MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 3:24 PM

You left out the most important founder quote in favor of a secular government.

“The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.
- John Adams, 2nd US President”

The problem however is the secular government Adams proposed did not exclude the need for a morals institution to preserve freedom.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” –October 11, 1798, John Adams

Amazing, a believer in God was also benevolent enough to realize the need and the limits of Religion in a brand new kind of citizen involved free Republic.

What brilliant founders we were privileged to have had.

Like fun he did. He initiated and won the First Barbary War. Incidentally he sent the Navy off to the North coast of Africa without informing Congress, totally illegal by any standard. JEFFERSON LIED! PEOPLE DIED!

aengus on November 30, 2007 at 9:56 PM

Indeed, TJ DID initiate it. And every battle the Marines fought, they won. Films have been made about the campaign. A handful of marines and the allies that they found in Egypt won an amazing (miraculous really) string of victories in North Africa (remembered in the Marines service tune — “the shores of Tripoli”). But after these hard won victories, Jefferson balked, withdrew the troops, and negotiated a paid settlement with the pirates in order to free U.S. naval personnel that had been captured and were being held hostage. Check your history. I think that you’ll find that I am correct on this one.

You have got to be putting me on.

If that really sounds like rocket science to you I sure hope you don’t work for NASA.

All our astronauts will be in great peril.

MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 3:07 PM

“Humorless” one, tears were flowing. $50.00 toward that Corvette, in “one cotton picking” second. I think those beers are spiked.

BTW, Lincoln was clearly an atheist and he did not believe that men should be slaves. Most southerners were Christin and they fought to preserve slavery.

First a claim about Lincoln’s “atheism” that a 10-second Google search exposes as (sorry to be so blunt) ridiculous, then a blanket statement about Christians at the time of slavery.

Um, “most Northerners” were Christians also at the time, if my history memory serves, and they “fought to end slavery.” So, your point is…?

These kinds of statements, which atheists on these threads have made before (don’t remember if you personally have or not) seem pretty, I don’t know, either silly or intellectually dishonest, and in either case are unworthy of you.

Lincoln was clearly an atheist

Whaat…? Are we talking about Abe Lincoln Lincoln?

Ah, yes, but of course there is more than one morality. As soon as you define a certain way of acting, the next question is of course: “Why?” Why should a person not enslave another person? When and why should a person not go to war?

WillBarrett on December 1, 2007 at 3:33 PM

A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Albert Einstein
*
BTW, Lincoln was clearly an atheist and he did not believe that men should be slaves. Most southerners were Christin and they fought to preserve slavery.
BTW II, George Bush is a “born again” Christian and he seems to have no aversion to war.

You are the only one using ad hominem attacks and strawmen characterizations of the Catholic Church.

WillBarrett on December 1, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Now wait a cotton picking minute here!

I tought I was branded as the one doing that?

Do you believe that Zeus is a real god? Do you?

ronsfi on December 1, 2007 at 2:07 PM

I contend that you are both atheists. You just believe in one fewer god than he does. When he understands why he dismisses all the other possible gods, he will understand why you dismiss his.
- Stephen Roberts +/-

Hening on December 1, 2007 at 2:57 PM

Hening, I just really think you overestimate the influence of Marxism in the Church’s position on immigration. Right or wrong, I’m fairly certain you can arrive at a relatively “liberal” position on immigration by merely being Christian. You know, compassion for others and all that. I have deeply conflicted views on immigration myself, and I assure you that they have nothing to do with Marxist ideology. It’s simply a matter of wanting to help the less fortunate. That said, I’m not trying to downplay the need to keep our borders safe…

ronsfi on December 1, 2007 at 3:00 PM

Ah, yes, but of course there is more than one morality. As soon as you define a certain way of acting, the next question is of course: “Why?” Why should a person not enslave another person? When and why should a person not go to war? There are religiously-grounded and secularly-grounded answers to these questions. Which answer is the most philosophically sound is open to debate. My argument has been that as soon as you eliminate a morality grounded in the transcendent, particularly one of the Judaic-Christian strain, you end up with many conflicting world-views. World-views and moralities that lead to violence and despair. The 20th century totalitarian dictatorships did not come from nothing. They came from the atheistic, secular ideologies of the 19th century.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” –October 11, 1798, John Adams

Speakup on December 1, 2007 at 9:55 AM

Quoting one of the founding fathers, now that is an interesting idea, why didn’t I think of that before?
*
The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.
- John Adams, 2nd US President
*
What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people Rulers who wished to subvert the
public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.
- James Madison
*
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
- Thomas Jefferson
*
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the
effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind to filch wealth and power to themselves. They, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
- Thomas Jefferson
*
– Now moving forward in our history of great Presidents -
*
The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession.
- Abraham Lincoln
*
While it may be fairly said that Mr. Lincoln entertained many Christian sentiments, it cannot be said that he was himself a Christian in faith or practice. He was no disciple of Jesus of Nazareth. He did not believe in his divinity and was not a member of his Church.
“He was at first a writing Infidel of the school of Paine and Volney, and afterwards a talking Infidel of the school of Parker and Channing.
“If the Churches had grown cold — if the Christians had taken a stand aloof — that instant the Union would have perished. Mr. Lincoln regulated his religious manifestations accordingly. He declared frequently that he would do anything to save the Union, and among the many things he
did was the partial concealment of his individual religious opinions.
Is this a blot upon his fame? Or shall we all agree that it was a conscientious and patriotic sacrifice?”
- The New York World (1875)

MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 3:07 PM

Heh. Good one. Our brave astronauts at NASA are safe, howevah. But the leaders of the NSS? Perhaps not so much…

astonishing ignorance … … … such morons … … … such ignorance. … … … bashers … … … out of the woodwork … … … prejudice

Sydney Carton on December 1, 2007 at 3:10 AM

Now you sound like a real rocket scientist.

MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 3:55 AM

Respectfully, I must disagree.

inviolet on December 1, 2007 at 7:33 AM

You have got to be putting me on.

If that really sounds like rocket science to you I sure hope you don’t work for NASA.

All our astronauts will be in great peril.

WillBarrett on December 1, 2007 at 2:20 PM It’s simply a matter of philosophy.
Philosophy. A science. Paradise? Salvation? With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, you keep missing my point. Let’s take UFOs for example. If it is here on earth it is either natural or man made. Not natural? Man made. I mean let’s look at what you are claiming. You claim that human beings, the creators of the silicone chip and the Mona Lisa, the wheel and pulley, the plow and irrigation, Mozart’s Requiem, flying machines, steel, architecture, etc., Vaccines, and Anesthesia, are incapable of conceiving of Good and Evil on their own? We have developed ideas that we recognize as good. It doesn’t matter if the wheel works because round things are holy, or if it works because it is physically the most efficient shape. The simple fact is morality exists and so is man made just as the wheel is man made. You see the fallacy of worshiping the Gods of yore. Why can’t you see that yours is one of the many?

with regard to your points about immigration and Marxism (two separate issues, I think). Yes, you are right that the Church is hardly conservative when it comes to immigration. But as far as Latin American bishops only criticizing the U.S., you are quite wrong. Take your example of Venezuala and Hugo Chavez: the Church is hardly beholden to that clown

Will,

It’s my opinion that the attitude of no borders and not honoring America’s right to sovereignty is an ancillary action to Latino flavored Marxist teachings. That’s where it becomes “us” being bigots for wanting to enforce our laws (which also exist within international law) and “them” being the “victims”, who need to come here to survive and are granted special privileges that negate laws. This is relative to your comment about thirty-years ago being a better example of Marxist praxis. I believe it has just shape-shifted a bit.

I was using Loco Hugo as an example of someone who is sporting a Marxist styled ideology, but is guilty of the sins the U.S.A. is supposed to be committing….and the craziness has yet to really get rolling. Hopefully there is a dash of rational separation between Red on Red, and Red on red, white and blue.

Was required reading in my undergraduate German class many moons ago.

JiangxiDad on December 1, 2007 at 11:45 AM

Required reading – wow. And what was your opinion of it at the time, just curious?

ronsfi on December 1, 2007 at 2:07 PM

Where have I thrown up a straw man? You are the only one using ad hominem attacks and strawmen characterizations of the Catholic Church. It’s not a matter of “winning” or “losing” the argument. Who give a crap? This is hotair.com, for pete’s sake.

As far as your substantive points: You acknowledge that you don’t believe in God and all morality was “clearly created” by mankind. As long as you realize that that is a belief. And not a fact. “But I will not concede we always will.” Fair enough. We can agree to disagree. I look at the 20th century and atheist ideologies and see only problems. You look at religious history and see only problems. As I said in my original post, it’s not a numbers game. It’s simply a matter of philosophy: Christians don’t believe paradise is possible on earth through their own hand, and that salvation comes from above. You think that mankind can make his own. When mankind has attempted to make his own salvation I see only monstrosities. Perhaps the future will be different. But I am by nature a pessimist.

WillBarrett on December 1, 2007 at 9:51 AM

But the point is that one needs a metaphysical foundation for their morals, whether it is gods or God.
Tell you what. I will concede we always have. But I will not concede we always will. Do you believe that Zeus is a real god? I don’t think so. So the “Metaphysical Foundation” you assign to the Greeks is not metaphysical. Is it? For the record, everyone who is dear to me is Christian save one. Furthermore I recognize the “good” in religion. I don’t hate Catholics or the Pope. I just don’t believe in God and so I believe all morality was clearly created by mankind. I present my case. You throw up a straw man to tear down. Eh. I don’t for one second think I can “Win” the argument. Do you?

profitsbeard on December 1, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Hening on December 1, 2007 at 12:40 PM

It seems that part of your criticism of the Pope rests on the belief that atheism is not a danger, and therefore the Pope should instead focus on militant Islam. Well, I would disagree with you on two points:
First, the Pope does see atheism and an increasingly militant secularism as a problem. He has written about this extensively for the past 40-50 years. One might argue that the tendency of many in the West to prop up secularism and, in some sense, relativism has led to a multiculturalism that has left us weak in dealing with not only our own problems (abortion and the so-called “culture of death,” with its declining birth rates in Europe, etc.), but also those that threaten us from the outside (militant Islam). So second, I think that you are wrong in claiming that the Pope has not focused on Islam. He has written on the relationship between the Christian and Islam God. Moreover, remember that Regensburg address that caused such an outcry last year? That was an attempt for a learned understanding of religion and violence, and how violence in the name of God is never justified. If you are waiting for the Pope to pull an Urban II, I’m afraid you may have to wait indefinitely. Personally, I don’t want the head of a Christian Church calling for war against the jihadis. But that’s just me.

Hening, with regard to your points about immigration and Marxism (two separate issues, I think). Yes, you are right that the Church is hardly conservative when it comes to immigration. But as far as Latin American bishops only criticizing the U.S., you are quite wrong. Take your example of Venezuala and Hugo Chavez: the Church is hardly beholden to that clown: http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/11/hugo_chavez_vs_the_catholic_ch.php

The late Cardinal Ignacio Velasco, a longtime critic of Chavez, said in 2002, “Every day we turn another cheek. I have no cheeks left because every day there is a new insult.” Upon Velasco’s death in 2003, Chavez declared he was “in hell.” At Velasco’s funeral, Chavistas threw stones and held up pictures of the cleric with devil horns.

Well. What you refer to as the “praxis” of Central American Catholic leadership is not in reality dogmatic “Marxism.” It is “liberation theology,” although I’m not sure it holds as much sway as it did 30 years ago.

WillBarrett

Will,

I think liberation theology is painting with a very broad brush. Blacks, feminists, homosexuals, Hispanics and others have all taken contemporary sociopolitical expression and mixed it with theology. Latin American proponents respond more to the social perspectives of Marx. The dominating Church that has applied liberation theology has been the RC, and the area of the world that has seen the Marixt praxis (significantly) is Latin America (they sure ain’t fighting for homosexual rights and women’s lib). The Latin RC leaders claim that they are the victims of corporations all being controlled by North American interests. The USA also is accused of giving support to military regimes that oppress the common people (leaving out the more realistic example in Venezuela).

A Trappist living in the Arizona desert was telling me how illegals stop at his quarters to ask for food on their travels into the U.S. This came up in a story he was telling me about how all he stocks are Nutri-System bars, and they get miffed when he offers them. The Latin American big “C” church is active in promoting illegal entry into the United States and trains people for the trip with the idea of no borders.

My original point was that the Pope needs to focus on his infallible program within his chain of command worldwide, and lighten up on throwing stones at targets far outside of his throwing arm’s reach.

The concept that all men (mankind) are created equal is Biblical, and the way God sees us.

Hening on December 1, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Stemming from the Bibles declaration that we are created in his image.

Destroying churches and synagogues and temples everywhere.

Stalin is dead 50 years, and more.

Communism fell in 1989.

Concentrate on the current problem, Pops.

It’s Islam, the rival theocracy, not wan and powerless “atheism”, that is the existential danger which we face as a Civilization.

Fighting yesterdays battles wins only dust.