America the Ignorant - DPChallenge Forums

08/27/2010 02:05:25 PM · #126

Originally posted by Louis:

People only care because of a desperate need to validate already held views by way of historic precedent, and there is no firmer precedent in cases like this than the original one. Thus, radicals like Beck et. al. will abscond not only America's founders and reframe whatever their intentions werer to fit their own twisted views, but they will rape and pillage the legacy of the likes of Martin Luther King for the same purpose. What's so new about all this? Morons are morons.

Wait... how does a rally honoring the military rape and pillage the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.?

scalvert

08/27/2010 02:09:05 PM · #127

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Once again, you completely ignore the obvious Shannon. The "intellectual movement" being referred to by the dictionary with that specific dogma was in FRANCE.

Ignorance rears its ugly head. Deism was jump started in 1624 by Lord Herbert of Cherbury of ENGLAND. During the later 17th century, the meaning of "Deism" began to change. It referred to forms of radical Christianity - belief systems that rejected miracles, revelation, and the inerrancy of the Bible... Many of the leaders of the French and American revolutions followed this belief system. Among the U.S. founding fathers, John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Thomas Paine, and George Washington were all Deists. Deists played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, and the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

08/27/2010 02:16:17 PM · #128

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Once again, you completely ignore the obvious Shannon. The "intellectual movement" being referred to by the dictionary with that specific dogma was in FRANCE.

Ignorance rears its ugly head. Deism was jump started in 1624 by Lord Herbert of Cherbury of ENGLAND. During the later 17th century, the meaning of "Deism" began to change. It referred to forms of radical Christianity - belief systems that rejected miracles, revelation, and the inerrancy of the Bible... Many of the leaders of the French and American revolutions followed this belief system. Among the U.S. founding fathers, John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Thomas Paine, and George Washington were all Deists. Deists played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, and the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Well, you can go ahead and hold the ignorant belief that all deists are cut from the same cloth. Voltaire, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams. They are all the same thing. Their attitudes toward Christianity were all similar because we all call them "deists". Their beliefs about a "watchmaker God" were all the same. God does not interfere with the Universe...except when He does. God does not care about morality...except when he does. Christianity is wrong...except when it's not.

Voltaire: "Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that ever infected the world."
Adams: "Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God.... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."
Jefferson: that his (Jesus') system of morality was the most benevolent and sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers.

I apologize for not seeing the obvious similarity and lack of difference between them. I should know better because we use the word "deist" to describe them that there are obviously easy explanations for any erroneously inferred discrpancy. I have been told many times that if one person is called an "atheist" that he must agree wholeheartedy with another "atheist" because, of course, they are both atheists. To think that one atheist could look very different from another is the height of ignorance!

Message edited by author 2010-08-27 14:20:21.

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/27/2010 02:32:46 PM · #129

Originally posted by scarbrd:

I agree it was anti-Catholic, but they also welcomed Jews, Deists and Unitarians. Again, I'm no expert, but I understand that the only religious requirement was a belief in God, not necessarily Christian.

On the anti-Catholic front, I find it ironic that when public schools first came about in the US it was largely an anti-Catholic measure. The Protestants looked to the government to create schools that were not overly influenced by one religion. That situation as certainly turned around.

The Catholic church perceives Freemasonry as anti-religion. Not so much the American Freemasonry, but the European Freemasonry was more anti-religion in it's dealings.

As for the anti-Catholic front, early America was extremely anti-Catholic.

Massachusetts law in 1647 passed, which threatened with death "all and every Jesuit, seminary priest, missionary or other spiritual or ecclesiastical person made or ordained by any authority, power or jurisdiction, derived, challenged or pretended, from the Pope or See of Rome."

When Georgia colony was created the charter included its guarantee of religious freedom followed the fixed pattern: full religious freedom was promised to all future settlers of the colony "except papists" (that is Catholics)

In most colonies, Catholics weren't allowed to vote or hold office. Some colonies didn't allow Catholics to inherent or purchase land.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/27/2010 03:22:40 PM · #130

Originally posted by Nullix:

As for the anti-Catholic front, early America was extremely anti-Catholic.

Massachusetts law in 1647 passed, which threatened with death "all and every Jesuit, seminary priest, missionary or other spiritual or ecclesiastical person made or ordained by any authority, power or jurisdiction, derived, challenged or pretended, from the Pope or See of Rome."

Colonial America WAS anti-Catholic, absolutely. However, what you're quoting above is not Massachusetts Law, but New jersey. See the Massachusetts law here. Note that punishment was banishment for the first offense, death for the second, and that shipwrecked Papists were exempt (!).

Bear in mind also that these were the COLONIES passing these laws, and part of the reasoning behind our "church & state" laws in the Constitution was to keep that from happening any more.

R.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/27/2010 03:23:29 PM · #131

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Adams: "Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God.... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."

Substitute the Old Testament, the Koran, or the Kama Sutra for "Bible" in the previous sentence and it wouldn't change the meaning a bit ... founding a (relatively) egalitarian democratic republic can hardly be accomplished without embodying vertain values and traditions which could be described as "Christian principles," but could be equally described as "Jewish principles" or "Buddhist principles" or just about any other religion you care to name.

I don't think anyone would argue that Christianity has adopted certain principled positions -- like don't rob from or murder your fellow Christians -- but I would argue that those adopted for secular use are those most generally a part of every resaonably successful religion and society. Adopting those principles does not imply a belief in the rest of the Christian (or any other) religion -- whether those rules came from divine inspiration or some Cro-Magnon committee meeting is irrelevant to their utility in maintaining a survivable civilization.

eqsite

Nikon D7100

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

08/27/2010 03:33:34 PM · #132

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Nullix:
As for the anti-Catholic front, early America was extremely anti-Catholic.

Massachusetts law in 1647 passed, which threatened with death "all and every Jesuit, seminary priest, missionary or other spiritual or ecclesiastical person made or ordained by any authority, power or jurisdiction, derived, challenged or pretended, from the Pope or See of Rome."

Colonial America WAS anti-Catholic, absolutely. However, what you're quoting above is not Massachusetts Law, but New jersey. See the Massachusetts law here. Note that punishment was banishment for the first offense, death for the second, and that shipwrecked Papists were exempt (!).

Bear in mind also that these were the COLONIES passing these laws, and part of the reasoning behind our "church & state" laws in the Constitution was to keep that from happening any more.

R.

Folks were obviously still pretty upset about this: //www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/spanishmassacre.htm. The exemption of shipwrecked Papists is a dead give-away.

It's sad that today's culture wars are really just a continuation of the 16th century's culture wars, which were just a continuation of... well, you get the idea. We as a species sure know how to hold a grudge.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

08/27/2010 03:41:39 PM · #133

I'll never forgive you for saying that. :P

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

08/27/2010 03:44:35 PM · #134

This thread sure took a turn for the boring.

I was hoping for a debate centered on Americans who jump off the roof onto a trampoline, either missing it, or bouncing off and hitting a tree.

Leave it to

DrAchoo and

scalvert to ruin the party with their neverending debate. Can't you two just get a room?

eqsite

Nikon D7100

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

08/27/2010 03:45:12 PM · #135

Originally posted by Louis:

I'll never forgive you for saying that. :P

Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!

scalvert

08/27/2010 03:45:20 PM · #136

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I apologize for not seeing the obvious similarity and lack of difference between them.

How about apologizing for the moronic apples to oranges comparison? You contrasted a Voltaire quote calling the superstitious dogma and history of Christianity absurd and violent to quotes on the non-supernatural moral lessons of the bible (which have nothing to do with the fanciful stories and corrupt organizations Voltaire was railing against). Both are perfectly consistent with the dictionary definition of deism.

"Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that ever infected the world."- Voltaire
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"- Adams
"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind." and " We find in the writings of [Jesus'] biographers ... a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications." - Jefferson

Well whattya' know... they agree completely when discussing the same subject, and when stripped of the ridiculous mythology, intolerance and ecclesiastical lust for power, they also agree again that the underlying moral concepts of Christianity were noble:

"Of all religions the Christian is without doubt the one which should inspire tolerance most, although up to now the Christians have been the most intolerant of all men." - Voltaire

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"- Adams

"I give no credit to their falsifications of his actions and doctrines, and to rescue his character, the postulate in my letter asked only what is granted in reading every other historian.... That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore." "We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select even from the very words of Jesus, paring off the amphiboligisms into which they have been led by forgetting often or not understanding what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill." - Jefferson

Message edited by author 2010-08-27 15:48:17.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/27/2010 04:20:03 PM · #137

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I don't think anyone would argue that Christianity has adopted certain principled positions

Seriously?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/27/2010 04:29:54 PM · #138

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
I don't think anyone would argue that Christianity has adopted certain principled positions

Seriously?

Well, maybe not -- I was going to say something about "bearing false witness" until it occurred to me that it took amost 400 years for the Vatican to apologize for wrongfully imprisoning and silencing Galileo ... :-(

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

08/27/2010 04:56:37 PM · #139

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
I don't think anyone would argue that Christianity has adopted certain principled positions

Seriously?

Well, maybe not -- I was going to say something about "bearing false witness" until it occurred to me that it took amost 400 years for the Vatican to apologize for wrongfully imprisoning and silencing Galileo ... :-(

At any rate, saying that Christianity can be represented by one set of principles is like saying government can be represented by one set of principles. In both cases, there are too many different types to put into the same box.

George

Nikon D750

08/27/2010 06:07:58 PM · #140

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
I don't think anyone would argue that Christianity has adopted certain principled positions

Seriously?

Well, maybe not -- I was going to say something about "bearing false witness" until it occurred to me that it took amost 400 years for the Vatican to apologize for wrongfully imprisoning and silencing Galileo ... :-(

At any rate, saying that Christianity can be represented by one set of principles is like saying government can be represented by one set of principles. In both cases, there are too many different types to put into the same box.

All Christians have one book, so they really should be represented by one set of principles. Christian principles,

DrAchoo would argue.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

08/27/2010 06:52:33 PM · #141

Here are snippets of a well-sourced essay that backs up my position. He describes why and how the English and French versions of Deism differ and that they should not be mistaken for each other. This is really the main thrust of what I'm arguing and I fear that (as usual) people think I'm arguing something I'm not. I'll just stop the argument here. If this doesn't explain my position, then nothing will. Enjoy the education. I did.:

Unlike the Thirty Years War that devastated Continental Europe and killed millions, England was spared that blood-bath over religion. The result was the English and by extension the English Colonies never acquired the hatred and loathing of religion the Continent did. In Will Durant's The Age of Reason Begins he would push the English Age of Reason back another 100 years as gross superstition was on the wane in general.

Further proof that the Age of Reason should be separated from the later mostly French Enlightenment is the work of Will Dyrant. I base this on his 11 volume set The Story of Civilization. This is in eleven volumes: (1) Our Oriental Heritage; (2) The Life of Greece; (3) Caesar and Christ; (4) The Age of Faith; (5) The Renaissance; (6) The Reformation; (7) The Age of Reason Begins; (8) The Age of Louis XIV; (9) The Age of Voltaire; (10) Rousseau & Revolution; and (11) The Age of Napoleon. This is a must read for those serious about history for the average person. They are free of politics and religious hostility from a secular scholar.

For the most part Durant is vague on Deism itself and the role it played, but Sparknotes clinches it:

Many of the major French Enlightenment thinkers, or philosophes, were born in the years after the Glorious Revolution, so France's Enlightenment came a bit later, in the mid-1700s...The philosophes, though varying in style and area of particular concern, generally emphasized the power of reason and sought to discover the natural laws governing human society...

In reaction to the rather empirical philosophies of Voltaire and others, Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote The Social Contract (1762), a work championing a form of government based on small, direct democracy that directly reflects the will of the population...Another undercurrent that threatened the prevailing principles of the Enlightenment was skepticism. Skeptics questioned whether human society could really be perfected through the use of reason and denied the ability of rational thought to reveal universal truths. Their philosophies revolved around the idea that the perceived world is relative to the beholder and, as such, no one can be sure whether any truths actually exist...

Ultimately, the Enlightenment fell victim to competing ideas from several sources. Romanticism was more appealing to less-educated common folk and pulled them away from the empirical, scientific ideas of earlier Enlightenment philosophers. Similarly, the theories of skepticism came into direct conflict with the reason-based assertions of the Enlightenment and gained a following of their own. What ultimately and abruptly killed the Enlightenment, however, was the French Revolution...

And what came out of the French Revolution? To quote Sparknotes:

Deism: A system of faith to which many of the French philosophes and other Enlightenment thinkers subscribed. Deists believed in an all-powerful God but viewed him as a "cosmic watchmaker" who created the universe and set it in autonomous motion and then never again tampered with it. Deists also shunned organized religion, especially Church doctrines about eternal damnation and a "natural" hierarchy of existence.

Thus the deism so preferred by dogmatic Humanists and most "deists" today is the one from the French Revolution which was an atheist' revolution. Central to this was Voltaire and others that hijacked English Deism which was still clearly theistic. This is classical Deism defined by Lord Herbert of Cherbury (d. 1648) was one of the earliest proponents of Deism in England. In his book "De Veritate," (1624), he described the "Five Articles" of English Deists:

1. belief in the existence of a single supreme God
2. humanity's duty to revere God
3. linkage of worship with practical morality
4. God will forgive us if we repent and abandon our sins
5. good works will be rewarded (and punishment for evil) both in life and after death.

This is broadly the beliefs of Jefferson and Franklin as well. As Ben Franklin noted in a letter to Ezra Stiles in 1790 what Deism is all about, and speaks for this writer as well:

Here is my creed. I believe in One God, the Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render Him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion.

As further evidence, to quote the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

English Deism entered France, where, however, only its materialistic and revolutionary phases were seized upon, to the exclusion of that religiosity which had never been lost in England. French Deism stood outside of theology...Their moral theories...lost all connection with the position of Deism, which became for them a mere armory of weapons for the destruction of all religion with its consequences, intolerance and moral corruption...The "Enlightenment" was mainly a French affair...

And it was mainly a French affair. This is like calling Christianity an extension of Judaism when they are simply two very different belief systems. They (Voltaire and the French) stripped Deism to almost nothing. But where did we get this "clock maker" god that went away? The actual Deists in England, Jefferson, and Franklin referred to the God of the Bible, but sought to reform it, not to destroy it. Again we must turn to Voltaire whom some claim was really an atheist. He removed the God of the Bible and inserted another one.

To quote the New World Encyclopedia:

Deism has come to denote the theological belief that God created the universe according to scientific laws, but does not interfere in its daily operation. Voltaire first articulated this argument in his TraitÃ© de MÃ©taphysique (1734). God is like a watchmaker who designed the universe and set it in motion. He does not interfere with its operation (especially through historical figures like Jesus or churches), yet his presence is still visible in the grain of all creation.

Most Anglo-American Deists did not have such a minimalistic view of God's activity in the world; thus Lord Herbert of Cherbury, considered to be the father of English Deism, took as one of his five "innate principles" compatible with reason that there are rewards and punishments after death, and in general the American Deists believed in a general concept of divine providence. Nevertheless, by not allowing special revelation, these Deists were left with a weak theological foundation that could not clearly explain God's activity in the world. Hence, today it is Voltaire's more extreme view that defines the Deist position philosophically...

Since America was founded when Deism was popular, it is not surprising that numerous founding fathers of the nation such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington identified with some of its ideas. In fact, the first six presidents of the United States, as well as four later ones, had deistic beliefs.

Message edited by author 2010-08-27 18:52:55.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

08/28/2010 02:03:38 AM · #142

Originally posted by George:

All Christians have one book, so they really should be represented by one set of principles. Christian principles, DrAchoo would argue.

In theory they should be, in practice they are not. Sure there are some principles that are shared, but there are some huge differences too. The same is true for other religions. The Sunnis and the Shias both follow the Quran, but they are very different.

Message edited by author 2010-08-28 02:04:14.

raish

Olympus C-2500L

08/28/2010 03:19:26 AM · #143

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The geography question may have an obvious answer which is we are isolated. If you live in heartland America, you will only find about a dozen countries within a 2500 mile radius of where you live.

I'm not trying to defend ignorance. Obviously education is better than non-education. But what is the point of pointing a finger and laughing?

I agree with you David. I just happened to have the interesting thought that perhaps 90% of the happiness to be had with "facts" could be had in 25% of the knowledge. Some knowledge gets you more bang for your buck and there is a surprising amount that doesn't matter at all to a person's quality of life.

Look at the happy moron,
he doesn't give a damn.
I wish I were a moron.
Oh shit, perhaps I am.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

08/28/2010 01:06:38 PM · #144

Originally posted by George:

All Christians have one book, so they really should be represented by one set of principles. Christian principles, DrAchoo would argue.

If indeed such was the case, then the interpretation of the said book would be constant ... something it isn't and the principles do tend to vary from one location to the next.

Ray

scalvert

08/28/2010 01:22:38 PM · #145

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

He describes why and how the English and French versions of Deism differ and that they should not be mistaken for each other. This is really the main thrust of what I'm arguing and I fear that (as usual) people think I'm arguing something I'm not.

The personal interpretations of Lewis Loflin at sullivan-county.com notwithstanding, French deism was at least as naturalistic, anti-superstition and anti-church as the English version. Adams, Jefferson and Paine all made it perfectly clear that they regarded the supernatural parts of the bible as myths added by the clergy for their own gain. It was a common attitude shared by many of their contemporaries.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5