueville quotes at great length from documents of the period to back up his statements. Something more recent? What is better than going to the source, hammegk? Nothing.
Recently someone else quoted from documents from the period & concluded (well, lied) about the prevalaence & use of guns in our history.

However, yes I've read that book. If you take his dissertion as backup for your earlier statement "The concepts of liberty and equality were brought here by the Puritans, while commerce was brought by the profiteers who settled in the south." we will agree to disagree.

Think about it; do you actually believe that to be a statement of fact rather than conjecture. IMO that assertion is on the face of it unsustainable? ;)


We are, after all, talking about the belief in God in our founding fathers centuries ago. Exactly how do you propose to back that up with something recent, hammegk?
I don't. We both have those source documents.
 
hammegk said:

However, yes I've read that book. If you take his dissertion as backup for your earlier statement "The concepts of liberty and equality were brought here by the Puritans, while commerce was brought by the profiteers who settled in the south." we will agree to disagree.


Okey doke.
 
hammegk said:
Good straw man, but has little to do with my remarks, does it?
Let’s see if I have this right:

The thread starts with an article where a politician says that our nation heritage is founded on God.

Some people start a discussion including the question of whether the “Creator” in the Declaration refers to any specific deity.

I chime in saying that it doesn’t matter what they were referring to, as they didn’t found the nation on this Creator, or attribute the creation of the nation to this Creator, etc. Instead, they founded a nation on humanistic principles, the most important of which is that ultimate sovereignty comes from within the individual, not from any divine source.

You respond that the founders were not Humanists, and they would not be happy with recent events.

I respond saying it doesn’t matter if they were humanists. They created a government based on humanistic principles, and this thread is about the foundational heritage of the country, not the founders' personal beliefs.

You cry “strawman”. :rolleyes: I guess I should be surpised that you haven't resorted to your typical smarmy insults. Yet.

What the Founding Fathers believed is not our national heritage. What they founded is. And what they founded is a nation not based on God, religion, divinity, or any such notion. It is founded on the idea that people have the sovereign right to rule themselves; a concept absolutely irreconcilable with the notion of a country founded on the authority of a divine sovereign.
 
Michael Redman said:

The thread starts with an article where a politician says that our nation heritage is founded on God.
Yup. And for the past 40+ years you have enjoyed a majority of liberal judges who have agreed with your interpretation of the issues.

If that majority is ever replaced with a majority who would prefer to uphold constitutional law rather than make law, I predict interpretations against your position will begin to prevail.

Cheer up; you will also retain the right to bear arms so you can organize, revolt, and start a country more to your liking based on the principle "there is no god other than man".
 
hammegk said:
. . . uphold constitutional law rather than make law . . .
Really, hammegk, I thought you were smarter than that.


Anyway, what does recent jurisprudence have to do with the question at the heart of this discussion? Either this country was founded on God, or it wasn't. And it wasn't.
 
Michael Redman said:
Really, hammegk, I thought you were smarter than that.
...
It doesn't matter if hammy is smart or not, since his utterances are reliably idiotic.
 
Michael Redman said:
Really, hammegk, I thought you were smarter than that.


Anyway, what does recent jurisprudence have to do with the question at the heart of this discussion? Either this country was founded on God, or it wasn't. And it wasn't.
You are a goof if you think our opinions are relevant to how the question is decided in any meaningful fashion. SCOTUS and the entire Fed court system make the law as we both know.

And you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. The only thing your arguments have going for them is that too many of the sitting judges agree with you.



hgc: Were you to agree with me on any position I'd conclude I was wrong and needed to re-think the matter. ;)

That idiotic enough for you?
 
hammegk said:
...

hgc: Were you to agree with me on any position I'd conclude I was wrong and needed to re-think the matter. ;)

That idiotic enough for you?
That would be truly foolish. But given your propensity to argue against all available evidence in defense of cherished notions, I doubt that such a little thing as my agreement will sway you.
 

Back
Top Bottom