Traditional Values Defined

Mariner said:
AbbeyNormal,

I agree that Newton was probably important enough that if he had come out with his heretical thinking he probably wouldn't have been burned at the stake. On the other hand, we shouldn't forget the long history of religions persecuting scientific heretics, which to me is one of the best reasons to support a secular government.

In support of this view, here's the intro paragraph from a paper in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1999:

"Isaac Newton, Heretic: the strategies of a Nicodemite
STEPHEN D. SNOBELEN
...
Isaac Newton was a heretic. But like Nicodemus, the secret disciple of Jesus, he never made a public declaration of his private faith – which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unravelling his personal beliefs.
"...His one-time follower William Whiston attributed his policy of silence to simple, human fear and there must be some truth in this. Every day as a public figure (Lucasian Professor, Warden – then Master – of the Mint, President of the Royal Society) and as the figurehead of British natural philosophy, Newton must have felt the tension of outwardly conforming to the Anglican Church, while inwardly denying much of its faith and practice. He was restricted by heresy laws, religious tests and the formidable opposition of public opinion. "

http://www.isaac-newton.org/

Mariner

What was heresy then, was the difference between being a methodist and a presbyterian today. He was a christian. Can you get this concept? It's already been explained to you at least once that I've seen.
 
my point. At that time, to be anything but a strict Anglican was a problem. Now, many conservatives are arguing for an increased dose of faith-based government, and I don't like it--because it rings too many historical bells.

LuvRPgirl brought up Newton and da Vinci, not me. She gave Newton as an example of a brilliant scientist who was a Christian. I responded that he had to hide his true views, because of exactly the type of religious privilege that she and many others here seem to want to spread, under the banner of "Traditional Values." As opposed to traditional values, I like secular humanism, the current term for Enlightenment thinking, which sought to keep religion in its place while relying on science, technology, and fairness in the law to move society forward.

Mariner.
 
Mariner said:
... we shouldn't forget the long history of religions persecuting scientific heretics, which to me is one of the best reasons to support a secular government.

Mariner

Please name the secular governmental system under which you would have flourished to the degree you do today, along with a list of it's accomplishments.

I hate to keep repeating myself, but I want to give you every opportunity possible to understand this: Man's understanding of Christian principle - as it relates to temporal governance - was an evolving proposition. As a human enterprise, it was - necessarily - fraught with imperfection. However, he finally got it right - approximately 229.5 years ago. If you're still confused about the outcome, here's a clue: you're living in it, and enjoying it's blessings.
 
Mariner said:
my point. At that time, to be anything but a strict Anglican was a problem. Now, many conservatives are arguing for an increased dose of faith-based government, and I don't like it--because it rings too many historical bells.

LuvRPgirl brought up Newton and da Vinci, not me. She gave Newton as an example of a brilliant scientist who was a Christian. I responded that he had to hide his true views, because of exactly the type of religious privilege that she and many others here seem to want to spread, under the banner of "Traditional Values." As opposed to traditional values, I like secular humanism, the current term for Enlightenment thinking, which sought to keep religion in its place while relying on science, technology, and fairness in the law to move society forward.

Mariner.

Conservatives are only saying that religious groups may have a positive role in public life. You will never be forced to convert, and you will always be allowed to be a hindu. And if you want to put together a Hindu charity group which can demonstrate a service to society, you may be able to get a seat at the table to integrate your services with government and other ngo's. I don't see the horror. you've just ingested the underlying christian hate, placed into our society by academics who may have been smart, but were morally debased, and hateful.
 
LuvRPgrl said:
You continue to ignore my question. If the 1st Amendment doesnt allow States to establish religion, then why did the same men who wrote and signed the amendment also make laws within their States establishing religions?

I guess you know more of what they intended than they did :)

You keep talking out of your ass.

Virginia had a state religion (Church of England). It was disestablished 2 years before the Bill of Rights was ratified.

Perhaps someone should introduce you to the concept of a CALENDAR.

That answer your question? :rolleyes:
 
musicman said:
Please do me the courtesy of actually reading my posts before you respond.



Is this your sly attempt at constructing a straw man? It's really hard to tell; you've brought the intelligence level of this discussion down so far - so fast - that I think my ears just popped.
Riiiiight.

So according to you, certain aspects of the first amendment only apply to the federal government, and other aspects apply to all levels of government, and me simply pointing this out is a "sly attempt at constructing a straw man."

So that's a not so sly attempt at dodging the issue.
 
Max Power said:
Riiiiight.

So according to you, certain aspects of the first amendment only apply to the federal government, and other aspects apply to all levels of government,

Right.

Max Power said:
and me simply pointing this out is a "sly attempt at constructing a straw man."

I originally thought so, but I guess I was wrong. You're really just that ignorant of the Constitution. I apologize.
 
Max Power said:
Riiiiight.

So according to you, certain aspects of the first amendment only apply to the federal government, and other aspects apply to all levels of government, and me simply pointing this out is a "sly attempt at constructing a straw man."

So that's a not so sly attempt at dodging the issue.

http://www.rif.org
 
musicman said:
Right.



I originally thought so, but I guess I was wrong. You're really just that ignorant of the Constitution. I apologize.
Still dodging the issue, I see.

WHy dont you explain why it is that the states are not bound by the establishment clause, but are bound by other parts of the 1st amendment?
 
rtwngAvngr said:
What was heresy then, was the difference between being a methodist and a presbyterian today. He was a christian. Can you get this concept? It's already been explained to you at least once that I've seen.

EXACTLY.

Newton was a strong, Bible-believing Christian. Heresy is a loaded term, and as I said above, is being used misleadingly. It just kills the Christophobes that one of the most incredible scientists of all time was a devout Christian, even though he has been gone for almost 300 years.

Here's a virtual kiss (or hug, whichever you prefer) for being so astute. :clap:
 
Abbey Normal said:
EXACTLY.

Newton was a strong, Bible-believing Christian. Heresy is a loaded term, and as I said above, is being used misleadingly. It just kills the Christophobes that one of the most incredible scientists of all time was a devout Christian, even though he has been gone for almost 300 years.

Here's a virtual kiss (or hug, whichever you prefer) for being so astute. :clap:

Excellent!!! Bravo to you and RW
 
musicman said:
No - they came here to escape religious persecution and oppression from government. Ultimately, their system of government protected religious freedom FROM government - government being recognized as the danger. As badly as the concept of "separation of church and state" has been mangled by agenda-wielding secularists, its true purpose has always been the protection of religious freedom.



Nope - upon the orders of a corrupt and apostate Catholic Church, seeking to stamp out the Protestant Reformation. How far can one possibly stray from Christianity's bedrock principle - the free agency of man - than, "worship this way or I'll kill you?" Sheesh - they sound like Muslims - or Democrats.


Music man, isnt it amazing how these same screamers for freedom, freedom, FREEDOM! are also the same ones who love to bitch about God allowing us to choose sin? Irony or what?
 
Mariner said:
my point. At that time, to be anything but a strict Anglican was a problem. Now, many conservatives are arguing for an increased dose of faith-based government, and I don't like it--because it rings too many historical bells.

LuvRPgirl brought up Newton and da Vinci, not me. She gave Newton as an example of a brilliant scientist who was a Christian. I responded that he had to hide his true views, because of exactly the type of religious privilege that she and many others here seem to want to spread, under the banner of "Traditional Values." As opposed to traditional values, I like secular humanism, the current term for Enlightenment thinking, which sought to keep religion in its place while relying on science, technology, and fairness in the law to move society forward.

Mariner.

First off, she is a he. Im a he.

second, the reason I brought up Newton is because some like to claim that Christianity is so idiotic, yet Newton believed it.

Third, the founding Fathers of this country didnt want the type of ONE GOVERNMENT forces everyone to practice one FEDERALLY established religion. But they saw a need for a balance. NO RELIGION and the govt would be powerless, TOO MUCH CENTRAL control was dangerous also, and not what they wanted. THE ENTIRE DEBATE around the Constitution, which lasted for about 15 years was ONLY about states rights vs. federal rights. The bill of rights was designed to LIMIT the scope of power of the FEDS, and distill EXACTLY what their authority was.

Then all other govt powers, INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO HAVE A LEGALLY AND OFFICIALLY ESTABLISHED RELIGION, would automatically default to the states.

At first, the Articles of Confederation simply didnt give enough authority to the federal govt, and the country was languishing. So they had a Constitutional Convention and came up with todays document, that gave more power to the Feds.

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, did they intend, claim or state in the CONSTITUTION, that govt was to be free of religion. In fact, they all stated quite the opposite in all their writings. The overwhelmingly perponderous of internal and external evidence ALL points to the FACTS that they wanted, created, and allowed STATE sponsored religions in the individual states, [/B]PRIOR TO, DURING, AND AFTER THE DRAFTING, VOTING AND RATIFICATION AND INSTILLED IN LAW the Constitution.

STATE sponsored religion was always their intent, and NO FEDERAL authority was allowed to prevail over the STATES being able to make their own choices.

AGAIN, I ASK MAXI PAD, EXPLAIN HOW THE FRAMERS AND SIGNERS OF THE CONSTITUTION COULD INTEND FOR THEIR TO BE NO STATE SPONSORED RELIGION AT ANY LEVEL OF GOVT, THEN GO BACK TO THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES AND CREATE LAWS DOING
EXACTLY THAT
 
Max Power said:
You keep talking out of your ass.

Virginia had a state religion (Church of England). It was disestablished 2 years before the Bill of Rights was ratified.

Perhaps someone should introduce you to the concept of a CALENDAR.

That answer your question? :rolleyes:

NO, I wasnt talking about Virginia. I was talking about the states that had official state sponsored religions past 1789. Pennsylvania for example.

If you want to claim there were none, you cant prove it by only pointing out one.
 
Max Power said:
Riiiiight.

So according to you, certain aspects of the first amendment only apply to the federal government, and other aspects apply to all levels of government, and me simply pointing this out is a "sly attempt at constructing a straw man."

So that's a not so sly attempt at dodging the issue.

Legally, technically and their intent was that it would apply ONLY to the federal govt, yes.
 
Max Power said:
Still dodging the issue, I see.

WHy dont you explain why it is that the states are not bound by the establishment clause, but are bound by other parts of the 1st amendment?

When the Constitution specifically states, "congress shall make no law"
then it is referring to a restriction on the federal level only. If it says "no laws shall be passed that will...." then it would refer to every level of govt.

Now, please show me where ALL the states rescinded their official state sanctioned religions prior to the signing of the COTUS. 1789.

The irony of all this is that its the secular liberals that deny us rights afforded by the COTUS, how they do it is not by passing laws, but by passing rules and regulations in areas that one is bascially forced to participate in.

For example, if I want to run an ad in the local newspaper, the govt agency that regulates the paper, wont allow an ad to say something like "ideal for a single mother" because it discriminates based on gender. Its their back door way of gaining control and restricting our freedoms. Now the libs will claim, oh, but preventing discrimination is good! But in the long run, giving this authority to govt will bite them in the ass, as we all know, that eventually they will abuse that power.

I fear the local govt authorities who can regulate me much more than any presidents.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top