Author Debate: Influence of Christianity on America's Founders

[badger2]

This debate took place recently in Louisville, Kentucky for Constitution Day.

www.cspan.org/video/?463878-1/author-debate-influence-christianity-americas-founders
(URL functions if typed in spacebar)

 

[BreezeWood]

This debate took place recently in Louisville, Kentucky for Constitution Day.

www.cspan.org/video/?463878-1/author-debate-influence-christianity-americas-founders
(URL functions if typed in spacebar)

.

(URL functions if typed in spacebar)

how about copy paste - didn't work ...


christianity-americas-founders

the civil war amendments to the constitution - made all citizens irregardless states rights equal under the law, doesn't matter what the founding people did or did not have in mind for their particular religious beliefs.

 

[badger2]

The URL above, correctly transcribed, functioned only once to check it. After that, scrambling software was triggered to yield this URL as the reader can check for themselves:

c-span.org463878-1/author-debate-influence-christianity-americas-founders?463878-1/author-debate-influence-christianity-americas-founders/video

The full title will retrieve the c-span video: "Author Debate on the Influence of Christianity on America's Founders"

 

[presonorek]

Were the founding fathers Evangical Christians or not?

Hint: The evangelical movement didn't start until the mid-1800s.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Interesting topic, but I'm not tinkering around with trying to make a url work. It's simply not worth the effort.

Link these pages correctly, please. Thanks!

 

[badger2]

The printed text of the video is a joke. Some timepoints are:

@tmepoint

13:25 legislative business on Sabbath

15:18 all have sinned

15:34 very suspicious of concentrated power

15:54 convinced of moral standards

16:04 James Wilson, Supreme Court sounds like Thomas Aquinas....divine and human law

16:45 liberty vs. licentiousness

17:05 created in image of god

17:42 life begins when infant stirs in the womb

 

[presonorek]

Author Debate on the Influence of Christianity on America's Founders | C-SPAN.org

 

[badger2]

#5: post #3 explains how to make the URL work.

 

[presonorek]

Interesting topic, but I'm not tinkering around with trying to make a url work. It's simply not worth the effort.

Link these pages correctly, please. Thanks!

It is the worth the effort. Both of these gentlemen make a strong opening argument. I am 40 minutes into the video and plan to finish it.

This is an entertaining debate if you have strong views on either side of the argument. If you do not care one way or the other then of course it will be boring. These two guys are exceptional representatives for their side of the debate.

 

[presonorek]

Interesting topic, but I'm not tinkering around with trying to make a url work. It's simply not worth the effort.

Link these pages correctly, please. Thanks!

Here you go sir.

Author Debate on the Influence of Christianity on America's Founders | C-SPAN.org

 

[badger2]

Thanks, #7, 9 & 10. At timepoint 33:40, the moderator asks, "Why Does It Matter?"

 

[presonorek]

Thanks, #7, 9 & 10. At timepoint 33:40, the moderator asks, "Why Does It Matter?"

That is the first question posed to both speakers. The first 33 minutes is mostly their opening statements.

 

[badger2]

Yes, and at timepoint 33:40 the question from the audience is answered by Hall, who is a Quaker and teaches at a Quaker school. It is at this point that we will post an excerpt from Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty, that will deal with the Quaker connection to the constitutional meetings for Pennsylvania.

 

[presonorek]

This debate took place recently in Louisville, Kentucky for Constitution Day.

www.cspan.org/video/?463878-1/author-debate-influence-christianity-americas-founders
(URL functions if typed in spacebar)

Mark David Hall's voice sounds like Casey Kasem.

 

[Picaro]

Were the founding fathers Evangical Christians or not?

Hint: The evangelical movement didn't start until the mid-1800s.

Ignorant rubbish. There was the First Great Awakening in the 1740's or so, and the Second Great Awakening in the 1790's that swept JEfferson into the VP and Presidency. All of the Founders were Christians of one flavor or another, and several stares kept their estblsihed state sects as well, and did so until 1835 or so, with MAssachsuetts being the last to abolish their Congregationist sect's tax and education powers.

 

[badger2]

#15 cites no source for the claim so that the reader can read for themselves, and there is much more underlying history concerning state sects, educational powers and taxes. Sidel does mention 1808 in the video. In post #13, Rothbard's excerpt relates to the Quaker Hall's stated refusal to take an oath, so it is ironic in the video that an ex-Quaker-turned-atheist in the audience asks a question. In contradiction, Hall refuses oath yet supports the concept:

'The provincial conference began its work quickly; the assembly was declared abolished and a constitutional convention summoned for a new government based on the People of Pennsylvania. The suffrage for the convention was to be widened to all adult taxpaying associates (unreconstructed Tories were denied the privilege). A more serious blow to liberty was the conference's decision to require an oath of christian belief for all those elected as deputies to the constitutional convention. This oath -- an effort to disenfranchise the Quakers -- opened a bitter debate between the elderly Christopher Marshall and the other, far younger leaders of the radical camp. Marshall strongly supported the religious test oath against the rigorous opposition of Benjamin Rush and especially James Cannon, who privately denounced the supporters of the oath as "fools, block-heads, self-righteous, and zealous bigots.' Representation at the convention was not allocated proportionately and democratically; understandably, exhilarating vengeance against the old overweighting of the east led to an even greater overweighting on behalf of the west. Each county was given eight delegates to the constitutional convention, so that sparsely settled western counties enjoyed almost the same representation as Philadelphia.'
(Rothbard, Conceived in Liberty, p. 1282)

 

[Picaro]

#15 cites no source for the claim so that the reader can read for themselves, and there is much more underlying history concerning state sects, educational powers and taxes. Sidel does mention 1808 in the video. In post #13, Rothbard's excerpt relates to the Quaker Hall's stated refusal to take an oath, so it is ironic in the video that an ex-Quaker-turned-atheist in the audience asks a question. In contradiction, Hall refuses oath yet supports the concept:

'The provincial conference began its work quickly; the assembly was declared abolished and a constitutional convention summoned for a new government based on the People of Pennsylvania. The suffrage for the convention was to be widened to all adult taxpaying associates (unreconstructed Tories were denied the privilege). A more serious blow to liberty was the conference's decision to require an oath of christian belief for all those elected as deputies to the constitutional convention. This oath -- an effort to disenfranchise the Quakers -- opened a bitter debate between the elderly Christopher Marshall and the other, far younger leaders of the radical camp. Marshall strongly supported the religious test oath against the rigorous opposition of Benjamin Rush and especially James Cannon, who privately denounced the supporters of the oath as "fools, block-heads, self-righteous, and zealous bigots.' Representation at the convention was not allocated proportionately and democratically; understandably, exhilarating vengeance against the old overweighting of the east led to an even greater overweighting on behalf of the west. Each county was given eight delegates to the constitutional convention, so that sparsely settled western counties enjoyed almost the same representation as Philadelphia.'
(Rothbard, Conceived in Liberty, p. 1282)

This weirdo thinks nobody can look up the First and Second Great Awakenings. Seriously. So much for this 'scholarship', plus the notion that if someone finds one or two 'Founders' who say stuff they like to hear, than all the other Founders agreed with that too, like the perpetual farce of claiming they were all 'Deists' just because many erroneously claimed Jefferson and Franklin were, and Thomas Paine was an atheist. 3 out of some 225 is supposed to be the 'majority' in Fantasy Land. Paine wasn't a 'Founder', but they need to claim he was for the obvious reasons.

 

[badger2]

The xian automaton #17 fails to address Hall's Quaker contradiction in the video: how to support an oath, which is a copulation of church and state, while simultaneously supporting it.

 

[badger2]

The Constitution bans a religious test for public office. Does it also ban a religious test for immigration or citizenship? That is key to understanding Hall's Quaker contradiction in the video.

A No-Ban Act would allow atheists to flee muslim-majority countries, and like the Tories being excluded from the constitutional convention in Pennsylvania, the janus-faced pathology indeed concerns the Quaker relationship to the Indigene:

24 Sept 2019 Nearly Three Years later, Congress Finally Holds First Muslim Ban Hearing
(URL functions if typed in the spacebar, though does not function when transcribed into the post)
yahoo.com/huffpost/congress-muslim-ban-hearing-133000780.html

 

[badger2]

Post # 17's weirdness stems from the xian faith, and Hall's contradiction does too. The Indigene represents the Quaker attempt to reconcile the infinite (their aligning as friends with the Indigene) as the colonies became established. That is why the constitutional convention sought to disenfranchise Quakers: god's math always becomes problematic with the infinite and remainders. The Great Awakenings I-IV also have the same problem which prompts evangelizations based on guilt and (vicarious) redemption. It becomes more clear why a pivot question in the video was asked from the audience by an ex-Quaker atheist:

'The Production of Atheism. It may indeed be the serenity of the philosopher, but achieving atheism (in the modern sense) was made possible, at least in part, by Christian theology. We have noted several reasons for the exceptional atheistic secretion of the latter, all of which are related to its persistence in -- and simultaneous resistance to -- representing the infinite. The Christian idea of an infinite, transcendent moralistic Entity is simply unbearable -- cognitively and coalitionally.'
(Shults, Iconoclastic Theology, p. 185 Secreting Atheism)