Would you vote for an atheist?

[Heisenberg]

If there were a candidate running for President, Democrat or Republican, who claimed himself to be an atheist, would you vote for him?

This should be interesting. :D

[Jon88]

If there were a candidate running for President, Democrat or Republican, who claimed himself to be an atheist, would you vote for him?

This should be interesting. :D

If he was the right man for the job.

[vta]

At least he'd be honest...
I find it hard to believe anyone in politics can do the things they do and say they believe in God.

[Heisenberg]

A study to keep in mind if we're going to talk big picture of whether an atheist is even electable:

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/03/24/67686

March 24, 2006


PUBLIC OPINION


Survey: U.S. trust lowest for atheists
By Jeannine Aquino

Atheists are America's least trusted group, according to a national survey conducted by University sociology researchers.

Based on a telephone survey of more than 2,000 households and in-depth interviews with more than 140 people, researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, homosexuals and other groups as "sharing their vision of American society." Americans are also least willing to let their children marry atheists.

"It tells us about how Americans view religion," said Penny Edgell, an associate sociology professor and the study's lead researcher. "Many Americans seem to believe some kind of religious faith is central to being a good American and a good person."

The study will appear in the April issue of the "American Sociological Review." Professor Joseph Gerteis and associate professor Douglas Hartmann are study co-authors. It is the first in a series of national studies conducted by the American Mosaic Project, a three-year project that looks at race, religion and cultural diversity in the United States.

Edgell said Americans traditionally have been a religious people and associate faith with being a good citizen. The survey results indicate that this belief hasn't changed, Edgell said.

Those surveyed tended to view people who don't believe in a god as the "ultimate self-interested actor who doesn't care about anyone but themselves," Edgell said.

Cole Ries, the president of the Maranatha Christian Fellowship said he does not agree with that perception.

"Atheists seem to be concerned with the human good," he said. "Where I differ as a Christian is that I'm more concerned with God's will than man's will."

Still, Ries said, "I don't believe that anybody is really an atheist. I believe that deep down everyone knows there is a god."

Robert O'Connor, a sophomore and member of Campus Atheists and Secular Humanists, said he was not surprised by the survey results.

Americans generally are very religious, O'Connor said, and people usually are suspicious about those who do not share the same beliefs.

"People really strongly believe that religion and good morals are one and the same," O'Connor said. "Increasing problems of society - for example, juvenile delinquency - are being blamed on lack of religious value."

Joe Foley, co-chairman for Campus Atheists and Secular Humanists, was not surprised by the results, either.

"I know atheists aren't studied that much as a sociological group, but I guess atheists are one of the last groups remaining that it's still socially acceptable to hate," Foley said.

First-year pharmacy student Amanda Wawrzynia, however, found the study reasonable.

She said she would have ranked atheists at the bottom of the list of those sharing the same vision of American society.

"I would rather have my kids marry someone of a different religion than someone who has none," she said.

Yet Benjamin Abrams, a member of the Jewish student center Hillel, said he was surprised people would have reservations about their children marrying atheists.

"I understand if people want to marry someone of a similar faith, but I don't understand why it would be any different from marrying a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian," Abrams said. "It's another religious belief. I don't understand why atheism would have negative connotations."

Abrams said Judaism teaches that people's actions, not one's beliefs, are what matter most.

"(Atheists) should have the same rights to not believe as someone would have the right to believe," he said.

First-year biology student Joe Reutiman calls the results a "sad state of affairs."

"(Atheists) have the right to believe whatever they want, even if that belief is nothing," Reutiman said. "They shouldn't have to fit in with the clean-cut American life like a Norman Rockwell painting."

[theogt]

What about an agnostic? That's a more defensible position.

[Heisenberg]

I would almost be more inclined to vote for an atheist. If you feel like you know the candidate well, you'd realize that what you see is exactly what you'd get. No outside force would ever play an influence in their decision-making.

To me, that's comforting.

[locked&loaded]

I dont see a reason for anyone not voting for an atheist.

[zrinkill]

No.


.
.

[iceberg]

If there were a candidate running for President, Democrat or Republican, who claimed himself to be an atheist, would you vote for him?

This should be interesting. :D

depends on what he does believe in.

[iceberg]

What about an agnostic? That's a more defensible position.

what about apathy? just tired of the debate. find your own God and be happy. quit making yours someone elses out of your own lack of faith.

not you theogt - just speaking in general.

[iceberg]

No.


.
.

so when a major goal is to seperate church and state, you can't vote for someone on the state side w/o their church side?

not believing in God doesn't make you bad right off the bat.

[Heisenberg]

depends on what he does believe in.

Pick your ideal candidate and the ideal candidate positions. Think of this as super-candidate, but atheist.

[Sasquatch]

Some might actually prefer it.

[burmafrd]

Never heard of or met an atheist that was worth a damn.

[iceberg]

Pick your ideal candidate and the ideal candidate positions. Think of this as super-candidate, but atheist.

i don't stereotype - athiest just means they don't put God first in all they do but that doesn't mean they put the wrong thing first.

i learned to never let 1 issue judge all. yet we debate 1 issue at a time. wild, huh?

[iceberg]

Never heard of or met an atheist that was worth a damn.

how often did it ever become a criteria?

[Danny White]

Pick your ideal candidate and the ideal candidate positions. Think of this as super-candidate, but atheist.

Are we talking about a militant, in your face atheist, or someone who doesn't really talk about it?

If it's the former, then there's no way I'd ever vote for them... no chance I'd vote for someone who makes a big deal about being an atheist.

But if it was the latter and the person shared my beliefs on the issues I care about, including all the social issues, then I can't imagine having that much of a problem with it. I'm not sure how you'd even know the person was an atheist in such a scenario, but if for some reason I happened to hear about it through the grapevine, I'd probably be able to get past it.

[zrinkill]

so when a major goal is to seperate church and state, you can't vote for someone on the state side w/o their church side?

not believing in God doesn't make you bad right off the bat.

Did not say it did.

I was just being honest.

Would you prefer me to lie about it?

[burmafrd]

Never met or heard of an atheist that did NOT try and shove it in your face.
Certainly there are a few out there= BUT if they were politicians then you can bet they were being active hypocrits by being seen observing some kind of religious events/services. And that makes you want to vote for them?

[iceberg]

Did not say it did.

I was just being honest.

Would you prefer me to lie about it?

nope.

[iceberg]

Never met or heard of an atheist that did NOT try and shove it in your face.
Certainly there are a few out there= BUT if they were politicians then you can bet they were being active hypocrits by being seen observing some kind of religious events/services. And that makes you want to vote for them?

burm - since you see everthing in an extreme it's not such a suprise you see extremes.

[ScipioCowboy]

It depends.

If the "Christian" candidate is pro-abortion and anti-second amendment while the atheist candidate is pro-life and pro-second amendment, I'll opt for the atheist candidate in almost every situation.

In my experience, claiming a Christian faith and living a Christian faith are too often entirely different things.

[iceberg]

It depends.

If the "Christian" candidate is pro-abortion and anti-second amendment while the atheist candidate is pro-life and pro-second amendment, I'll opt for the atheist candidate in almost every situation.

In my experience, claiming a Christian faith and living a Christian faith are two entirely different things.

thank you.

i don't buy the label, i buy the actions you take. fools slap on a label and run around all anxious because of it.

[Jon88]

It depends.

If the "Christian" candidate is pro-abortion and anti-second amendment while the atheist candidate is pro-life and pro-second amendment, I'll opt for the atheist candidate in almost every situation.

In my experience, claiming a Christian faith and living a Christian faith are two entirely different things.

There are a few hypocrites out there.

[iceberg]

There are a few hypocrites out there.

*******s. : )

[ScipioCowboy]

"(Atheists) have the right to believe whatever they want, even if that belief is nothing," Reutiman said. "They shouldn't have to fit in with the clean-cut American life like a Norman Rockwell painting."

Cry me a river.

If you want to experience intellectual marginalization and condescending smirks, I suggest you try being a born-again Christian on secular college campus.

[Jon88]

Cry me a river.

If you want to experience intellectual marginalization and condescending smirks, I suggest you try being a born-again Christian on secular college campus.

The people who shout and stand on a soapbox do get smirks, I have to admit.

[Sasquatch]

Cry me a river.

If you want to experience intellectual marginalization and condescending smirks, I suggest you try being a born-again Christian on secular college campus.

But that's a lifestyle that you choose. :D

[Achozen]

Yes.

It would mean that that particular candidate uses rational thinking.

[iceberg]

The people who shout and stand on a soapbox do get smirks, I have to admit.

makes it rough on those who have something to say - this predisposition.

[Jon88]

makes it rough on those who have something to say - this predisposition.

Yes it does.

[ScipioCowboy]

But that's a lifestyle that you choose. :D

Does that also apply to the level of mistrust you elicit?;)

[Sasquatch]

Does that also apply to the level of mistrust you elicit?;)

If I deliberately deceived people, it would certainly be disingenuous to whine about inspiring distrust, wouldn't it?

As for you being marginalized on a secular campus, it's obviously a consequence of you choosing that lifestyle, although I suppose you could always claim that you were born again that way. :laugh2:

You're not alone, I'm sure, as there must be a militant atheist somewhere wondering why he's an intellectual pariah at the local Baptist university.

[TheKey]

No, and I am an open minded person. I was going to vote for Romney, and no I am not mormon.

[Hostile]

Are we talking about a militant, in your face atheist, or someone who doesn't really talk about it?

If it's the former, then there's no way I'd ever vote for them... no chance I'd vote for someone who makes a big deal about being an atheist.

But if it was the latter and the person shared my beliefs on the issues I care about, including all the social issues, then I can't imagine having that much of a problem with it. I'm not sure how you'd even know the person was an atheist in such a scenario, but if for some reason I happened to hear about it through the grapevine, I'd probably be able to get past it.I kind of agree with Danny White on this. I have never had an issue with someone being any religion, or not religious. But if someone is an atheist and they are condescending to others and claim injury at the mere mention of someone else's faith then I wouldn't want that kind of drama for 4 years or 8 years in the White House.

It's kind of like the movement to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency. I'll admit that bothers me.

My question would be how would he be sworn in? The last words of the oath of office are "so help you God?" How could he say yes? ;)

[Heisenberg]

Are we talking about a militant, in your face atheist, or someone who doesn't really talk about it?

If it's the former, then there's no way I'd ever vote for them... no chance I'd vote for someone who makes a big deal about being an atheist.

But if it was the latter and the person shared my beliefs on the issues I care about, including all the social issues, then I can't imagine having that much of a problem with it. I'm not sure how you'd even know the person was an atheist in such a scenario, but if for some reason I happened to hear about it through the grapevine, I'd probably be able to get past it.

If he was the former, I wouldn't vote for him either. Anyone who places their religious viewpoints above all other issues while running for office would never get my vote.

The latter? That would be my ideal candidate's viewpoint on religion. It's just something you'd hear through the grapevine at some point, but would never be something he would tout as a reason to vote for him. Never in your face.

[heavyg]

so when a major goal is to seperate church and state, you can't vote for someone on the state side w/o their church side?

not believing in God doesn't make you bad right off the bat.

Your right not believing in God does not make you bad OR good. However, if a person was an athiest I believe most of his social stands would be the polar oposite of what I stand for. So, I would lean towards not voting for him.

In regards to seperating church and state. Have we ever really done that? I don't think you can.

[heavyg]

It depends.

If the "Christian" candidate is pro-abortion and anti-second amendment while the atheist candidate is pro-life and pro-second amendment, I'll opt for the atheist candidate in almost every situation.

In my experience, claiming a Christian faith and living a Christian faith are too often entirely different things.

BINGO!!! :bow:

[burmafrd]

The separation of Church and state unfortunately has been taken MUCH farther then the original founding fathers wanted. Read their speeches and see how often they mention God. Now they would not be able to give any of those speeches at all. "Endowed by their CREATOR by certain Inalienable Rights"
The First Amendment was there SOLELY to see to it that there was no state church as there was in England. And that was all it was meant to do.

[heavyg]

The separation of Church and state unfortunately has been taken MUCH farther then the original founding fathers wanted. Read their speeches and see how often they mention God. Now they would not be able to give any of those speeches at all. "Endowed by their CREATOR by certain Inalienable Rights"
The First Amendment was there SOLELY to see to it that there was no state church as there was in England. And that was all it was meant to do.

I have always been told seperation of Chruch and State was put in place to protect the Church from the Government. Not the other way around.

[Doomsday101]

If there were a candidate running for President, Democrat or Republican, who claimed himself to be an atheist, would you vote for him?

This should be interesting. :D

I don't think I would, it would be hard to vote for someone who does not believe in anything.

[Ren]

depends on the person, being an atheist is not and should not be an issue in politics just as much as i feel religion has no business in politics. It's both personal choices

[Doomsday101]

depends on the person, being an atheist is not and should not be an issue in politics just as much as i feel religion has no business in politics. It's both personal choices

It clearly would be an issue, whether people think it should not matter or not. What people believe in does help mold their character and actions. I know people love to say religion has no business in politics but a person religion is part of who he or she is as a person.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[heavyg]

We Need God In America Again



George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, first Chief Justice John Jay. Names synonymous with the spirit of our country. The Founding Fathers of the USA.

Over Two Hundred years ago, they shook of the chains of tyranny from Great Britain by Divine call. Citing 27 biblical violations, they wrote the Declaration of Independence, with Liberty, justice for all.

But something happened since Jefferson called the Bible the cornerstone for American liberty, then put in our schools for a light. Or since "Give me liberty or give me death" Patrick Henry said, "our country was founded on the Gospel of ."

We eliminated God from the equation from American Life. Thus eliminating the reason why this nation first began. From beyond the grave I hear the voices of our founding fathers plead, "You need God in America again"

Of the 55 men who formed the constitution, 52 were active members of their church. Founding fathers like Noah Webster, who wrote the first dictionary, could literally quote the Bible, Chapter and Verse.

James Madison said, "we've staked our future on our ability to follow the 10 commandments with all our heart" These men believed that you could not even call yourself an American if you subvert the word of God.

In his farewell address, Washington said "you can't have national morality apart from religious principle," and its true. Because now we have nearly 150,000 kids carrying guns through these war zones that we call public schools.

In the 40's and 50's student problems were chewing gum and talking. In the 90's rape and murder are the trend. The only way this nation can even hope to last this decade is put God in America again.

The only hope for America is . The only hope for our country is Him.
If we repent of our ways, stand firm and say, We need God in America again

Abe Lincoln said, "The philosophy of the school room in one generation, will be the philosophy of government in the next." So when you eliminate the word of God from the classroom and politics, you eliminate the nation that Word protects.

America is now number 1 in teen pregnancy and violent crime. Number 1 in illiteracy, drug use and divorce. Every day a new holocaust of 5,000 unborn die, while pornography floods our streets like open sewers.

America's dead and dying hand is on the threshold of the church. While the spirit of Sodom and Gomorra vex us all. When it gets to the point the people would rather come out of the closet than clean it, it is the sign that the judgment of God is going to fall.

If there has ever been a time to rise up Church, its now. And as the blood bought saints of the living God proclaim, that its time to sound the alarm from the church house to the White House and say, "WE WANT GOD IN AMERICA AGAIN."

I believe its time America, to stand up and proclaim, "that one nation under God is our demand." And send this evil lifestyle back to Satan where it came from. And let the Word of God revive our dying land! For is coming back again in all his glory. And every eye shall see him on that day. That’s why a new anointing of Gods power is coming on us to boldly tell the world you must be saved!

Because astrology won't save you.
Your horoscope won't save you.
The bible says these things are all a farce.
If your born again, you don't need to look to the stars for your answers, cause you can look to the very one that made those stars.

History tells us, time and time again, to live like there is no God makes you a fool. If you want to see kids live right, stop handing out condoms and start handing out the word of God in schools.

The only hope for America is . The only hope for our country is Him.
If we repent of our ways, stand firm and say, We need God in America again.


written & performed by Carmen
http://www.carman.org/

[Doomsday101]

Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Great writing but lets be real you don't think the avg voter would not care if a man or a women is atheist as a reason to vote or not vote for that person? That person clearly would have the right to run for office and could not be prevented from doing so but the voter will look at that as part of the overall makeup of that person.

[zrinkill]

Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

hmmmm

The question was "would you vote for someone who was an atheist"...... not whether it is legal to run as one. So I do not see your point.

[PosterChild]

Of course.

But I don't think most Americans would so we more than likely won't see any viable atheist candidates in our lifetime. Don't forget to consider the exploding Hispanic population in this equation. It would seem even more unlikely in that context.

[ConcordCowboy]

Yes I would.

Believing in God has nothing to do with how good a President a person would be or not.

Another thing is I've seen where some people have said that they would not vote for a person if they were an in your face Athiest...I would say on the other hand that I wouldn't vote for a person that was the opposite side...Religious and in your face about it.

[Danny White]

By the way, if you're wondering how likely it is that we'd have an "open" atheist run for President, here's a list of admitted atheists from the Congressional and Gubernatorial ranks:






























THE END

:p:

[zrinkill]

Yes I would.

Believing in God has nothing to do with how good a President a person would be or not.

Another thing is I've seen where some people have said that they would not vote for a person if they were an in your face Athiest...I would say on the other hand that I wouldn't vote for a person that was the opposite side...Religious and in your face about it.

It is no surprise to me that most Liberals would not vote for a deeply religious person ..... just as it should not surprise anyone of the opposite.

Its just one of the many differences between liberals and Conservatives.

[ConcordCowboy]

It is no surprise to me that Liberals would not vote for a deeply religious person ..... just as it should not surprise anyone of the opposite.

Its just one of the many differences between liberals and Conservatives.

No, I said I wouldn't vote for a nominee that was religious AND in your face about it.

I didn't say that I wouldn't vote for a religious candidate...there IS a difference.

[ConcordCowboy]

By the way, if you're wondering how likely it is that we'd have an "open" atheist run for President, here's a list of admitted atheists from the Congressional and Gubernatorial ranks:






























THE END

:p:

I know if there EVER was a Hypothetical question this is it. :p:

[Doomsday101]

Yes I would.

Believing in God has nothing to do with how good a President a person would be or not.

Another thing is I've seen where some people have said that they would not vote for a person if they were an in your face Athiest...I would say on the other hand that I wouldn't vote for a person that was the opposite side...Religious and in your face about it.

I admit I would not vote for a Pat Robertson. However I do think it is important in judging a man or women’s character and religion is part of a person’s overall make up just as a person’s environment in which he or she grew up in is part of what molds a person

[iceberg]

Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

isn't that assumed however when sworn in?

[SultanOfSix]

No. If he doesn't believe in the Creator of everything in existence, why should I believe in him?

[BrAinPaiNt]

hmmmm

The question was "would you vote for someone who was an atheist"...... not whether it is legal to run as one. So I do not see your point.

Just not sure many know about that in the constitution. Never said it had anything to do with if a person would or would not vote for a specific religious label.
:cool:

[BrAinPaiNt]

No. If he doesn't believe in the Creator of everything in existence, why should I believe in him?

Might be a better reason to believe him.

At least you knew where he stood and was not someone who claimed to be something when he is not.

Too many claim to be of a specific religion when their actions say otherwise.

If you profess to believe something concerning religion but your actions show other wise...how could you believe anything they say.

Just something to consider.

[SultanOfSix]

Might be a better reason to believe him.

At least you knew where he stood and was not someone who claimed to be something when he is not.

Too many claim to be of a specific religion when their actions say otherwise.

If you profess to believe something concerning religion but your actions show other wise...how could you believe anything they say.

Just something to consider.

I don't get the point.

Both types of people can say they stick by certain principles, and then violate them. Both types of people can lie as well.

I just believe its less likely for someone who really believes in God to lie or violate their principles because, in general, most believers have a belief in a higher accountability than one who doesn't, and they believe they can't get away with something, even if no one besides themselves see it.

[heavyg]

I don't get the point.

Both types of people can say they stick by certain principles, and then violate them. Both types of people can lie as well.

I just believe its less likely for someone who really believes in God to lie or violate their principles because, in general, most believers have a belief in a higher accountability than one who doesn't, and they believe they can't get away with something, even if no one besides themselves see it.

You are 100% correct. BUT as someone else said there is a difference in claiming to be a believer and actually living the life

[Hostile]

I don't get the point.

Both types of people can say they stick by certain principles, and then violate them. Both types of people can lie as well.

I just believe its less likely for someone who really believes in God to lie or violate their principles because, in general, most believers have a belief in a higher accountability than one who doesn't, and they believe they can't get away with something, even if no one besides themselves see it.I like the honesty in your post. I said I would, but it would have to mean that he was a lot more than just an atheist. If that is all he had to offer, then there is literally no way I could. If however he had other tremendous gifts to add to our Government it wouldn't bother me.

I will say this though, I believe faith is often very under rated. Have you ever noticed how many Hall of Famers are men unafraid to publicly express their faith? I personally do not feel that is an accident or coincidence.

[ConcordCowboy]

Might be a better reason to believe him.

At least you knew where he stood and was not someone who claimed to be something when he is not.

Too many claim to be of a specific religion when their actions say otherwise.

If you profess to believe something concerning religion but your actions show other wise...how could you believe anything they say.

Just something to consider.

Or the people who never cared one iota about religion but then got busted doing something or whatever and then suddenly find religion.

Just love that.

[BraveHeartFan]

No, I would not.

[heavyg]

I like the honesty in your post. I said I would, but it would have to mean that he was a lot more than just an atheist. If that is all he had to offer, then there is literally no way I could. If however he had other tremendous gifts to add to our Government it wouldn't bother me.

I will say this though, I believe faith is often very under rated. Have you ever noticed how many Hall of Famers are men unafraid to publicly express their faith? I personally do not feel that is an accident or coincidence.

I think tye are afraid to express their faith because the PC world now looks at religious faith in a bad light. Just my opinion

[Sasquatch]

I don't get the point.

Both types of people can say they stick by certain principles, and then violate them. Both types of people can lie as well.

I just believe its less likely for someone who really believes in God to lie or violate their principles because, in general, most believers have a belief in a higher accountability than one who doesn't, and they believe they can't get away with something, even if no one besides themselves see it.

What accountability is there for lying? In Christianity, at least, the covenant is one of faith and grace, not one of works and deeds.

You seem to be arguing that an ethics based on fear of punishment is more reliable than any other. But, it could be argued (and has), that a person who believes in God defers ultimate responsibility and power to an external source whereas an atheist believes that people such as himself are the only ones responsible for what happens in the world.

[heavyg]

What accountability is there for lying? In Christianity, at least, the covenant is one of faith and grace, not one of works and deeds.

You seem to be arguing that an ethics based on fear of punishment is more reliable than any other. But, it could be argued (and has), that a person who believes in God defers ultimate responsibility and power to an external source whereas an atheist believes that people such as himself are the only ones responsible for what happens in the world.

Actually the bible says that Christians will be know by their fruits, works ect....So yes there is some accountability. A Christian does need to be aware of how they are perceived.

[Sasquatch]

Actually the bible says that Christians will be know by their fruits, works ect....So yes there is some accountability. A Christian does need to be aware of how they are perceived.

Old or New Testament?

Catholics have sacraments of absolution. I can lie, confess my lie, and be absolved of it.

In the logic of certain Protestant denominations descended from the teachings of John Calvin, good deeds are evidence of God's grace not the means to obtain it. That is, God's grace precedes the good deeds, since the other way around would suggest that profane humans can negotiate with God.

[theebs]

sure why not? I dont use religion as a measuring tool when choosing who to vote for anyway.

In Fact I personally will not vote for people who enter an election and there best quality is that they are "born again" or "strict" christians.

Personally, I just feel like religion can cloud judgement on important issues. Now I know I am going to get skewered for saying that with the audience in here, but that is what I think.

I mean honestly, Do you care if your accountant is a christian or if he his intelligent and and has the skill to do the job, and of course you could apply that to any vocation. In my case I think you can use that in voting for politicians also.

I just went to the doctor a few days ago, it was a new doctor I had never met before, he is a good dude and he helped me. I never thought once about his religion or his beliefs and I simply do not care. He did his job which is what I asked of him. So after he was done had he told me He loves or he loves the devil I would not have given a crap.

I am curious to much like danny white said earlier when you say atheist are you referring to the I love the Devil and my whole point in life is to run around and be even more annoying, obnoxious and full of crap than the benny hynn's of the world atheist or just a person who is out of the whole religious world and doesnt care either way?

[heavyg]

Old or New Testament?

Catholics have sacraments of absolution. I can lie, confess my lie, and be absolved of it.

In the logic of certain Protestant denominations descended from the teachings of John Calvin, good deeds are evidence of God's grace not the means to obtain it. That is, God's grace precedes the good deeds, since the other way around would suggest that profane humans can negotiate with God.

I am at work and do not have my bible. But I will look it up when I get home. I am not a Calvinist. I do not believe in nor do I believe the bible teaches eternal security (thats another subject all together). I also do not believe your "good deads" can get you into heaven. What I am saying is. If you are a Christian. You shouldnt be living like the devil

[SultanOfSix]

What accountability is there for lying?

The same accountability that exists for everything else in a believers world view.

In Christianity, at least, the covenant is one of faith and grace, not one of works and deeds.

Although I am not Christian, I disagree that this is true: "Faith without works is dead."

You seem to be arguing that an ethics based on fear of punishment is more reliable than any other.

I never intended to. Only that accountability to a higher standard is being held.

One fears punishment, but punishment is based upon transgressing against oneself, and therefore losing God's contentment, i.e. his abandonment of you. The heavenly reward of God is great, but the pleasure and love of God is greater. One is rewarded for being the human being they are supposed to be.

But, it could be argued (and has), that a person who believes in God defers ultimate responsibility and power to an external source whereas an atheist believes that people such as himself are the only ones responsible for what happens in the world.

It could be argued. But, it could also be argued that people who really believe in God, love their fellow man and therefore accountability to God subsumes and is inclusive of accountability to humanity.

[Doomsday101]

Old or New Testament?

Catholics have sacraments of absolution. I can lie, confess my lie, and be absolved of it.

In the logic of certain Protestant denominations descended from the teachings of John Calvin, good deeds are evidence of God's grace not the means to obtain it. That is, God's grace precedes the good deeds, since the other way around would suggest that profane humans can negotiate with God.

Being Catholic myself it is not exactly as you are portraying there is a lot more to it.

[Sasquatch]

Being Catholic myself it is not exactly as you are portraying there is a lot more to it.

Can I not be forgiven for lying by going through the confessional ritual and doing penance?

[Sasquatch]

It could be argued. But, it could also be argued that people who really believe in God, love their fellow man and therefore accountability to God subsumes and is inclusive of accountability to humanity.

In that case, both arguments have equal merit, and atheists are theoretically just as likely to adhere to ethical principles than those embracing a religious faith.

[Doomsday101]

Can I not be forgiven for lying by going through the confessional ritual and doing penance?

Yes you can through confession and through penance but just as important is to go out with the real intention of not doing it again. It is not a free pass where people go in and say hey I'll confess today but I really don't mean it. If you don't mean it there is no use in going through the sacrament of confession. The holy sacraments within the Catholic Church only means something if one believes if not then you are just going through the motions with no real intent and no true faith.

[Doomsday101]

In that case, both arguments have equal merit, and atheists are theoretically just as likely to adhere to ethical principles than those embracing a religious faith.

Any yet many with religious faith have both ethical principles as well as the knowledge that there is something bigger than ourselves that we trust in.

[Sasquatch]

Yes you can through confession and through penance but just as important is to go out with the real intention of not doing it again. It is not a free pass where people go in and say hey I'll confess today but I really don't mean it. If you don't mean it there is no use in going through the sacrament of confession. The holy sacraments within the Catholic Church only means something if one believes if not then you are just going through the motions with no real intent and no true faith.

Understandable, but being profane, flawed, and tainted by original sin, I may lie, sincerely regret it and intend never to lie again, but go astray because I am weak, tempted by gain, convenience, or whatever and still find forgiveness. Isn't that so?

[BrAinPaiNt]

I don't get the point.

Both types of people can say they stick by certain principles, and then violate them. Both types of people can lie as well.

I just believe its less likely for someone who really believes in God to lie or violate their principles because, in general, most believers have a belief in a higher accountability than one who doesn't, and they believe they can't get away with something, even if no one besides themselves see it.

I happen to think just the opposite and I will leave it at that.:cool:

[Doomsday101]

Understandable, but being profane, flawed, and tainted by original sin, I may lie, sincerely regret it and intend never to lie again, but go astray because I am weak, tempted by gain, convenience, or whatever and still find forgiveness. Isn't that so?

Sure but as I said if you don't believe then none of this mattered to begin with. Yes people fall and people do wrong but their own faith leads then to forgiveness. The Atheist has nothing to be sorry for in his or her actions they feel they have no maker and no consequences of his or her own action. You make a claim of ethics as if those who believe in a higher power have no ethics? I think people of faith are bound by their believe and ethics.

[SultanOfSix]

In that case, both arguments have equal merit, and atheists are theoretically just as likely to adhere to ethical principles than those embracing a religious faith.

The arguments have equal merit, but like all arguments, each one has its evidences that merit support of them, and those may or may not be equal.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Sure but as I said if you don't believe then none of this mattered to begin with. Yes people fall and people do wrong but their own faith leads then to forgiveness. The Atheist has nothing to be sorry for in his or her actions they feel they have no maker and no consequences of his or her own action. You make a claim of ethics as if those who believe in a higher power have no ethics? I think people of faith are bound by their believe and ethics.

Some people hold themselves accountable to themselves, their family, their jobs and so on. One does not need a higher power to have ethics.

[Sasquatch]

The Atheist has nothing to be sorry for in his or her actions they feel they have no maker and no consequences of his or her own action.

From where do you derive this conclusion? What if an atheist sincerely believes that lying is wrong simply because it deceives and misrepresents and negatively impacts personal relationships, etc.? Why is a sincere belief in that any less binding than a sincere belief that lying will be punished by God? He trespasses against his own conscience, harms relationships, and damages his social standing and reputation. You're privileging fear of god over non-supernatural concerns, an externalized ethics over an internalized one.

[Doomsday101]

Some people hold themselves accountable to themselves, their family, their jobs and so on. One does not need a higher power to have ethics.

I agree. I did not say that people of no faith did not have ethics only that yes most people of faith do have high ethical standards and hold themselves accountable to family, friends, jobs and to their god.

[Doomsday101]

From where do you derive this conclusion? What if an atheist sincerely believes that lying is wrong simply because it deceives and misrepresents and because it has harmful effects in personal relationships, etc.? Why is a sincere belief in that any less binding than a sincere belief that lying will be punished by God? He trespasses against his own conscience, harms relationships, and damages his social standing and reputation. You're privileging fear over reason, an externalized ethics over an internalized one.

Well he is responsible to no one but himself. That does not mean a person of no faith lacks ethics

[ConcordCowboy]

I agree. I did not say that people of no faith did not have ethics only that yes most people of faith do have high ethical standards and hold themselves accountable to family, friends, jobs and to their god.

You mean like these guys?

http://blogs.kansascity.com/photos/uncategorized/jim_bakker_part_of_book_cover.jpghttp://www.whiterose.org/pete/blog/images/swaggart.jpeg

:p:

[Sasquatch]

Well he is responsible to no one but himself. That does not mean a person of no faith lacks ethics

Isn't that the conservative mantra, take responsibility for yourself?

Besides, as BP said, people don't live in a vacuum and are accountable not only to themselves but to their families and their communities as well. There are consequences for lying even if you do not believe in God.

[Doomsday101]

You mean like these guys?

http://blogs.kansascity.com/photos/uncategorized/jim_bakker_part_of_book_cover.jpghttp://www.whiterose.org/pete/blog/images/swaggart.jpeg

:p:

What both of these men did was wrong I have never nor will defend their actions. As for forgivness that is between them and their god. As I said I'm catholic and there have been priest who have done very wrong and had no business taking on the responsiblity of the priesthood. No doubt you can point out many people of so called faith who have let down themselfs and their faith. However I think their is a much larger group of people of faith who spend their lives putting others ahead of themselfs and working for the greater good.

[Doomsday101]

Isn't that the conservative mantra, take responsibility for yourself?

Besides, as BP said, people don't live in a vacuum and are accountable not only to themselves but to their families and their communities as well. There are consequences for lying even if you do not believe in God.

As BP said? :lmao: There are many who are accountable to no one or anything. It is about them and only them. I guess I just have never met an atheist who cared for anything more than how it benefited themselves.

[Sasquatch]

I guess I just have never met an atheist who cared for anything more than how it benefited themselves.

Funny that you would have a problem with that since it happens to be the basis of free market capitalism and conservative government, i.e. benevolent self interest is better at governing society with an "invisible hand" than a cumbersome government bureaucracy.

[Doomsday101]

Funny that you would have a problem with that since it happens to be the basis of free market capitalism and conservative government, i.e. benevolent self interest is better at governing society with an "invisible hand" than a cumbersome government bureaucracy.

And yet this country manages to help others in need. We as a country give aid to many in need as well as the people of this nation out of their own pocket to those in difficult times both home and overseas.

[Ren]

It clearly would be an issue, whether people think it should not matter or not. What people believe in does help mold their character and actions. I know people love to say religion has no business in politics but a person religion is part of who he or she is as a person.

That's fine i'm not going to argue against that, however once these things start to overshadow the political issues then something is seriously wrong.

[Achozen]

The Founding Fathers weren't religious...

(Just thought I'd throw that out there.)

[heavyg]

The Founding Fathers weren't religious...

(Just thought I'd throw that out there.)

Well everything I have read and been taught says they were

[Duane]

The Founding Fathers weren't religious...

(Just thought I'd throw that out there.)

I believe many were religious but not all were Christian. There were some who held Deistic and other beliefs that have a belief in God but not a Christian God.

[BrAinPaiNt]

As BP said? :lmao: There are many who are accountable to no one or anything. It is about them and only them. I guess I just have never met an atheist who cared for anything more than how it benefited themselves.

You probably have...but just did not know it.

Just as there are many that want to make a stink about being that way, there are many who just do not bring it up at all.

[Doomsday101]

The Founding Fathers weren't religious...

(Just thought I'd throw that out there.)

Many held the word of god in much higher regards than we see today. Look at many of their speeches.

Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ 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” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on , the Cornerstone."

Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord . I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."

John Hancock:
• “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations.
"A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775"

Patrick Henry:
"Orator of the Revolution."
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of . For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

“The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.”

John Jay:
“ 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.” Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.

“Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab ["Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?" 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson.” [The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p.365]

Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of .”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of ."

“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.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

Samuel Johnston:
• “It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
[Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention]

James Madison
“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

• I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.
Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773)
• In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
“ An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia” Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress

“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”

• 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. [Letter by Madison to William Bradford [urging him to make sure of his own salvation] November 9, 1772]

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”
[Baron Charles Montesquieu, wrote in 1748; “Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power. If it [the power of judging] were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislature if it were joined to the executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same … body of principal men … exercised these three powers." Madison claimed Isaiah 33:22 as the source of division of power in government
See also: pp.241-242 in Teaching and Learning America’s Christian History: The Principle approach by Rosalie Slater]

James McHenry – Signer of the Constitution
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.

Jedediah Morse:
"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."

John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg
In a sermon delivered to his Virginia congregation on Jan. 21, 1776, he preached from Ecclesiastes 3.
Arriving at verse 8, which declares that there is a time of war and a time of peace, Muhlenberg noted that this surely was not the time of peace; this was the time of war. Concluding with a prayer, and while standing in full view of the congregation, he removed his clerical robes to reveal that beneath them he was wearing the uniform of an officer in the Continental army! He marched to the back of the church; ordered the drum to beat for recruits and over three hundred men joined him, becoming the Eighth Virginia Brigade. John Peter Muhlenberg finished the Revolution as a Major-General, having been at Valley Forge and having participated in the battles of Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, Stonypoint, and Yorktown.

Thomas Paine:
“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”
“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God--1810”

Benjamin Rush:
• “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.” [Letter written (1790’s) in Defense of the Bible in all schools in America]
• “Christianity is the only true and perfect religion.”
• “If moral precepts alone could have reformed mankind, the mission of the Son of God into our world would have been unnecessary.”

"Let the children who are sent to those schools be taught to read and write and above all, let both sexes be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education”
Letters of Benjamin Rush, "To the citizens of Philadelphia: A Plan for Free Schools", March 28, 1787

Justice Joseph Story:
“ I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations.”
[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States p. 593]
“ Infidels and pagans were banished from the halls of justice as unworthy of credit.” [Life and letters of Joseph Story, Vol. II 1851, pp. 8-9.]
“ At the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration [i.e., the First Amendment], the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship.”
[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States p. 593]

Noah Webster:
“ The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.”

“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
[Source: 1828, in the preface to his American Dictionary of the English Language]

Let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God [Exodus 18:21]. . . . If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted . . . If our government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. [Noah Webster, The History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, 49]

“All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” [Noah Webster. History. p. 339]

“The Bible was America’s basic textbook
in all fields.” [Noah Webster. Our Christian Heritage p.5]

“Education is useless without the Bible” [Noah Webster. Our Christian Heritage p.5 ]

George Washington:

Farewell Address: The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion" ...and later: "...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..."

[Danny White]

The Founding Fathers weren't religious...

(Just thought I'd throw that out there.)

That's not even remotely close to being true.

Many held the word of god in much higher regards than we see today. Look at many of their speeches.


:bow:

I'd give you more "bows" except for the fact that the claim was so absurd that it probably only took you a few minutes to find all those quotes. :D

[Doomsday101]

That's not even remotely close to being true.



:bow:

I'd give you more "bows" except for the fact that the claim was so absurd that it probably only took you a few minutes to find all those quotes. :D

True. The founding fathers did not want Government to dictate a religion on the people or give special favor of one religion over another. However this was to protect different religions from Government and now days is looked at as if we are protecting Government from Religion. Anyone who wants to think Christianity was not a big part of life in the 1700’s is kidding themselves

[SultanOfSix]

I like the honesty in your post. I said I would, but it would have to mean that he was a lot more than just an atheist. If that is all he had to offer, then there is literally no way I could. If however he had other tremendous gifts to add to our Government it wouldn't bother me.

I will say this though, I believe faith is often very under rated. Have you ever noticed how many Hall of Famers are men unafraid to publicly express their faith? I personally do not feel that is an accident or coincidence.

"Faith speaks to faith, even in dispute, while the unbeliever is dumb (as far as 'faith' is concerned)." - Gai Eaton

[Sasquatch]

Many held the word of god in much higher regards than we see today. Look at many of their speeches.

These quotes aside, Franklin denied the divinity of near the end of his life and Thomas Paine wrote a book entitled The Age of Reason which was a systematic attack on organized religion and Christian doctrine.

[Heisenberg]

These quotes aside, Franklin denied the divinity of near the end of his life and Thomas Paine wrote a book entitled The Age of Reason which was a systematic attack on organized religion and Christian doctrine.

Hell. Just go through all the Thomas Paine quotes:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/paine.htm

[Bizwah]

I can't remember how many folks on this board and others said they wouldn't vote for Huckabee due to his religious convicitons.

For so many, that's ok.

So why is it any different for someone to say they wouldn't vote for an atheist?

[zrinkill]

These quotes aside, Franklin denied the divinity of near the end of his life

Huh?

Benjamin Franklin in a letter to Stiles dated March 9, 1790

"As to of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble."

Sounds like a man who admitted that his scientific mind raised doubts in him and he would find out the truth when he quickly died a month later.

Hardly a denial of Divinity.


And thats if the letter is legitimate. Which many doubt considering his many contrary quotes.

[Mavs Man]

I believe many were religious but not all were Christian. There were some who held Deistic and other beliefs that have a belief in God but not a Christian God.

I think this statement is pretty close to the truth. Deism was at its height at the time of the nation's founding, and many references to God are noted as "Providence" or "Deity" which is more closely associated with Deists and Masons. This is still a heavily debated issue because of the religious ambiguity of many of the Founding Fathers.

[Mavs Man]

Huh?

Benjamin Franklin in a letter to Stiles dated March 9, 1790

"As to of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble."

Sounds like a man who admitted that his scientific mind raised doubts in him and he would find out the truth when he quickly died a month later.

Hardly a denial of Divinity.


And thats if the letter is legitimate. Which many doubt considering his many contrary quotes.

I think this is why the question is still largely unanswered, when so many contradictions exist both in their writings and the way they lived.

[Sasquatch]

Hardly a denial of Divinity.


And thats if the letter is legitimate. Which many doubt considering his many contrary quotes.

The letter has more to it. Franklin explains his rather broad religious beliefs and commends any church that adheres to them. Though he may not have used the precise term, his was a polite denial of 's divinity because he positively affirmed the validity of other religions so long as they espoused certain general principles.

But, if that won't convince you, here are some very straightforward quotes on his attitude towards Christianity.

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."

Benjamin Franklin, in _Toward The Mystery_

My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the dissenting [puritan]way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. [Robert Boyle (1627-1691) was a British physicist who endowed the Boyle Lectures for defense of Christianity.]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_

[zrinkill]

The letter has more to it. Franklin explains his rather broad religious beliefs and commends any church that adheres to them. Though he may not have used the precise term, his was a polite denial of 's divinity because he positively affirmed the validity of other religions so long as they espoused certain general principles.

But, if that won't convince you, here are some very straightforward quotes on his attitude towards Christianity.

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."

Benjamin Franklin, in _Toward The Mystery_

My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the dissenting [puritan]way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. [Robert Boyle (1627-1691) was a British physicist who endowed the Boyle Lectures for defense of Christianity.]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_

“ 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” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on , the Cornerstone."

“The moral and religious system which transmitted to us is the best the world has ever seen, or can see.” Benjamin Franklin

,
.
.
.
.
.

[Sasquatch]

“ 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” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on , the Cornerstone."

“The moral and religious system which transmitted to us is the best the world has ever seen, or can see.” Benjamin Franklin

,
.
.
.
.
.


Believing in a God/Creator is not the same as believing in Christianity.

Praising the moral precepts of is not the same as affirming his divinity.

He was religious to the extent that he was a deist, one who believes in a non-interventionist God as a prime mover and who denies the existence of miracles because they contradict that rational natural laws laid down by God.

[Danny White]

Believing in a God/Creator is not the same as believing in Christianity.

Praising the moral precepts of is not the same as affirming his divinity.

He was religious to the extent that he was a deist, one who believes in a non-interventionist God as a prime mover and who denies the existence of miracles because they contradict that rational natural laws laid down by God.

This whole debate was started, however, because dangerdoom claimed that "the Founding Fathers weren't religious."

I think that's been pretty well debunked, Franklin's waffling notwithstanding.

[zrinkill]

Believing in a God/Creator is not the same as believing in Christianity.

Praising the moral precepts of is not the same as affirming his divinity.

He was religious to the extent that he was a deist, one who believes in a non-interventionist God as a prime mover and who denies the existence of miracles because they contradict that rational natural laws laid down by God.

That is your opinion Sassy ..... and it does not surprise me in the least.

The fact remains that his quotes and writings could be made to look like either side ....

If you look at the internet, atheist websites like "ex-Christian.com" and "The Infidels" use the same arguments that he was a Deist.

And Religious websites like "The Christian foundation" and "Christian heritage.com" declare he was a fierce Christian with a strong love of using the same quotes.

Both are probably wrong ...... and right at the same time.

.
.
.

Personally I feel he was probably a semi to moderately religious man with a admiration for the Christian values and lifestyle but who's scientific mind probably left many doubts to that which he could not prove.

Thats my honest answer.

.
.
.
.

[Heisenberg]

Atheism doesn't mean someone doesn't believe in ANYTHING. Humanism and naturalism are common beliefs among atheists. Atheism is just a lack of belief in deities.

So, the argument for not voting for someone who is an atheist because they believe in nothing isn't what I would consider a good reason. They believe in many of the same things you do, but that it isn't controlled by a deity.

[iceberg]

Believing in a God/Creator is not the same as believing in Christianity.

Praising the moral precepts of is not the same as affirming his divinity.

He was religious to the extent that he was a deist, one who believes in a non-interventionist God as a prime mover and who denies the existence of miracles because they contradict that rational natural laws laid down by God.

i swear to GOD you'll argue over anything. even if you agree you'll find a minute point just to use big words around and be difficult.

[Sasquatch]

That is your opinion Sassy ..... and it does not surprise me in the least..
.

Good luck finding a reputable historian that publishes in peer reviewed academic journals who claims Franklin was Christian.

[Sasquatch]

This whole debate was started, however, because dangerdoom claimed that "the Founding Fathers weren't religious."

I think that's been pretty well debunked, Franklin's waffling notwithstanding.

I guess it depends on what is meant by religion.

Franklin did not believe in the literalism of the Bible or any other religious text that contained miracles.

Jefferson's Bible as an example of this mentality.

[Danny White]

I guess it depends on what is meant by religion.

Franklin did not believe in the literalism of the Bible or any other religious text that contained miracles.

Jefferson's Bible as an example of this mentality.

YES or NO... do you agree with this statement:

"The Founding Fathers weren't religious."

[ScipioCowboy]

If I deliberately deceived people, it would certainly be disingenuous to whine about inspiring distrust, wouldn't it?

As for you being marginalized on a secular campus, it's obviously a consequence of you choosing that lifestyle, although I suppose you could always claim that you were born again that way.

If people choose to marginalize me because of my belief in the life and resurrection of , it's their loss. As I've said many times, I seek to incorporate the viewpoints and philosophies of all whom I encounter. There's some level of truth and falsehood in virtually every personal belief, and I seek to discern between the two.

And yes, I did choose this lifestyle, but herein lies the difference:

I'm not seeking legal recognition or tax benefits due to my relationship with God.;)

[Sasquatch]

YES or NO... do you agree with this statement:

"The Founding Fathers weren't religious."

Some founding fathers were religious in the sense of believing in a particular revealed religion as embodied by a particular church or holy text.

Others, like Franklin and Jefferson, were religious only in the sense that they believed in a higher being, hence the term natural religion or "deism" as some have already pointed out. They were not beholden to any institutionalized church (were, in fact, deeply skeptical if not critical of organized religion with its dogmas and corrupt practices), its doctrines, and regarded religious texts not as literal accounts of actual events but as moral literature and guides, with a status no more elevated than La Fontaine's Fables, the writings of Cicero, or Franklin's own Poor Richard's Almanac.

[Sasquatch]

And yes, I did choose this lifestyle, but herein lies the difference:

I'm not seeking legal recognition or tax benefits due to my relationship with God.;)

And I'm sure you wouldn't if you were denied them on that basis.

[ScipioCowboy]

And I'm sure you wouldn't if you were denied them on that basis.

In this case, I can't be denied something that was never mine to have.

[Sasquatch]

II can't be denied something that was never mine to have.

Of course you can.

I can deny your request to have some of my water. It was never yours to have.

A woman can deny you a kiss. It was never yours to have.

And so on.

[Vintage]

I would vote for an atheist. So long as said atheist ran on platforms I endorsed.

[Cajuncowboy]

"It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."
-George Washington.

If it was good enough for George, it's good enough for me.

[Jon88]

I would vote for an atheist. So long as said atheist ran on platforms I endorsed.

Ok, well that would be understood just from your first sentence.

[Cajuncowboy]

Some founding fathers were religious in the sense of believing in a particular revealed religion as embodied by a particular church or holy text.

Others, like Franklin and Jefferson, were religious only in the sense that they believed in a higher being, hence the term natural religion or "deism" as some have already pointed out. They were not beholden to any institutionalized church (were, in fact, deeply skeptical if not critical of organized religion with its dogmas and corrupt practices), its doctrines, and regarded religious texts not as literal accounts of actual events but as moral literature and guides, with a status no more elevated than La Fontaine's Fables, the writings of Cicero, or Franklin's own Poor Richard's Almanac.

Really?

How about Ben's own words????


Here are some of his words of wisdom:

It is the duty of mankind on all suitable occasions to acknowledge their dependence on the Divine Being...[that] Almighty God would mercifully interpose and still the rage of war among the nations...[and that] He would take this province under His protection, confound the designs and defeat the attempts of its enemies, and unite our hearts and strengthen our hands in every undertaking that may be for the public good, and for our defense and security in this time of danger.

Moses lifting up his wand, and dividing the Red Sea, and Pharaoh in his chariot overwhelmed with the waters. This motto: 'Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

Whoever shall introduce into public affairs the principals of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.

A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district -- all studied and appreciated as they merit -- are the principal support of virtue, morality, and civil liberty

In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.

To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?


I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

[iceberg]

"It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."
-George Washington.

If it was good enough for George, it's good enough for me.

wooden teeth were good enough for him too.

[Cajuncowboy]

wooden teeth were good enough for him too.

And that means exactly what?

[Bizwah]

wooden teeth were good enough for him too.

Actually, he didn't have wooden teeth.

The false teeth were made of human and sheep teeth...along with hippo ivory.

[Cajuncowboy]

Actually, he didn't have wooden teeth.

The false teeth were made of human and sheep teeth...along with hippo ivory.

In your face Ice!

:tongue:






:D

[iceberg]

In your face Ice!

:tongue:






:D

heh - got me on that one!

[Bizwah]

In your face Ice!

:tongue:






:D

My wife always razzes me about having a wealth of useless information.

It almost came in handy this time.

[Sasquatch]

Really?

Yes, really. Here's a recent book review from the Journal of American History, the leading peer-reviewed academic journal for American History. It gives you an indication of what scholars who have combed through archives and sorted through all of Franklin's personal and published writings think about Franklin's religion. Sorry, but Ben was not a forebear of the religious right.

Benjamin Franklin and His Gods. By Kerry S.
Walters. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press,
1999. xiv, 213 pp. Cloth, $44.95, ISBN 0-252-
02433-8. Paper, $18.95, ISBN 0-252-06739-8.)

Benjamin Franklin's religion has been the subject of much discussion and debate. Drawing on a wide range of sources, this revisionist study contributes an entirely new line of interpretation of Franklin's overall religious thinking and at the same time manages some refinements of earlier interpretations about specific beliefs. The argument of the book is deliberately set between the positions represented by D. H. Lawrence's brutal 1930 denunciation of Franklin's religion as nothing more than a bourgeois commercialism tricked out in shallow utilitarian moralisms and Owen Aldridge’s sympathetic 1967 treatment of the dynamism and protean character of Franklin's "polytheistic" religion. Kerry S. Walters aims squarely between these interpretations, offering up arguments against claims that Franklin was an atheist and in support of an understanding of Franklin's religion, not as polytheism, but as "theistic perspectivism." Although Franklin mentions "lesser gods" in his "Articles of Belief," Walters argues that Franklin employs the term to indicate his view of religion as a developmental phenomenon.



For Franklin, religion was a matter of ongoing re-representation of God, in forms suited to shifting contexts of culture. God existed, the nature of God was accessible to human reason or emotion, and humans re-presented God to themselves in such a wav as to make possible communication with the divine. In Franklin's view, God as First Cause was hopelessly distant. Persons accordingly invented "lesser gods" as ways of bridging the gulf to the creator God. These lesser gods Franklin approved of and embraced, albeit in a qualified manner, ever mindful that they were useful fictions and might transform into other personages as cultural circumstances required.

His religion was, in a sense, both a "perspective" on the divine that was gained through engagement of the lesser God and a theism that was grounded in belief in an Enlightenment God as unmoved mover. While Walters's claim for Franklin's "theistic perspectivism" approaches at times a reading of twentieth-century theological currents into the doctor's thinking, it does make sense of what has seemed a contradiction in Franklin's writing about his religious ideas. When one observes that the argument here coincides in important wayswith John Kloos's recent analysis of the religion of Franklin's contemporary, Dr. Benjamin Rush (A Sense of Deity, 1991), the notion of "theistic perspectivism" becomes even more persuasive.



Not as persuasive is Walters's handling of the place of virtue in Franklin's religion. There is insufficient evidence-and obvious theoretical confounds-for Walters's argument that Franklin did not consider morality and virtue to be constructed in culture and therefore they could be established "ecumenically" across traditions. More serious is the loose deployment of terms meant to indicate Franklin's thinking about the role of emotion in religion. Religion is a "mythos" that is all "emotionladen symbol," an "emotional need," a "heart hung-er," and a "comfort for the heart." Walters nowhere establishes the meaning or meanings of such emotionality for Franklin, nor does he explain how a young man paralyzed by Calvinist "fear" and "guilt" came to conceptualize human relationshiv with even a "lesser God"as a matter of comfort and joy.

John Corrigan
Arizona State Uniuersi~
Phoenix, Arizona

[lewpac]

It's impossible to be an "atheist". An atheist acknowledges that there's a God, but just refuses to believe or recognize Him. So, while he considers and acknowledges a "God", he simply turns his back on him. So, he BELIEVES, but chooses simply to not pay any attention to "God". Therefore, it's no possible to be an "atheist".
An "agnostic", on the the other hand..............there's your idiot maximus. This creature recognizes NO God or supreme being, and holds onto the the myth that the human eye, the eco-system, and the perfection of the natural world just happened "by chance". Which, again, makes him someone not qualified to enter into any reasonable discussion with. This is the guy who sees a penis and a vagina while doing his porn thing on the internet, and thinks all this just "so happened" by chance. THAT, my friends, is why God made a word called "fool" and "idiot".

[Jon88]

It's impossible to be an "atheist". An atheist acknowledges that there's a God, but just refuses to believe or recognize Him. So, while he considers and acknowledges a "God", he simply turns his back on him. So, he BELIEVES, but chooses simply to not pay any attention to "God". Therefore, it's no possible to be an "atheist".
An "agnostic", on the the other hand..............there's your idiot maximus. This creature recognizes NO God or supreme being, and holds onto the the myth that the human eye, the eco-system, and the perfection of the natural world just happened "by chance". Which, again, makes him someone not qualified to enter into any reasonable discussion with. This is the guy who sees a penis and a vagina while doing his porn thing on the internet, and thinks all this just "so happened" by chance. THAT, my friends, is why God made a word called "fool" and "idiot".

I'm sorry, but saying things like that is one of my pet peeves. Humans made those words.

[Heisenberg]

It's impossible to be an "atheist". An atheist acknowledges that there's a God, but just refuses to believe or recognize Him. So, while he considers and acknowledges a "God", he simply turns his back on him. So, he BELIEVES, but chooses simply to not pay any attention to "God". Therefore, it's no possible to be an "atheist".
An "agnostic", on the the other hand..............there's your idiot maximus. This creature recognizes NO God or supreme being, and holds onto the the myth that the human eye, the eco-system, and the perfection of the natural world just happened "by chance". Which, again, makes him someone not qualified to enter into any reasonable discussion with. This is the guy who sees a penis and a vagina while doing his porn thing on the internet, and thinks all this just "so happened" by chance. THAT, my friends, is why God made a word called "fool" and "idiot".

You have your definitions backwards.

[Cajuncowboy]

Yes, really. Here's a recent book review from the Journal of American History, the leading peer-reviewed academic journal for American History. It gives you an indication of what scholars who have combed through archives and sorted through all of Franklin's personal and published writings think about Franklin's religion. Sorry, but Ben was not a forebear of the religious right.

Benjamin Franklin and His Gods. By Kerry S.
Walters. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press,
1999. xiv, 213 pp. Cloth, $44.95, ISBN 0-252-
02433-8. Paper, $18.95, ISBN 0-252-06739-8.)

Benjamin Franklin's religion has been the subject of much discussion and debate. Drawing on a wide range of sources, this revisionist study contributes an entirely new line of interpretation of Franklin's overall religious thinking and at the same time manages some refinements of earlier interpretations about specific beliefs. The argument of the book is deliberately set between the positions represented by D. H. Lawrence's brutal 1930 denunciation of Franklin's religion as nothing more than a bourgeois commercialism tricked out in shallow utilitarian moralisms and Owen Aldridge’s sympathetic 1967 treatment of the dynamism and protean character of Franklin's "polytheistic" religion. Kerry S. Walters aims squarely between these interpretations, offering up arguments against claims that Franklin was an atheist and in support of an understanding of Franklin's religion, not as polytheism, but as "theistic perspectivism." Although Franklin mentions "lesser gods" in his "Articles of Belief," Walters argues that Franklin employs the term to indicate his view of religion as a developmental phenomenon.



For Franklin, religion was a matter of ongoing re-representation of God, in forms suited to shifting contexts of culture. God existed, the nature of God was accessible to human reason or emotion, and humans re-presented God to themselves in such a wav as to make possible communication with the divine. In Franklin's view, God as First Cause was hopelessly distant. Persons accordingly invented "lesser gods" as ways of bridging the gulf to the creator God. These lesser gods Franklin approved of and embraced, albeit in a qualified manner, ever mindful that they were useful fictions and might transform into other personages as cultural circumstances required.

His religion was, in a sense, both a "perspective" on the divine that was gained through engagement of the lesser God and a theism that was grounded in belief in an Enlightenment God as unmoved mover. While Walters's claim for Franklin's "theistic perspectivism" approaches at times a reading of twentieth-century theological currents into the doctor's thinking, it does make sense of what has seemed a contradiction in Franklin's writing about his religious ideas. When one observes that the argument here coincides in important wayswith John Kloos's recent analysis of the religion of Franklin's contemporary, Dr. Benjamin Rush (A Sense of Deity, 1991), the notion of "theistic perspectivism" becomes even more persuasive.



Not as persuasive is Walters's handling of the place of virtue in Franklin's religion. There is insufficient evidence-and obvious theoretical confounds-for Walters's argument that Franklin did not consider morality and virtue to be constructed in culture and therefore they could be established "ecumenically" across traditions. More serious is the loose deployment of terms meant to indicate Franklin's thinking about the role of emotion in religion. Religion is a "mythos" that is all "emotionladen symbol," an "emotional need," a "heart hung-er," and a "comfort for the heart." Walters nowhere establishes the meaning or meanings of such emotionality for Franklin, nor does he explain how a young man paralyzed by Calvinist "fear" and "guilt" came to conceptualize human relationshiv with even a "lesser God"as a matter of comfort and joy.

John Corrigan
Arizona State Uniuersi~
Phoenix, Arizona



OK, OK, let me get this straight. You want to buy into what some professor at a University comes up with and what HE thinks, over Franklin's own words????

Why do you ignore HIS words?
It's all so clear to me now how you come up with some of the stuff you do.

You truly are good for some comic relief.

Funny, in another thread we are debating the exact words of Al Gore and what he said about the internet. We have those exact words from him, yet somehow the left says he didn't say what he said.

Now you are here to tell me that Franklin didn't say what he said or at the very least he didn't mean to say what he said.

My God, I pray you people don't get close to children in a class room.

Opps, too late.

[heavyg]

OK, OK, let me get this straight. You want to buy into what some professor at a University comes up with and what HE thinks, over Franklin's own words????

Why do you ignore HIS words?
It's all so clear to me now how you come up with some of the stuff you do.

You truly are good for some comic relief.

Funny, in another thread we are debating the exact words of Al Gore and what he said about the internet. We have those exact words from him, yet somehow the left says he didn't say what he said.

Now you are here to tell me that Franklin didn't say what he said or at the very least he didn't mean to say what he said.

My God, I pray you people don't get close to children in a class room.

Opps, too late.


:lmao2: :lmao: :bow:

[Sasquatch]

OK, OK, let me get this straight. You want to buy into what some professor at a University comes up with and what HE thinks, over Franklin's own words????

Why do you ignore HIS words?
It's all so clear to me now how you come up with some of the stuff you do.

You truly are good for some comic relief.

Funny, in another thread we are debating the exact words of Al Gore and what he said about the internet. We have those exact words from him, yet somehow the left says he didn't say what he said.

Now you are here to tell me that Franklin didn't say what he said or at the very least he didn't mean to say what he said.

My God, I pray you people don't get close to children in a class room.

Opps, too late.

I posted two quotes from Franklin that stated unequivocally that he was not Christian. Yet, you choose to ignore these and provide other quotes.

So we turn to the experts. I think a professional historian who has spent a lifetime studying Benjamin Franklin is a little more qualified than either of us to pronounce on his religious beliefs. He has presumably read everything Franklin ever wrote (instead of cherry-picking quotes out of context), read all previous scholarly work on the subject, and has been vetted by other professional scholars in the field.

I find it a bit puzzling how the America is #1 crowd invariably discounts and belittles the opinions of the best and brightest that our system of education produces. Obviously, despite the professions of undying confidence in our country, you and others have some deep reservations about the ability of our education system to produce competent scholars who take their professional obligations seriously.

It is what it is. A leading scholar agrees with me that Franklin was religious only in the broadest sense of believing in a higher being that he calls God. He did not subscribe to the Holy Trinity. I'm sorry if that throws a monkey wrench in the religious right's agenda to re-write history to suit its present political aims of expanding the role of religion in our country.

[ScipioCowboy]

Of course you can.

I can deny your request to have some of my water. It was never yours to have.

A woman can deny you a kiss. It was never yours to have.

And so on.

If I ask someone for a living, breathing unicorn and he fails to give me one, is he denying me a unicorn? Can a person deny you something that doesn't exist?

In the context of our discussion (legal rights), our nation is founded on the principle that all people are endowed by a Creator with certain inalienable rights, and you can't be denied rights (the key word here) that don't exist or that you haven't been granted by the Creator.

[Sasquatch]

If I ask someone for a living, breathing unicorn and he fails to give me one, is he denying me a unicorn? Can a person deny you something that doesn't exist?

In the context of our discussion (legal rights), our nation is founded on the principle that all people are endowed by a Creator with certain inalienable rights, and you can't be denied rights (the key word here) that don't exist or that you haven't been granted by the Creator.

The semantic gymnastics that people will go through to deny others equal legal status.

That's right, I'm using "deny" in the conventional sense of rejecting, refusing to agree, or withholding.

So blacks and women weren't denied inalienable rights prior to being fully emancipated and empowered to vote, hold property, etc.? Because logic suggests that if they obtained the rights eventually then they were inalienable to begin with but just not recognized as such at the time due to deficiencies in our collective reasoning.

Religious prejudice will make any absurd argument to justify its irrational marginalization of others. would be so proud.

[trickblue]

You're not alone, I'm sure, as there must be a militant atheist somewhere wondering why he's an intellectual pariah at the local Baptist university.

Yep... many of them... they're known as "Professors"... ;)

[ScipioCowboy]

The semantic gymnastics that people will go through to deny people equal legal status.

That's right, I'm using deny in the conventional sense of rejecting, refusing to agree, or withholding.

So blacks and women weren't denied inalienable rights prior to being fully emancipated and empowered to vote, hold property, etc.? Because logic suggests that if they obtained the rights eventually then they were inalienable to begin with but just not recognized as such at the time due to deficiencies in our collective reasoning.

I'll defer to Barack Obama on this point; he states that the Constitution laid the ground work for the abolishment of slavery and the spreading of equality.

Simply because our Founding Fathers recognized the existence of inalienable human rights does not mean they grasped the full implications of those rights. In many ways, our nation's existence has been an excursion into understanding the nature of these God-given rights, and how they should be applied.

So, the answer to you question is yes. Blacks and women were being denied human rights because early America did not understand the full extent of those rights.

If a paleontologist were to discover a new species of dinosaur, would you expect him to immediately know everything about it? Of course not. Comprehensive knowledge requires years of study and research.

The same is true for the principles and concepts set forth within our Constitution.

Religious prejudice will make any absurd argument to justify its irrational marginalization of others. would be so proud.

Speaking of prejudice, at the beginning of this thread, I stated that I would vote for an atheist.

What was your opinion on this issue? I can't seem to recall.;)

[BrAinPaiNt]

And I think this has ran it's course.