Christianity
The United States Constitution and its Preamble makes no references to a God or any Supreme Being. It is primarily a secular document, yet the State Constitutions and Preambles of all 50 states refer to a God or Supreme Being.
Are all there states defying the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights which states that no one religion shall be held in favor over any other religions?
The Preamble or the United States Constitution does not assign any powers to any entity within the United States other than “We the People of the United States!” Our founding fathers were primarily Christians but did not come to the new land seeking to begin another Christian nation - this strictness is what they were fleeing from, they came to start a new nation based upon religious freedom.
The United States was not constituted in any way to form a Christian nation and never was meant to be, although many allowances have been made in the name of Christianity!
This letter has not been edited.
very true, Joe - and many of our founding fathers - including Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Thomas Paine, John Adams and Washington made very scathing comments about religion - especially Christianity.
"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error
all over the earth." - Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363.)
I addressed you as "Joe" - apologies, Jon.
Posted by drew on August 14, 2007 01:44 PMJon,
It is not necessary to be a Christian to believe in God. Most religions believe in a Creator of the universe in some fashion as did the founders.
Many of the founders were religious (Washington) while other were not religious (Franklin, Jefferson) but believed in a Creator or supreme being. That approach is loosely described as Deism.
This belief in a supreme being is why the Declaration of Independence asserts
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --
Establishing that rights are endowed by God (not other men) and the just role of government is to secure those rights.
"Are all there states defying the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights which states that no one religion shall be held in favor over any other religions?"
The first ammendment applies to the federal Congress:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..
In theory States could establish a religion if they choose. None have because it is widely accpeted that religion andstate should be separate.
Whis is a Christian lesson taught by a Jew in the parable of the coin.
Posted by James Jones on August 14, 2007 02:46 PMKeep religion out of politics. God has not blessed America. Look at the Mid-East to see how a "Christian nation" would look like. Christianity - Islam is like tomato-tomatoe. They both worship the same psychotic, misogynistic, boorish, violent and just plain mean God.
Go secular humanism and release us from the tyranny of religion.
Why can't eveyone just have their own beliefs? This is America right? I'm thinking Sean is a commie.
Posted by on August 14, 2007 03:19 PMHear, hear, There is nothing in the constitution that says we have to pay income taxes either! Shhh don't tell the IRS!
Oops they already know!
Mr. Takata MONEY is America's God isn't it??
So, what's the beef??
We ALL need our God!!
Posted by A on August 14, 2007 03:29 PMLaughable Christians, the only religion that can feel themselves persecuted even though they make up 80 percent of this country.
I can't wait till the "War on Christmas" starts and the weep and sob stories start coming because some Xmas parade did not have a cross in it.
Hey if you want to worship some God that is modeled after Zeus and waste your Sunday mornings listening to a preacher scream at you that because you took some candy from a store at the age of 5 without paying Jesus had to die a terrible death go ahead. This is America after all.
Sean,
Per 3.44. Yes, this is America and you are free to insult the religious and mock religion with impunity.
Per 3.09 No, governance in the middle east is somewhat different in that it's a lot less tolerant.
Do you not believe what you told us at 3.09 or are you are banking on your anonymity to protect you from the wrath of the Christian tyrants?
I am standing by my comment that Christians and Muslims worship the same violent God, albeit in different ways. The God of Abraham sure attracts those who are willing to kill in his name. But thanks to secular humanism, the West has stopped killing in the name of God, well mostly, centuries ago. Believe me, the Mid-East needs a big dose of secularism. And the US needs to be ever vigilant and keep those who blame everything from hurricanes to terrorist attacks on homosexuals out of any sort of political office.
Posted by Sean on August 14, 2007 04:39 PMI entered Sunday school and faced a life-size portrait of Jesus crucified, dripping blood, twisted with agony. I could hardly bear to sit before this dismal icon. I learned that God, whom I thought one could trust, not only decreed this hideous death for his allegedly beloved son, but also decree that his worshipers had to become cannibals and eat him. Even though his flesh and blood were made to look like bread and wine, we were assured that they remained essentially flesh and blood. The idea made me vaguely nauseous.
I wanted to know why, if God was so all merciful and all-powerful, did he have to make Jesus die before he was willing to forgive anybody? Why not just forgive everybody right off? For that matter, why did he create hell in the first place? I wanted to know why God was so mean to his children, to make them suffer eternities of pain for an offense coming by a remote ancestor. It wasn’t my idea of justice; no human being that I knew would be that cruel. This is exactly why the biblical or any god does not exist: No god can be that cruel.
Moreover, this was the same God who allegedly told us to love our enemies, and be kind to those who were unkind to us. “It seemed that even gods ought to practice what they preach,” said Robert Ingersoll.
I began to think of God as some sort of celestial lunatic, certainly not to be trusted. My Sunday school teacher evaded all my questions and even scolded me for asking them; so one of the things I learned in Sunday school was that God will not explain himself, even though he purportedly wants humans to know all about him. I like how Ingersoll describes the Trinity:
“Christ, according to the faith, is the second person in the Trinity, the Father being the first and the Holy Ghost the third. Each of these persons is God. Christ is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both. The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten--just the same before as after. So, it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, and that these three Gods make one God. According to the celestial multiplication table, once one is three, and three times one is one, and according to heavenly subtraction, if we take two from three, three are left. The addition is equally peculiar, if we add two to one, we have but one. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the Trinity.”
Seeking further solutions to the puzzles of religion, in my teens I set myself to read the bible all the way through, three times. Thus I learned that god didn’t really like people at all. Though he claimed to have created them, he frequently destroyed whole populations at a time, setting one tribe against another and fomenting ruthless wars with casualties in the hundreds of thousands. It made me wonder; what ever happened to “Thou shalt not kill”? He forbade any show of mercy, and according to First Samuel demanded the slaughter of “man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” Even worse than the killing of innocent people, I thought, was the killing of helpless animals that couldn’t even understand the issues.
Therefore, our Founding Fathers gave the birdie to this Jew "from the loins of David" transmogrified into an anti-Semitic Christian God so evil that he plans on holy genocide that today would send six billion humans into hell.
If you are not Catholic you will go to hell; if you are not born again you will go to hell; if you are not Christian you will go to hell. How can intelligent humans believe this crap? In the meantime, Nancy Pelosi, Bush, the Supremes along with the bulk of Congress and perhaps the judiciary are eating it.
Our Founding Fathers were not crap-eating; with exception, all were deist.
We need to start amending God out of those State Constitutions immediately. Let's start here in Colorado! Thanks for the inspiration.
Posted by Charles B on August 14, 2007 05:18 PMSean
So truth be told you don't expect to find yourself chained upside down in a dank basement, forced to repeat the Apostle's Creed while listening to Pat Boone on account of your mocking Christians.
You would suffer a much worse fate in many middle eastern countries for less.
The great mass murderers from the French revolution, through the Holocaust and the Gulags and the Cultural Revolution, down to the Killing Fields, were secular humanists.
No - Bolshevism and the Third Reich were not Christian religious movements despite what you may read on this page.
Posted by James Jones on August 14, 2007 05:53 PMThe only thing I fear from modern day Christians is that they will break the little feet off of my Darwin "Fish that Evolved legs" on the back of my car. Or maybe key the paint around my pro choice bumper sticker.
The Middle East needs a renaissance, and secular humanism in its best form. JJ all those murderers you mentioned might have been secular, but they were not humanists. Not even close.
I always questioned the religious idea of Eden. There we have a couple having recreational sex without issue. (Don`t you just love that term, issue?).
Eve must have had a womb though, because as soon as they leave the garden, she gets pregnant.
Imagine that, a womb in a woman never designed to have babies.
A womb that was unused until they left the garden, and Adam you will note, was not so broke up over the eviction that he stopped wanting sex.
Out of the garden with all the wild beasts now trying to eat them, rather then standing in line for a name, and Adam STILL wants sex.
I think Eve talked to the snake because Adam was so boring. And Eden was such a sterile environment. No kids, no mom or pop, no family and nothing to do but eat raw fruit, f--- and name animals.
Put me in the same place and I would start talking to snakes too.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 14, 2007 09:27 PMI present to you Exhibit A: the first foreign policy of the fledgling United States of America, the Treaty of Tripoli 1796.
It is a fascinating look at the insight of the our Founding Fathers and their views on the place religion had in the American government.
The treaty itself was written in Arabic to form an alliance with Tripoli of Barbery and in Article 11 the treaty states: " As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...."
Now what the hell does that mean? It means EXACTLY what it says, that the American government isn't based on the Christian religion.
History 101 America!
EVE WAS FRAMED!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by pagen on August 15, 2007 05:14 AMWhat I always find interesting is how Adam and Eve (yeah, yeah, we know, "not Adam and Steve") are touted as the model heterosexual couple, even though they were the ones who got the human race kicked out of paradise (although you'd think God would get over that by now: to this very, babies are still said to be born with "original sin," which hardly seems fair).
Not that I'm suggesting we'd still be in paradise if it had been Adam and Steve, mind you, but the question remains: if the primary biological purpose of humans is procreation (which didn't seem to have been explained to A & E), why were the next two people a pair of guys? (It was Cain and Abel, not Jane and Abel.)
Of course, it's equally amazing that adult people in this day and age still devoutly believe that was the origin of the human species.
Perhaps modern-day Christians will attain more Chredibility (sorry) from the wicked "secular humanists"--who, they claim, would deny them their "place at the table" (not true: what's being questioned is whether that proverbial place is at the head)--when they return their focus from political power to the tenets of their own faith.
Yeah, I can't wait for the annual "war on Christmas" nonsense, either (yes, I can), which has become as seasonal as eggnog and just about as nauseating.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on August 15, 2007 07:38 AM"The Middle East needs a renaissance, and secular humanism in its best form. JJ all those murderers you mentioned might have been secular, but they were not humanists. Not even close."
"Humanism is the denial of God and the total affirmation of man. Humanism is really nothing else but Marxism." Karl Marx
So how is it that Stalin is "not even close" to being a humanist?
If you are responsible for the murder of 20 million people then you don't get to be in the club anymore? Is this how it works?
1965
Joseph Stalin
The Kremlin
Moscow, USSR
Mr. Stalin,
As Sergeant-at-Arms for the Boulder Humanist Society Watch Association (BHSWA) I am writing to tell you that you are no longer a Humanist because we are really mad at you. Why, you ask? Because it has come to our attention theat you are responsible for the death of 20 million people according to an article we saw in Newsweek magazine.
Now as you know Humanists only do good things. Killing 20 million people is a very bad thing to do and so that's why we are kicking you out. So we took a vote and you lost (5-3). It was pretty close but you still lost.
We know you passed away and died 12 years ago but in our opinion that is no excuse for the bad, bad thing you have done.
So in short - you're out and so you can't just go around saying you are a Humanist any more.
No hard feelings or anything but that's just the way it has to be.
Best Regards to Your Family
Sharon B,
PS. - Is it cold where you are?
Posted by James Jones on August 15, 2007 07:50 AMjust wondering why Christianity is outlawed, wondering why an Islamic school is funded by the state, meditation rooms at taxpayer expenses built, so we don't offend Muslims...why gay rights is such a big hot button, so we don't offend gays.., no nativity scenes, no saying Merry Christmas during Christmas...Apparently the only religion or belief that's a problem is Christianity. If you're a pagan, a Muslim or Earth Worshiper, you are free to do what you want here in our country..just don't utter the word Jesus.
I want a world where men and women marry and have children and I don't have to explain to my child why her friend has a dad and a dad both named Bob, where I don't need to deal with the lunacy of backing a terrorist religion such as Islam, and where strong values of "goodness" prevail. It's sad that the secular progressive , faith booing crowd have seized power...and force their STATE religion of paganism, Islam and Environmentalism down our throats and against 80% of the population. In the spirit of freedom, you have the minority running things...away from God and away from basic values that , prior to the hippie, feminist atheist movements..kept our societies safe and fruitful.
James Jones.
First you cite the word creator, which is the intentional, carefully chosen word in the constitution and in the next instant, insisting that means the same thing as God or a supreme being, thereby changing the meaning of the initial intent. Creator is a noun, Create is a verb and Creativity is an adjective. God is a noun and there is no verb or adjective tense for it.. Creativity is not a synonym for God or Supreme Being and can mean everything from evolutionary progress over millions of years to devine creation a few thousand years ago, depending on your belief.
States cannot establish a religion because the constitution says that is not the intent of the law and, federal law supercedes state law regarding constitutional law because all constitutional law cannot be violated by any state.
It is clear that the institution of the creator's law is not the work of the creator but rather the government and, it is also clear that the people are the govenment.
The coin analogy says render unto God that which is God's, and render unto Caesar that which is Caesor's. Meaning what is God's is spiritual and what is Caesar's is material. That was the distinction meant. God, in the Chistian sense is eternal, therefor spiritual, whereas a coin is non-eternal, therefor materiaI. In anycase, when religion and govenment are combined, history proves the only result is chaos resulting inevitability in the distruction of both. Even the most zealous religions recognize that spititual teachings do not prepare one for business understanding and business teachings do not prepare on for spiritual understanding. Any society that refuses to recognize this is doom to internal strife, mayhem, murder, genocide and all other social injustice.
Witness Irag, Iran and the rest of the islamic societies which live under governments based on religious dictations. They know that if they are to survive, no knowledge but what the religious authorities teach can be tolerated lest the people gain control of their own destinies and the freedom that goes with it.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 15, 2007 08:04 AMJames Jones assertion that the states are free to establish a religion has a problem in the form of the fourteenth amendment which has been interpreted to incorporate aspects of the Bill of Rights and apply them to the states.
The following is from an article at http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Incorporation
One of the greatest changes in the interpretation of the Constitution came with the passage of the 14th Amendment after the conclusion of the Civil War. It was designed to assist newly freed slaves in the transition to freedom and to protect them from acts of the Southern states, and also to overturn the decision in the Dred Scott case that ruled that persons of African descent could not be citizens of the United States even if they were born in the United States. The amendment was successful in this endeavor, legally, if not in reality.
But this sentence had and continues to have long-lasting implications on the application of the Bill of Rights to the states:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The "Privileges and Immunities Clause" has been interpreted as applying the Bill of Rights, which lists the privileges and immunities of the citizens, to the states. Known as "incorporation," the application of the Bill to the states did not come all at once, nor was it complete. Even today, there are some parts of the Bill which have not been incorporated. The process began unsuccessfully in the late 1800's and continued unsuccessfully right up until the 1930's. In 1947, however, in Adamson v. California (332 U.S. 46 [1947]), the Supreme Court began to accept the argument that the 14th Amendment requires the states to follow the protections of the Bill of Rights."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The evolution of the first amendment is interesting. Some readers might find the following, from http://www.religioustolerance.org/amend_1.htm , to be of interest:
______________________________________________
"The text of the First Amendment:
Some early draft amendments to the religion section were:
James Madison, 1789-JUN-7 "The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."
House Select Committee, JUL-28 "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed,"
Samuel Livermore, AUG-15 "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience."
House version, AUG-20 "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." (Moved by Fisher Ames)
Initial Senate version, SEP-3 "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Final Senate version, SEP-9 "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
Conference Committee "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The final wording was accepted by the House of Representatives on 1789-SEP-24; and by the Senate on 1789-SEP-25. It was ratified by the States in 1791."
_____________________________________________
Posted by Truth on August 15, 2007 08:27 AMToday a State could not establish a religion because of, among other things, the 14th Ammendment.
However, the Constitution as originally legislated with the Bill of Rights did not make State establishment unconstitutional.
But the point is moot.
It is widely understood by both the religious and the non-religious, that the Church and the State must be separate to ensure liberty. (Which by the way is a Christian teaching) Incorportation of Church and State corrupts both.
There probably is a group out there somewhere pushing for a theocracy based on some religion. I am not personally aware of any.
If so, they have a negligible constituency and the concern voiced on this page is not proportionate to the threat.
Posted by James Jones on August 15, 2007 08:50 AMMr. Campbell,
The use of the word Creator in the Declaration is a specific rejection of Humanism. It's really not more complicated then that.
The modern (19th Century onward) threat to liberty is that Humanism has become a religion that comes in under the safeguards simply because it denies God or, the Author of the Universe, the Designer, the Creator.
The Founder's believed that human rights are endowed by Nature's God or whatever term you prefer.
The Founder's point is that rights are not man-made and are not a gift of some benevolent government.
Posted by James Jones on August 15, 2007 09:01 AMCharles B. One of the few times I agree!
But, Tax free status should go first.
AF
James Jones keeps bringing out the old Stalin and Mao card and states they killed many more people than religion ever has, which is true, but that hardly makes religion seem better.
I can compare Charles Manson to Joseph Stalin and say Manson is not as bad as Stalin because Manson "only" killed 15 people while Stalin is responsible for millions of deaths.
When you compare anything to Hitler, Mao and Stalin of course that which is being compared will come out looking better. But when you make such comparisons, you are setting the bar pretty low.
Sean,
There is more to it than comparing individual cases.
I am pointing to a trend which began, for all intents and purposes, at the time of the French Revolution and continued through the 20th Century.
The current Islaomfascism affords a look back 5-6 centuries into time and is a separate threat which has to be dealt with on its own merits.
The greatest threat to human liberty over the past century , and the greatest threat to liberty in the US, is humanism - not religion.
Posted by James Jones on August 15, 2007 10:25 AMMany of our Founding Fathers were Deists because of the argument of design. They were not around when Darwin came up with Evolution by Natural Selection. I'm quite sure that Franklin and Jefferson would have quickly dropped all pretext of religion if Darwin had been around 100 years earlier.
Part of the reason that religion was separated from state was the early history of the colonies. Several colonies were religious in nature and whenever there was a disagreement, one group would go off and create another state (see Rhode Island). Not the way to run a new country.
Hitler praised his Catholic origins in Mein Kampf, shut down the National Freethinker's Hall, executed one of it's leaders and turned the building into a church advisory board. He also tried to create a new Christianity where Jesus was an Aryan executed by Jews. All German soldiers wore a belt buckle with the Nazi emblem and the phrase "Gott mit uns" = God with us.
Stalin realized how closely the Greek Orthodox Church was tied to the Russian Czar (Divine Right of Kings and all that) and that was part of his crackdown on religion during his rule. The other was that he was a meglomanical power hungry sadist. His atheism had nothing to do with it anymore than the people who use religion to secure their own power.
Posted by Roger on August 15, 2007 10:39 AMThe greatest threat to Western values now is religion. The Western world as pretty much conquered the tyranny of communism and fascism.
Secular humanism reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation. Those are not the values communism and fascism.
If it were not for humanism, the Western world would not be much different from the Islamic world, it would still be locked in a feudal society where rulers get their authority from divine right and force their subjects to worship the way they want, much like in Islamic countries.
It is by no means a coincidence that the rate of scientific discovery and achievement coincides with the lowering of religion's influence in Western society. Look at the Islamic culture, the last great discovery to come out of there was algebra, which came out around the 11th Century. T
I would much rather live in a society governed by elected officials than one that is ruled by a man in a pointy hat or a man who wears pajamas and a towel over is head. Democracy is yet another product of humanism.
James Jones: "the Church and the State must be separate to ensure liberty. (Which by the way is a Christian teaching)"
Given the history of the medieval church, that is a ridiculous statement.
Posted by Truth on August 15, 2007 10:54 AMThanks Rocky Mountain News for this forum.
Posted by RG r22037@yahoo Deicide and *Risen Ape http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think.html on August 15, 2007 10:58 AMHi Jonesy,
Thanks for the comic relief, and the belly laugh for the morning.
As usual you are “theorizing” from absolutely no facts. But, then the Wizard of Oz was also full of smoke and mirrors, and loud noise to distract from mis-direction; and you do so love to imitate him. Brings back that wonderful ditty from the movie, with the line “Gee, what a whiz of a whiz he is”. And you are one of the most wonderful whizzes on the blog.
Only in the wilds of your fantastic imagination do we find the “theory” that the Constitution applies only to the acts of Congress; and that States could establish a religion if they wanted to.
I have often attempted to get you to read a text – realizing that being a whiz of a whiz, you have already pronounced historical information as “incorrect”, wherever it disagrees with one of your fairy tales. But, for the benefit of those who do live in reality, I once again offer:
CASES ON CHURCH AND STATE, A Harvard Casebook, Harvard University Press.
And, of course, a more recent work: John F. Wilson and Donald Drakeman, CHURCH AND STATE IN AMERICAN HISTORY, MJF Books, New York, NY, Copyright 2003.
Oh! But I see that, as usual, you have changed your tune – and your “theory” – as you went along. Which in right in line with your usual insistence that taking the work of someone who writes what agrees with whatever be your current imagination makes it the “definitive work” as to the meaning of what has been discussed in the writing.
You quote Karl Marx; and for you, that is the “definition” of Humanism. Ah well, let’s go into your fabulous world, Dear whiz of a whiz; and apply your own premises:
One of Hitler’s little farts, now squatting on the throne in Rome, has proclaimed that HIS religion is the ONLY true and correct one; and that any and all other religions are “defective”; and that believing what HE tells you is the ONLY way to "rightly follow God”. Using your methods, this must now be the “definition” of Religion, i.e., whatever Ratzinger says it is.
Gee! Isn’t that fun? Who wants to just have to “live in Kansas”? Or anywhere else in the REAL world?
As to the rest of your presence on this, or any other line:
Here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush;
Here we go round the mulberry bush, all the rest of this posting.
James Jones says this; but he doesn’t say that. Or was it that, not this?
He doesn’t remember. But you must be wrong.
He meant it was neither. You must go along,
Or, “You can't understand me”, he says with a hiss.
Oh! Left is right; and upwards is down. Or is it turn-about?
And all of them do go round and round;
Spinning and twirling all over the ground;
And through the air too, you may have no doubt.
Don’t bother with logic in answer to him. He knows none from the start.
Context means nothing when he doth pronounce
Judgments on meaning, and then doth denounce
Any, and all, who would from HIS words depart.
He's always right. He's never wrong. No matter what YOU say.
He always make sense, and takes great offense
At any suggestion He's the slightest bit dense,
HIS writings trump yours, and all the rest, in every possible way.
Here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush;
Here we go round the mulberry bush; JAMES JONES is doing the posting.
Very truly yours,
Larry, Curley, and Moe,
The Three Stooges
Oh! And, just by the way, it was Ratzinger's predecessor, Pacelli, who actually maneuvered the politics of Germany to put Hitler in power. Vide: John Cornwell, HITLER'S POPE, Viking Compass Press, Penguin Books. Which is a work I am sure you have never read, and most probably will never read. But then again, it does document history in the REAL WORLD, rather than merely cater to whatever might be happening in your imagination.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 15, 2007 11:02 AMDo you really want to live under fundamentalist christian control here in the USA? I think not. See what it would be like below.
Posted by ww on August 15, 2007 11:18 AMJames Jones
"The great mass murderers from the French revolution, through the Holocaust and the Gulags and the Cultural Revolution, down to the Killing Fields, were secular humanists." - That gave me a huge belly laugh!
Now Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot , Mao & the French revolutionaries were "secular humanists?" I suggest JJ that you do a little more reading on history & philosophy.
You will find that secular humanism upholds REASON, ETHICS & JUSTICE and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making. Secular humanism focuses on the way human beings can lead GOOD and happy lives (eupraxsophy).
This explains why many people who don't subscribe to religion can be deemed as morally superior to many who claim to have a hotline to Jesus, but are also cheating others, lying and in some instances, molesting kids.
But if you can tie the killing fields of Cambodia to the philosophy of secular humanism then you are either very confused or very desperate to defend your increasingly indefensible religion. And incidentally, JJ, someone who doesn't believe in God isn't automatically a secular humanist. I think you've been taken in by too much BS from the pulpit on a Sunday morning.
Posted by drew on August 15, 2007 11:22 AMt said:
"...force their STATE religion of paganism, Islam and Environmentalism down our throats and against 80% of the population. In the spirit of freedom, you have the minority running things...away from God and away from basic values that , prior to the hippie, feminist atheist movements..kept our societies safe and fruitful."
Yup I go to a State church every Sunday - we wear turbans, praise Allah, kiss the earth, prostrate ourselves at the Al Gore shrine & then get naked and chant about the Great Earth Mother. Oh, and we force 80% of the people in the neighborhood to go & people who don't take part in the service are forced to go to labor camps in a red state while chanting "down with God!"
Geez - and I thought Keith was nuts!
Posted by drew on August 15, 2007 11:37 AMRG thanks OG while thinking that Pacelli loved Hitler since he was killing all the Christ killer Jews, the godless Communists the Gypsies who despised the Church, and Hitler took pleasure in killing gay people which any-one genocide translates into excommunication which the Catholic Taliban never imposed on its stellar German citizen. Pope Rat, et al, present Saint Pacelli: They are canonizing or practicing man-made evolution to create a saint just as they practiced transmogrification to create a god out of a Jew "from the loins of David." Damn those intelligent humans who embrace such crap whereas the ignorant get a free pass by virtue of their credulous capacity.
Posted by RG Risen Ape on August 15, 2007 11:39 AMdrew,
The easiest way to deal with James Jones is to recognize that you are dealing with a personal form of religion, a belief system. This belief system stems from an extremely over-simplistic view of everything, one in which there is only black and white, with no possibliity of anything approaching a "gray scale", or any othr form of "chromatic " approach to life.
When Jones expresses a fixed idea, THAT is the way "things are". Nevr mind any form of evidence to the contrary. Indeed - as he has often expressed - any evidence to the contrary is always "incorrect". Indeed it MUST BE ":incorrect", since the fixed idea, in and of itself - no matter how absured - IS the only allowable expression, and judgment in and of the belief.
Belief systems, by their very nature, are not debateable. Nor can they deal with - or be dealt with - any from of reasonable discussion, dissent, or contradiction. Any, and all, assertions in a belief system MUST BE accepted, on a total "as is" basis; since the believer is not only the author of the system but its final authority on how to interpret and present everything contained in the belief system as well, a form of infallibility which then extends to every other area of life.
Belief systems cannot, and do not, allow for complexity. When something is stated as being "thus and so", it MUST BE "thus and so". And nowhere is this more clearly evident in everything Jones presents than in his absolute inability to consider that ideas and schools of thought are not necessarily mutually exclusive; as well as in his absolute inability to recognize that individuals may actually be able to express, and understand, - as well as hold, on occasion - multiple viewpoints, from different philosophies, at one and the same time.
The example here is Jones's absolute insistence that humanism and athiesm are one and the same thing. Coupled with his absured inclusion of a number of religions under the heading of "atheism" - Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, among them - his equal insistance upon using a neologism, "nontheist", as absolute synonym for "atheism" gives further evidence of his deteriorating ability to even begin to know, much less understand, what logic, reason, judgment, or disscussion really are.
His other confabulations, and simplistic insistence upon his labels actually fixing what the individual is - or was in history - in simplistic whole, without any considration of complex responses to differing stimuli and different situations, all go to show the continuing departure from reality, into a world of total make-believe that accompanies the deterioration of reason, and the descent into the final stages of infantilism and the accompanying delusions of omnipotence and omniscience of that state.
To take him seriously, is to waste time, energy, and effort trying to enter another person's fairy-tale belief system. And that, of course, is up to the individual to decide.
However, he is a whiz of a whiz; sometimes lots of fun; and a good comic relief; and we wouldn't want the forum to lose that aspect of its daily interest.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 15, 2007 03:09 PMJJ, I was going to answer your post, the one where you put Marx up as the authority on Secular Humanism, but I see that all my Knights have ridden to my rescue once again and it is not necessary for me to post and point out all your mistakes.
Love your letter to Marx, send copies to all the other wolves in Secular Humanist clothing please.
Sorry, Satan had to refund the tickets for the ice show, everything melted.
JJ, I really do like you. And that is not a joke.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 15, 2007 03:17 PM"Skull Suggests Two Early Humans Lived at Same Time"--headline, FoxNews.com, Aug. 8
Posted by KW on August 15, 2007 03:22 PMKW, two species, not to adult humans. All this will shake down into the correct place thanks to scientists and not to "believers"
Evolution is perfect, the study of evolution is self correcting. Religion never corrects itself unless outsiders make it i.e. Catholic church on Galileo.
Sigh, sigh, sigh. Goddess this is tough mucking.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 15, 2007 04:35 PMIt was tongue in cheek Sharon.
Posted by KW on August 15, 2007 05:00 PMSean
Humanism has to be thought of as a religion when the belief in the infallibility and virtue of humanism requires more faith then most religions as your post demonstrates.
“Democracy is yet another product of humanism”
That cannot be true since modern humanism is generally considered have begun with Dante (1265-1321) and Petrarch (1307-74) while Democratic rule dates back to ancient Greece.
“If it were not for humanism, the Western world would not be much different from the Islamic world, it would still be locked in a feudal society where rulers get their authority from divine right and force their subjects to worship the way they want, much like in Islamic countries.”
Humanism was a part and product of the Renaissance. The feudal period of the middle Ages had already ended due to other forces.
“Those are not the values communism and fascism”
Not only did Marx think that "Humanism is the denial of God and the total affirmation of man. Humanism is really nothing else but Marxism." But also Gus Hall, General Secretary of the United States Communist Party, said, "I represent another Humanist Association--the Communist Party. For we who are Communist definitely believe in Humanism."
I can understand how a humanist might disassociate himself from Marxism but the fact is they seem to identify themselves with you. Complicating matter for the rest of is that most humanists tells us they are not Communist or Socialist also at the same time argue consistently for the expansion of governmental authority (universal health care) as opposed to free market reforms. With that in mind, you need to do more to make the distinctions clear then just dismiss the comparison out of hand.
"It is by no means a coincidence that the rate of scientific discovery and achievement coincides with the lowering of religion's influence in Western society."
The rate of scientific discovery has been growing exponentially over the last century by a good many religious people in the US which was founded on non-humanists principles. Your nexus between humanism and scientific advance stems from the fact that you attribute all good things to humanism and all bad things to religion – nothing more.
Generally you seem to have returned to you original position that there is no social difference between Islam and Christianity. You seem to think that the humanists are somehow keeping the religious fanatics at bay in the US. That is not true.
Pope Benedict recently highlighted the fundamental differences between the religions and took a lot of heat (probably from a lot of humanists) for doing so. This is what Benedict wrote pre 9/11 as a Cardinal.
"From the beginning, Christianity has understood itself as the religion of the Logos, as the religion according to reason…. Today, this should be precisely [Christianity's] philosophical strength, in so far as the problem is whether the world comes from the irrational, and reason is not other than a 'sub-product,' on occasion even harmful of its development -- or whether the world comes from reason, and is, as a consequence, its criterion and goal...In the so necessary dialogue between secularists and Catholics, we Christians must be very careful to remain faithful to this fundamental line: to live a faith that comes from the Logos, from creative reason, and that, because of this, is also open to all that is truly rational."
That disputes your premise that religious belief is anti-reason and anti-intellectual.
Since 9/11, Benedict has been one of the few voices in Europe asking two central questions:
Does the Muslim understanding of Allah allow rational debate about the morality of violence, given that the doctrine of jihad is a central pillar of Islam? If Allah is above reason, might violent jihad, including terrorism, be not merely justifiable but obligatory, as many Muslim scholars argue?
Of course you can list for me all the terrible things that have been done in the name of religion just as I can list for you all the terrible things done in the name of humanism.
The we can tell each other that the terrible things were not true relion/humanism but perversions done by evil men.
But that doesn't really get us very far. Instead the merits of each have to be weighed logically and reasonably for productive discourse to ensue.
Posted by James Jones on August 15, 2007 05:43 PMDrew
This is what I have posted so far in re religion
In theory States could establish a religion if they choose. None have because it is widely accpeted that religion andstate should be separate.
No - Bolshevism and the Third Reich were not Christian religious movements despite what you may read on this page.
It is not necessary to be a Christian to believe in God. Most religions believe in a Creator of the universe in some fashion as did the founders.
It is widely understood by both the religious and the non-religious, that the Church and the State must be separate to ensure liberty. (Which by the way is a Christian teaching) Incorportation of Church and State corrupts both.
The greatest threat to human liberty over the past century , and the greatest threat to liberty in the US, is humanism - not religion.
Now you tell me:
But if you can tie the killing fields of Cambodia to the philosophy of secular humanism then you are either very confused or very desperate to defend your increasingly indefensible religion.
What i am interested in is, how can you read what i wrote and conclude that I am defending my religion?
And incidentally, JJ, someone who doesn't believe in God isn't automatically a secular humanist.
If you want to go to the bonus round you might take a stab at explaining how you came up with that one.
Posted by James Jones on August 15, 2007 05:53 PMSharon B,
Glad you enjoyed the letter but it was written to Stalin not Marx. I always get them confused too.
Probably a good idea to let your Knights point out my mistakes.
JJ, but it was good. KW, sorry love, I really did think you misunderstood, or (misunderestimated) the article.
Evolution is a reasonable, logical explanation the Church actually embraces.
Humanists don`t think that all good things come from humanism. What is a "good thing" oh Martha?
Science disproves religion, remember Ben Franklin and the lightning rod business?
There is naturally an inverse relationship between religious dogma and science.
Think of it as a zero sum game.
Also, when people have more to do than work, sleep and go to church, they get less and less religious with each generation.
If there is a god, science will find her.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 15, 2007 10:49 PMReligion IS the opiate of the masses. It exists for one reason, to teach the 'Have Nots' to not want what the 'Haves' have. to teach the poor that 'good' people dont need money, etc...keep quiet, behave, work for the rich and serve them and in the end after you die you will have an even better life. Helps keep the riff-raff more docile and less threatening. Funny, after every sermon in church about the evils of money, they usually pass the collection plate.
Posted by Good News for Modern Man on August 16, 2007 06:55 AMGood News for Modern Man
Would you describe yourself as a humanist?
Posted by James Jones on August 16, 2007 07:12 AM"The greatest threat to human liberty over the past century , and the greatest threat to liberty in the US, is humanism - not religion."
Well, JJ, given that the underpinnings of secular humanism are REASON, ETHICS & JUSTICE (as I mentioned before) I'd be really interested to hear who all the secular humanists are who are such a huge threat to our liberty? Charles Schultz? Kurt Vonnegut? E.O.Wilson? Guess Snoopy must be a Commie agent & we never knew it.
A secular humanist never flew an airplane into an office tower or burned anyone at the stake or killed their own daughter as an "honor killing" after she was raped.
And please don't tell me again that Hitler, Mao & Pol Pot were secular humanists - that's not even funny, just ignorant.
And you said:
"And incidentally, JJ, someone who doesn't believe in God isn't automatically a secular humanist.
If you want to go to the bonus round you might take a stab at explaining how you came up with that one."
So what JJ - are you saying that people who don't believe in God are secular humanists? If so, I really suggest you check some books out of the library before you put your other foot in your mouth. Secular humanism is an actual philosophy, JJ, not the absence of religion.
Read some works by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens - they make many telling points about how religion has brought our world to the brink of catastrophe.
It's no surprise that the Enlightenment for ushered in by secular humanists (note the term "Enlightenment") - who drove away the misery & darkness of the Dark Ages - you know, the period when the church reigned supreme- and brought in an unprecedented age of learning, scientific advancement & artistic brilliance. Coincidence? I think not.
Posted by drew on August 16, 2007 09:24 AMJJ
"What i am interested in is, how can you read what i wrote and conclude that I am defending my religion?"
You spend the whole thread defending Christianity & attacking humanism & then you ask the above question? Is this a joke, JJ?
Posted by drew on August 16, 2007 09:34 AM"And incidentally, JJ, someone who doesn't believe in God isn't automatically a secular humanist.
If you want to go to the bonus round you might take a stab at explaining how you came up with that one."
So what JJ - are you saying that people who don't believe in God are secular humanists?
No Drew I haven't said that. You just made it up.
If you think I have spent the whole thread defending Christianity then you are delusional and it really makes no difference to you what I post.
Posted by James Jones on August 16, 2007 09:45 AMdrew,
As indicated, Jones is preaching his beliefs. And, as with any form of "missionary activity", it is a matter of accepting the belief-system (self-created form of "religion") or rejecting it. It cannot be debated, since it's premises, by nature, are fixed ideas.
It doesn't matter where the fixed ideas originate - most of Jones's seem to come from scattered readings, here and there, that have, somehow, appealed to his own fantasies and imagination in the first place. As part of the belief-system they HAVE TO BE the "ONLY right" ideas. And, in consequence, ANYTHING that dissents from the fixed ideas - or can be shown to modify them in any way - is, simply, rejected by the belief-system; and by Jones, as its "High Priest, Prophet, Seer, and Revelator".
HE has TOLD YOU what you must accept - or "believe" - and that's that!
Jones doesn't have the ability to comprehend philosophy, nor to actually even begin to understand the complexity of human kind, much less appreciate the reality of Humanism. For him, in his belief-system (self manufactured "religion") there is an equation, i.e., "Humanism = athiesm". This, together with other simplistic - and usually totally invalid - equations, concerning any and all aspects of human history, growth, and development, forms one of the pillars of Jones's form of "faith".
That you, or I, or most basically intelligent people for that matter, might regard this as something resembling the saga of the Wizard of Oz is really not important to Jones. HE is the presenter of HIS belief-system; and everyone else is either a potential "convert", or some kind of "adversary" to be overcome. - or ignored, at least until the time some kind of "Auto da Fe" can be arranged for an "unbeliever/heretic" to the cult of "James Jonesism".
(Just wait till he starts sounding off on the idea of the "human personhood" of a zygote in a petri dish.)
But, he does help to make the forum fun; and he does give great comic relief. And that's why we should all encourage him to keep on keeping on. Everyone needs at least one good belly laugh a day. (Besides which, the old Wizard of Oz was a real classic, and worth bringing to mind today.)
Posted by Old Grouch on August 16, 2007 10:00 AMOk, JJ, then let's try again - and I won't "make things up" this time - I'll just allow you to explain yourself.
I said:
"And incidentally, JJ, someone who doesn't believe in God isn't automatically a secular humanist.
you said:
If you want to go to the bonus round you might take a stab at explaining how you came up with that one."
What does that comment mean, JJ? Since you now claim you are NOT saying that those who don't believe in God are secular humanists? This is getting a lot more convoluted than it should be.
(and thanks for the observations, OG)
Posted by drew on August 16, 2007 10:24 AMOld Grouch,
I have already learned that you are delusional and was inquiring about Drew's state - which I have learned. The plain fact is that I have posted nohting here in defense of Christianity or any other religion. That is obvious from any reasonable reading of my posts.
I do however, share the Founder's concerns about Secular Humanism precisely because it's tenets are atheistic.
Now, does that mean that the every atheist is a Secular Humanist? No, that is illogical.
Does that mean that every Secular Humanist is an atheist? Well, according to the Council for Secular Humanism web page
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=what
Are Secular Humanists Atheists?
Secular humanists are generally nontheists.
You remember nontheist don't you Grouch? As in -
"his equal insistance upon using a neologism, "nontheist", as absolute synonym for "atheism" gives further evidence of his deteriorating ability to even begin know..."
Posted by Old Grouch on August 15, 2007 03:09 PM
Nonthiest is the term used by the CSH which I heve employed and you describe as a neolgism. Your working definition for neologism is "A word with which I am unfamiliar"
No doubt you can make fine distinctions between nontheist and atheist. I don't particularly care.
It seems to me that the philosophy of the nontheist can accurately described as atheistic. If that is not the case then I would be interested in hearing you explain the distinction.
What I do care about is the clear understanding that one of the guiding principles of the Founders is that human rights are not man-made and established by a benevolent government - they are endowed by the Creator.
And that understanding, Grouch, I will not allow you to obscure with your aimless, arrogant ranting.
Would someone please translate Jones' post into
English?
Nobody in this forum is delusional, a moron, an idiot, et al and Keith does the best he can do so can the insults.
Deicide Corner: "Few civil virtues are as useful as skepticism, through (sic) it is rarely honored until too late. Jim Dwyer re: Rosie O'Donnell ~~~~I think "through" is supposed to be "though." It is the first typo I've found in FreeThought Today: Get your complimentary copy anyway: www.ffrf.org ~~~~ Incidently: I am illusional: I believe in Santa Claus evidenced in a song I wrote. RG
Posted by Risen Ape/Deicide on August 16, 2007 11:09 AMJJ,
As I specifically said previously:
"(secular humanism) specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making." Well, that's pretty much a given, so I don't know what your point is.
And you said:
"Now, does that mean that the every atheist is a Secular Humanist? No, that is illogical."
But I noticed previously that you took some of the most vicious tyrants in history (Hitler, Stalin, Mao & Pol Pot) - who happened to be atheists (we think - Hitler maybe not) - and made the huge leap that they are secular humanists. This would lead a normal person to conclude that you equate atheism with secular humanism. Which you also say is illogical.
I'm confused, JJ.
drew,
Hitler was raised a Roman Catholic but his thinking seems to have been formed more by Martin Luther especially relative to anti-semitism. Hitler was also a (I guess) homicidal maniac so his personal views but must be judged within that frame of reference.
It is unlikely that Hitler's close cadre, who did not for the most part share his manias, were sympathetic with Hitler's personal views but together they authored the Third Reich which brought on the Holocaust.
On the other hand, it is probably true that Karl Marx would have been horrified if had lived to see the purposes Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot put his economic theories.
The Founders knew nothing of Marx but they were aware of humanist thought. Some of the founders were religious (Washington) others (Jefferson, Franklin) were Deists or Free Thinkers. By that I mean, generally, that they believed in an all powerful creator who does not intervene in the affairs of men. Diests typically reject religious practices.
Obviously their personal views were not uniform and also changed over time as is the ordinary case. But that is a fair charachterization of the profile.
The reason "endowed by their Creator" in the Declaration is important is that it establishes that we are responsible for more than the dictates of our own conscience because there are "natural laws" that supersede our own view. In other words, there are certain truths that are to be discovered -not created.
In that way, the Founders hoped to rob the homicidal maniacs of the world the authority of the state to work their evil.
That's one of the reasons it is difficult for Charels Manson or Jeffry Dahmer to become Hitler, Stalin or Mao.
That's the generality. Here is an example:
Prior to the Civil War there were a series of debates between Lincoln and Douglas in regard to the practice of slavery.
Dougals maintained that slavery was just because it had been fairly established through a Democratic process. Lincoln argued that slavery was always wrong irrespective of the means by which it was established.
Those debated are readily available (google) and make a fascinating read.
I understand the attraction of humanist thought. (It is a bit platitudionus based on the Affirmations found on the CSH web page) I can also see the attraction of Marxism. The problem is they don't work.
I hope that makes my position in all this clear.
drew.
Refer back to the poetry. Confusion is the name of the game with Jonesism. For instance, he now remarks: "I do however, share the Founders's concerns about Secular Humanism . . . "
Since "Secular Humanism" is a designation, or title, that didn't even exist in the late 18th Century - much less actually describe the school of thought we know as "humanism" today - you have the fabulously wonderful status of Jones "sharing (with) the Founders" something that has no existence in reality whatsoever; but is now something fundamental to his belief-system.
And then we get to "nontheism": He cites one individual, who in one article speaks of himself as being "nontheist" in his approach to something. Therefore . . . ? Well, that's a wholesale redefinition of both "atheism" and of the contents of "atheism" as well, in which Jones, now includes Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism, and any other religion he actually knows nothing whatsoever about; but by naming which he believes just might make his presetation look as if it had something of substance to it.
And, he will go on, and on, and on, and . . . ! Just remember: "Follow the Yellow Brick Road". And, "Oh! What a whiz of a whiz he is!"
It's fun to watch someone make confusion worse confounded. And Jones is the outstanding expert at that.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 16, 2007 12:17 PMOld Grouch,
The the term humanism was used during the time of the founders. The term Secular Humanism was coined in the mid-19th century.
Since then humanism has evolved many branches including, Literary,Renaissance,Cultural, Philosphical and, yes, even Christian.
see http://www.jcn.com/humanism.php4
Drew, and everyone else on this page, is discussing this within the context of Secular Humanism and that is the context I use to avoid, not create, confusion.
Imagine your howls of outrage if I had used the generic term humanism or, worse yet, atheism.
"He cites one individual, who in one article speaks of himself as being "nontheist" in his approach .."
The one individual in question (who you neglected to name) is Paul Kurtz, Founder Chairman, Council for Secular Humanism. You want to run your etymolgical credentials by us and allow us to determine the authority? Of course you'd have to drop the anonimty.
The "one article" is actually their home page describing Secular Humanism.
The remarkable thing is that you still believe I will allow you to confuse the issues with your vulgar deceits.
You need to get over that because it's not going to happen.
I think most secular humanists are agnostic like me.
We know that humans have no birth rights, no more than any animal. We know that humans are social animals and have to solve their problems together.
Economic systems like socialism, communism are not tied to religion.
The Constitution had two thoughts, one on how to run a country without a King and the second on justification for breaking away from England.
Citing a Creator and saying that Creator gave us inalienable rights doesn`t make it true and more than the Bible saying a snake talked to Eve is true.
Humanists live in reality, not wishful thinking. They trust in medicine over prayer.
Humanists try to find solutions that harm the least amount of people and do the most common good.
Humanists support: Women's rights, men's rights, the rights of children, animal rights etc. All granted by and protected society and the caring family of man.
Mass murderers are secular, sometimes, sometimes they kill for their God, but they are not humanists no matter what they call themselves.
Jonsey,
Your belief-system has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. And you propound more absurdities every time you post than anyone else on the website; as you stumble all over yourself, trying desperately to rescue an earlier piece of nonsense by introducing another to "explain", or amplify, upon it - such as the latest, about Hitler being more inluenced by Lutherism than by Romanism. That's a howler!
Hitler's "solution to the vexatious Jewish question" was taken right out of old Pio Nono's diatribes, as amplified upon by Pacelli (Pius IX), who - as Vatican Ambassador to Germany - engineered Adolf's rise to power by way of the Concordat that broke the back of the German Democratic Party; which Concordat was hailed by the Vatican as being a triumph over "Modernism", as previously condemned by the earlier Benedict, from whom Ratzinger takes example, and current pseudo-Caesarian title.
Ah, but of course, anything that lies outside your belief-system - such as the facts of history for instance - is "incorrect", as you have stated before. And everyone else just has to come to accept that your belief-system is now to substitute for scholarship, research, and factual education.
Which is what makes you such a delightful comic relief, and such fun to read. Do keep on keeping on. You are, indeed, a whiz of a whiz if ever there was one.
How come you don't have a pulpit? You are certainly as qualified as anyone else currently occupying one in Western "christianity".
Posted by Old Grouch on August 16, 2007 12:54 PMOld Grouch
I know you're just trying to change ths subject but I won't let you do that either.
Here's what I wrote:
"Hitler was raised a Roman Catholic but his thinking seems to have been formed more by Martin Luther especially relative to anti-semitism"
and your relpy
"...by introducing another to "explain", or amplify, upon it - such as the latest, about Hitler being more inluenced by Lutherism than by Romanism. That's a howler! "
You will howl louder when you read this.
Hitler Was Not An Atheist
by John Patrick Michael Murphy
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 19, Number 2.
History is being distorted by many preachers and politicians. They are heard on the airwaves condemning atheists and routinely claim Adolph Hitler was one. Hitler was a Roman Catholic, baptized into that religio-political institution as an infant in Austria. He became a communicant and an altar boy in his youth and was confirmed as...
In his day, hatred of Jews was the norm. In great measure it was sponsored by two major religions of Germany, Catholicism, and Lutheranism. He greatly admired Martin Luther, who openly hated the Jews. Luther condemned the Catholic Church for its pretensions and corruption, but he supported the centuries of papal pogroms against the Jews. Luther said, "The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows, seven times higher than ordinary thieves," and "We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them." "Ungodly wretches" he called the Jews in his book Table Talk.
Guess where I found that? Right - The CSH web page. Here's the link
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/murphy_19_2.html
You just keep setting them up Grouch.
"In that way, the Founders hoped to rob the homicidal maniacs of the world the authority of the state to work their evil.
That's one of the reasons it is difficult for Charels Manson or Jeffry Dahmer to become Hitler, Stalin or Mao."
JJ - well OK, but you still haven't answered my question & I still don't know if you are implying that the "homicidal maniacs" of the world are secular humanists. History shows that there have been plenty of "homicidal maniacs" of a religious bent. I can't think of any, however who identified themselves as humanists.
Posted by drew on August 16, 2007 01:28 PMJonesy,
For "credentials" all you need do is go to a dictionary.
On a fairly regular basis, the dictionary is edited to include new words - or to add definitions to old words that have become currently commonplace in use.
If the word isn't in the dictionary as yet, it remains a neologism - a "new word" that is not commpnplace in use.
In ordinary writing and expression, the use of a neologism DOES NOT set up any form of equivalency to an established word, beyond whatever equivalency the writer may happen to choose for the purpose of his own use.
And, further, the re-definition of a word already found in the dictionary also DOES NOT establish the neologism as anything more than an idiividual writer's own invention.
You may believe that you have created a synonym from someone else's neologism; but your belief DOES NOT make it so. And you may also believe that you have re-defined a word, to include that which is not tts meaning at all. But again, your belief DOES NOT make this a part of reality.
There is an area of study in which your belief concerning words, and their useage and definition, is called "confabulation", which is a sign of a form of "infantilism" - a deterioration and degneration of rational faculties - which appears to be very much evident in your expositon of your belief-system. But that takes us off the point.
I'll stick to the dictionary. It's all the "credentials" necessary when dealing with your presentations.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 16, 2007 01:31 PMGee, Jonesy,
Thanks for making my point. You have just managed to give a reference that amplifies on what I already said.
Hitler was a Roman (Catholic). I've never said otherwise.
The hatred of the Jews was "sponsored by TWO major religions of Germany, CATHOLOCISM and Lutheranism". Exactly what I have said, with Catholocism in the primary position, as it was.
The quotations from Luther in no way whatsoever contradict my statements concerning Hitler's own positions and inspirations. The writings of Catholics are equally full of such venom - and the quotation concerning the "solution to the vexatious Jewish question" is taken from Pacelli's works, as quoted in the text I recommended for your reading, HITLER'S POPE.
Hitler may have been a bit more "at home" reading in German - the language in which Luther was more literate - but that doesn't mean that he didn't know exactly what the Catholic position of the time was, as expressed by Pacelli - later Pius XII. And, certainly, Pacelli knew what Hitler himself wrote in MEIN KAMPF concrning the matter, when he engineered Hitler's rise to power. The Vatican archives - where much of the research for the book cited above was conducted - have ample evidence of that.
Thank you, again, for making my point.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 16, 2007 01:51 PMdrew,
I don't think homocidal maniacs have a coherent morality based on any ethic, religion or philosophy. So I do not think that mainiacs ten to become humanists.
History is replete with evil people who have used religion to advance their crimes against humanity.
History is also replete with people who have used the authority of the state to advance their crimes against humanity.
The Founders had both in mind. They separated religion from state and they asserted that human rights are endowed by the Author of the Universe, are not man made and that the just purpose of the state is to secure human rights.
It seems to me that you refuse a) to consider the reasons for the Creator being identified in the Declaration and b) examining the comparisons between the secularism you think is the most just and the secularism of evil men.
As I said earlier, Marx never contemplated the gulags but they appeared nonetheless. We don't want to make that same mistake.
Posted by James Jones on August 16, 2007 03:26 PMOld Grouch.
Wake up - it's time for your reality check.
Here's what I wrote:
"Hitler was raised a Roman Catholic but his thinking seems to have been formed more by Martin Luther especially relative to anti-semitism"
and your relpy
"...by introducing another to "explain", or amplify, upon it - such as the latest, about Hitler being more inluenced by Lutherism than by Romanism. That's a howler! "
I adduced the Murphy piece to vaildate that Hitler was indeed influenced by Luther.
So now when you tell me
"The quotations from Luther in no way whatsoever contradict my statements concerning Hitler's own positions and inspirations."
That right! That's because the point you made was not about Hilter's Catholic upbringing. I brought that up. Your point was that my assertion that Luther influenced on Hitler had you howling. (presumably with laughter although you didn't specify so I suppose anything is possible)
I don't expect you to understand my points but you should be able to understand your own. Or at least remember them for an hour or so.
And on this neologism business: I am glad to see you shrug off my use of nonthiest. In the previous thread you accused me of being a congenital, pathological liar (that's from memory I probably left something out) using the word. You remember, the thread where you got so hysterical you couldn't count straight.
I'm glad to see you've calmed down. Hysteria is never good for a man you age.
JJ,
In my discussion with you I never really spoke about the Founders & the Creator being mentioned in the Declaration.
My beef with you was for equating vile & ruthless people with secular humanism. I'm glad you now agree that "(you) do not think that mainiacs ten to become humanists."
My point is that no one philosophy is inherently "good" or "evil" and that people have shown themselves capable of good or evil whether they are religious or secular.
Posted by drew on August 16, 2007 04:05 PMdrew,
We probably agree about more than we disagree about. Having said that, it is through disagreement and discourse that we learn and grow.
I do you encourage you to read up on the Douglas Lincoln debates if you haven't. The same values are in conflict today.
Posted by James Jones on August 16, 2007 04:14 PMJJ, I have pointed out more than once, much to your chagrin, that the FF`s needed an authority higher than the King to break away.
Of course they said our rights came from (the Author of the Universe, Creator whatever) what else would they say in that day and age to start a revolution? We would please like to have our own country because you have been mean to us?
We are tired of quartering your men in our houses with our kids?
Go home?
Just because they said it, our rights come from (fill in the blank) doesn`t make it real.
Marx could haves said he was a pink leprechaun that wouldn`t have been true either.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 16, 2007 05:14 PMSharon B,
You know I hadn't looked at it that way. George III probably wouldn't have even let them have their revolution at all if they didn't claim that rights are endowed by the Creator.
I was always a little surprised that you never rose above Sergeant-at-Arms with BHSWA. Others may differ on me with on this but I think you make a perfect spokesbeing for the Secular Humanists.
One thing though - Franklin's work on electricity didn't absolutely, postively disprove the existence of God. You might keep that in mind for your stump speech.
Posted by James Jones on August 16, 2007 06:06 PMJJ helps show again that fundie bible thumpers are the idiot scum of the earth.
Posted by on August 16, 2007 06:54 PMJJ tried to move the goal-posts:
"Your point was that my assertion that Luther influenced on Hitler had you howling."
Not influenced JJ. You said his "his thinking seems to have been formed more by Martin Luther". Thus OG's howling...
Posted by Charles B on August 16, 2007 08:26 PMJJ, thank you, the Declaration of Independence was all He ... He... and He did, about the King.
Spokes being?
How about spokes creature?
I`ll bite, what is BHSWA, social workers of America.?
Are you watching the news now, the Utah mine rescue? Those are my kind of humanists.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 16, 2007 08:42 PMJonesy,
Did you ever read MEIN KAMPF? Adolf had stated his views about, and his projected actions against, Jews well in advance of any argument about "influence from Lutheranism" you used to bolster your position. His statements were echoes of the prevailing Roman Catholic leaders of the late 19th and early 20th Century. And his rise to power, as Chancellor, was engineered by the Roman Catholic Ambassador from the Vatican, Eugenio Pacelli - later Pius XII. Lutheranism played little part in that political action, if any at all.
To establish the existence of an outside influence, you have to use the writings, speeches, or other presentations OF THE PERSON SUPPOSEDLY "INFLUENCED" as the basis for saying that such "influence" occurred. If Hitler had quoted Luther, that would be indication of such influence. For YOU to quote Luther is totally irrelevant; and proves nothing.
But then again, the simple basics of logic have never had a place in any of your fantasies, or your fairy tale belief-system, to begin with. So no one can really expect to find them now.
But do keep on keeping on. It just gets more amusing as you go along.
Old Grouch,
You have actually persuaded yourself that the discussion here is about the comparative influence of Catholicism vs. Lutheranism on Adolph Hilter's moral view.
You think I hold that Lutheranism was the larger influence which of course has you howling with laughter because it is perfectly obvious the Catholic teaching played the larger role.
Hitler also believed in Norse myths and the occult. Have you taken that into account in your study of weighing out the value of the comparative religions and their impact on Hitler?
Here's the thing Grouch -Hitler was a lunatic.
It is remarkable. You have no concept that your analysis of Hitler's deranged mind has no bearing on any question. You are completely unaware that your point Hitler was moved more by Catholicism has no relevance whatsoever to any serious question.
You've even gotten poor old Charles B faithfully trotting along in the rear trying to pick up the crumbs.
You have wandered so far from any rational topic this time that I will allow, make that encourage, you to change the subject and stop these pathetic grabs at relevance.
Posted by James Jones on August 16, 2007 09:53 PMJJ:
It would be easier and more becoming to just admit that you're full of sh*t.
Posted by Charles B on August 16, 2007 10:44 PMWell, so much for my answer.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 17, 2007 12:01 AMCharles B,
It depends on the context.
I had just about written Drew off in this thread when he started asking me some very good questions. We ended up engaged in a productive discourse. That is not only easy it is rewarding so the question is moot.
The Old Grouch is a different story. It is a lot of work trying to get the Grouch to stay on topic and engage in meaningful discourse. So in that case - Yes, it would be easier.
But the problem is that it wouldn't be right. A man trying to live a just life has an obligation to do what's right whether it's easy or not.
Now let's take a look at you.
This has been an interesting thread touching on the topics of the role of the state, religion, deism, atheism and humanism. You can't think of anything interesting to say on the topics but you want to be a part of things so you offer up simple, ad hominem attacks.
You sit comfortably in front of your computer, cloaked in anonimty tapping out crude insults to people you will never know. Now that might be easy, but it isn't right because it adds nothing of value: the only thing added to the thread is vulgarity.
According to the Christian view we are all made in the image of God and have the free will to decide how we will live our own life. In that view, you and I are on the same footing. The difference between us is in the choices we make.
I will do what is right even what it is not easy while you will do what is easy even when it is not right.
Now that I've answered your question, I have one for you.
Do you regard yourself as being a Secular Humanist?
Posted by James Jones on August 17, 2007 07:03 AMSharon B,
Don't take that tone with me.
I am certain I have told you earlier that I do not watch TV except for sporting events so I did not see the mine rescue attempts.
While I did not see the event on TV, given the context it seems unlikey that the rescuers were engaged in a politico-socio-economic dialogue. That being the case, and knowing your conviction that all good things are done by humanists, I suspect you are projecting your own belief system on reality.
You will find the answer to your BHSWA question at
Posted by James Jones on August 15, 2007 07:50 AM
Since you were short with me I'm going to make you scroll up and find it for yourself.
Posted by James Jones on August 17, 2007 07:14 AMJames Jones said from his perch of self righteousness and false piety:
"You can't think of anything interesting to say on the topics but you want to be a part of things so you offer up simple, ad hominem attacks."
Having just said the following:
"You've even gotten poor old Charles B faithfully trotting along in the rear trying to pick up the crumbs."
Of course, there was no refutation of what I said, just as you say, an "ad hominem" attack.
Like I said Jimmy Jay, you're full of sh*t.
I might think differently if I had ever seen you admit to being wrong about anything or show anything bordering on humility.
OG's got you pegged Jimmy Jay. You believe what you believe and nothing anyone says will change your mind. If your points are refuted you move the goal-posts or make up something to try and salvage your illusion of righteousness. If you're proven wrong you simply change the subject.
And here's a tidbit that says everything about you:
"I will do what is right even what it is not easy while you will do what is easy even when it is not right."
Like I said, self-righteous, and dripping with false piety. No wonder you embrace Catholicism.
Posted by Charles B on August 17, 2007 07:48 AMA fellow named James Joyce once covered a few reams of paper with what came to be known as a "stream of consciousness novel".
It started nowhere in particular.
It then rambled, endlessly and pointlessly, all round everywhere; while spinning off some neologistic word associations, as it lurched and stumbled along.
In passing, it offered a glimpse into a completely disordered mind, trying desperately to come up with an even faintly logical thought, while never being able to focus sufficiently to recall its own previous maunderings.
Finally, after exhausting the shallow contents of its disconected, and disconcerted, stock of memories, aprehensions, and juvenile fantasies and fables, it simply petered out in a meaningless fizzle.
For reasons completely unknown to anyone with an I.Q. larger than his shoe size, this utter and complete waste of time, and other resources - such as the trees destroyed to provide the paper to print it on - became a "classic"; and was hailed as a "great work of literature". And to prove that it was a "masterpiece", it was even banned in Boston.
Did I say the author was James JOYCE? Oh, Yes. I did. It was. Reading along in this line of postings, it is so easy to confuse that author with James JONES here.
Ah, well. Joyce's, ULYSSES, has become something of a staple in the religion of "literature".
Is Jones is trying to become reknowned for his creation of a sort of "stream of consciousness religion"?
Stay tumed for the next episode..
Posted by Old Grouch on August 17, 2007 07:53 AMOld Grouch,
I applaud this change of subject as a step in the right direction. It is unfortunate that you still think you need the cover of insult but then these things take time.
I hope this step back will offer you the opportunity to regroup and return to the field with cogent points on interesting topics that you will share in productive discourse couched in mutual respect.
Posted by James Jones on August 17, 2007 08:04 AMCharles B,
Of course, there was no refutation of what I said, just as you say, an "ad hominem" attack.
I addressed your question in detail. In fact, you copied some of my remarks.
Don't think of my observations as self-righteoous piety, think of them as tough love.
I answered you but but you did not answer my question -
Do you regard yourself as being a Social Humanist?
Posted by James Jones on August 17, 2007 08:20 AMJames Jones asked:
"Do you regard yourself as being a Social Humanist?
I don't "regard" myself as anything in particular other than a human being. Locking myself into some school of philosophy or another would only serve to hinder my personal growth and accumulation of knowledge. It would cement my beliefs into the kind of concrete ideological boots that have you sinking into a sea of irrelevancy and so desperately trying to fit the square peg of your belief in ghosts and magic into the round hole of present-day knowledge.
And by the way, you didn't answer my charge regarding Luther's influence on Hitler. You merely claimed you didn't say what you said, which was that: "his (Hitler's) thinking seems to have been formed more by Martin Luther"
When OG refuted that you simply claimed that it had no bearing on the discussion even though it was you who made the initial assertion.
Just say you were wrong Jimmy Jay, it gets easier after the first time.
Posted by Charles B on August 17, 2007 10:26 AMCharles B,
I will deal with the claim you made initially
You claimed that I "moved the goal posts by changing the phrase
"his thinking seems to have been formed more by"
to
"that Luther influenced on"
In fact there is no significant difference between those two phrases. You wnat to think there is. I did not questionn you about that because a) I don't care why you think what you think and b) the point is irrelevant.
The next thing I wrote to drew was:
"Hitler was also a (I guess) homicidal maniac so his personal views but must be judged within that frame of reference.
It is unlikely that Hitler's close cadre, who did not for the most part share his manias, were sympathetic with Hitler's personal views but together they authored the Third Reich which brought on the Holocaust."
At that point Old Grouch launched into a pointless debate of whether Hitler's moral view was formed by Catholicism or Lutheranism. And of course you piled on.
I've been through this once with Grouch and will take another stab at it with you.
We do not care why a lunatic thinks what he thinks because he is a lunatic. Since he is a lucatic, there is no reason to analyze how he processes information. Get it?
Your refusal to answer the question of whether or not you are a Secuolar Humanist because you would be "Locking myself into some school of philosophy or another would only serve to hinder my personal growth and accumulation of knowledge."
That is an unartful dodge. First, given the evidence of your postings you don't knowmuch of anything now. You ought to enlist in some group or school of thought and seek guidance.
Second, humanists are not dogmatic. They have been recognized , rightfully so, as free thinkers with a visceral distaste for dogma for centuries. If you learned a bit about humanism you might find it more attractive.
Humanism might help free you from your dogmatic, pedestrian leftist mind set and give you the ability to post something beyond mimicry.
On the other hand, you may just be resisting being pulled out of your safe world of insult, mockery and jeering into the marketplace of ideas.
If so then I will offer you the advice of John Paul II - Be not afraid.
Jimmy Jones:
I think I've got you figured out. Virtually everything you write is in some form or another projection or transference.
This understanding will make it easier to deal with you in the future....
You could simply have said "I mis-spoke", or "what I meant to say was..." instead of weaving this elaborate web of contorted rationalization to make yourself feel like you're not wrong.
It's ok to be wrong sometimes.
As for John Paul II's advice: I'm already not afraid... to admit my ignorance.
Like I said, it's easy once you do it the first time.
Posted by Charles B on August 17, 2007 01:14 PMJJ, in a tone of virtual sweetness and light. No amount of money could make me go down in a coal mine, only human instinct to help. Rescuers do it for the need to get their fellows to safety.
I burst out laughing at your post, that was great.
Goddess, I love doing this.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 17, 2007 01:26 PMWell, ladies and gentlemen, we have now come full circle - for at least the first round.
On August 15, @05:33 PM, James JONES posts as follows:
"The greatest threat to human liberty over the past century, and the greatest threat to liberty in the US is humanism - nor religion."
Today, August 17, @11:50 AM, James JONES posts as follows:
" . . . humanists are not dogmatic. They have been recognized, rightfully so, as free thinkers with a visceral distaste for dogma for centuries. If you learned a bit about humanism you might find it more attractive."
And then, he goes on to say:
"Humanism might help free you from your dogmatic, pedestrain leftist mind set . . . "
Now, that's rich! Talk about having one's cake and eating it too!
(And it certainly reminds me of the campaign ads about "Both Ways Bob" [Beaupre]. Remember those?)
Oh! What a whiz of a whiz he is! Even better than the Wizard of Oz!
Much more fun than James Joyce, any day!
Posted by Old Grouch on August 17, 2007 01:48 PMSharon B,
I hope you enjoy reading the posts as much as I enjoy writing them.
Posted by James Jones on August 17, 2007 02:33 PMOld Grouch,
You just don't know when to leave well enough alone.
Yes it is true I think that humanism is the greatest threat (although fascist Islam is on the rise) to human liberty and I also know that humanists are non-dogmatic, free thinkers.
You need to understand that I do not think that drew personally, just for instance, is a threat. I think Humanism is a threat because it's doctrines are atheistic which denies that rights are endowed by the Creator.
I know you think that religion is the great threat to human liberty. But it is a mistake to think that only dogmatic thinking constitutes a threat.
It's a bit like when I explained to you how deists can believe in God and simultaneously reject religion which (I think) you eventually got.
The reason you have such trouble comprehending these concepts is that you are wrapped up so tightly in your prejudices that any nuance at all becomes incomprehensible.
Unlike Hitler, you are a man with very little imagination.
Hi Sharon,
Nice to see you; and read your responses. I sometimes wonder what we would do without Jonesy. He's marvelous, in his way.
This time, he brings back to mind the Queen, who learned how to believe so many impossible things before breakfast. And the real beauty of it all is constant delusion that HE is, somehow, teaching, or instructing, others who don't understand.
Ah! Well! It would take "imagination", indeed, to come up with the tangled web of mutually contradictory positons all bound together in this last posting of his. But, then again, he presents a wonderful example of the kind of self-created mini-religion - belief-system - which offers a parallel example for that famous response once given to Marcus Aurelius when that Emperor questioned early Christinaity: "We believe BECAUSE it is absurd."
And Jonesy certainly propounds a massive amount of absurdity as he goes along!
I've always wondered why he didn't have a pulpit. He's certainly as qualified for one as any Roman Priest I've ever encountered. And, I've encountered quite a number of them over the years. And, he'd be a real money maker in one of the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ franchises, where absurdity is the commonplace; and the more riduculous one's arguments and fabulousities, the more eager the sheeple are to pay to hear them. Too bad he appears to have missed his real "Call" in life.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 17, 2007 07:35 PMOG, It looks like JJ and I will go to the mat on this "rights" issue.
There is a 50/50 chance that our rights come from God. that is based on the odds that God exists.
There is a 100% chance that our rights come from human society. Since we exist.
I can`t think of a God given right I have. Life? Liberty? Pursuit of Happiness? All that is wishful thinking.
Fish have the right to breath in water, but they don`t have the right to be in water. We have civil rights but not when we are out in nature. Remember the rights of a chipmunk? Not the one writing sonatas.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 18, 2007 07:47 AMHi, Sharon,
I shall watch with interest, and all best wishes for you in the contest. Have at him!
Posted by Old Grouch on August 18, 2007 10:36 AM