Posted on 09/03/2009 4:52:50 AM PDT by spirited irish
Evil never dies, it just changes its face. Once upon a time, the democrats, FDR on down, fought the evil that was the Nazis and was the communists...now they have become or are becoming the new face of that evil, trying to do many of the same things the Nazis and communists tried to do.
Again, we're talking about personal diagreements over religion vs political philosophy.
That they had held varying religious views, and had personal disagreements over them is not in question. What is in question is the assertion that thier religious beliefs were basis of their political philosophy (and implicitly, that the author's religious beliefs convey to them and others of similar belief some authenticity that people who do not share those beliefs cannot claim).
Having provided no source, you appear to be asking me to take your arguments on absolute faith. Piety and pride are not mutuallly exclusive.
Thanks for the ping!
snip: Having provided no source
Spirited: Are you helpless? Are you incapable of seeking truth? No, you’re not. Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus even did your work for you, yet by the very fact that your chosen ‘tactics’ are to ignore Cincinnatus’s response and to fall back on uncouth quibbling reveals that truth is offensive to you.
You make wholly unsupported assertions, and the fault is mine for not researching them? The assertion is that "a majority of the founders turned on him". You'll need references to writings from a majority of the founders to support that. That's a long way from what TQC posted, and even that doesn't leave the impression that Franklin had "turned on him".
Your arguments seem to suggest that the Founders considered Paine no friend or ally because of his religious beliefs. If that's the case then what they did was cynically accept his support and the public support for the revolution that his writings invoked among the populace, and the "threw him under the bus" once the obejctive had been obtained.
That's because Paine got weirder and weirder as time went on. The Fathers were embarrassed by his outspoken support of the French Revolution and the way he spoke out against Washington.
John Adams never liked Paine. He always considered him too radical and called "Common Sense" a "crapulous mess".
Paine appears to have made his religious leanings well known before the revolution, and it is submitted that "a majority of the founders turned on him" because of those beliefs. Thomas Jefferson was president at the time, and appears to have publicly supported it, so Paine wasn't alone in that regard.
And for the radicalism which came from them. His behavior became more that way as time went on; of course his sniping at Washington the hero would result in a loss of friends...why wouldn't it? Also as I said, his overt support of the French Revolution embarrassed most. Jefferson also was famously in favor of the French Revolution so he was probably closest to Paine in his more radical beliefs.
Only 6 people attended Paine's funeral. He was obviously no longer as popular as he had been because his behavior and indiscretions had gotten worse over time.
The Founder' don't appear to have usesd their religious beliefs as the litmus test of who was with them or against them during the revolution. Why do you think we ought to do it now?
The US was friends with Stalin during WWII also in order to defeat the overwhelming evil of the time. But we dropped him like a hot potato when more of his intentions became known later.
You seem to assume the Founders had some kind of all-seeing power to know what Paine would do and say in coming decades.
I don't think his religion is the litmus. It's what he did as a result of his beliefs that tell the story.
If you're saying the result is an unavoidable consequence of the belief, then the belief is the test. The consequence is just the justification for having the test.
The assertion seems to be that it's an inevitable consequence of his religious beliefs. If you do not hold the correct religious beliefs, you either are or will inevitably become hostile to the cause of preservation of the republic.
Not necessarily. If an atheist (example Boris Pasternak in Russia) speaks out against Stalin then he's an ally for those agitating for freedom.
However, you are correct that the Founding Fathers DID generally believe that religious beliefs will result in a better society than atheism. Even Jefferson espoused this. But Paine was condemned on his later actions, not his beliefs. Why wouldn't he have been condemned? He acted stupidly.
Then the premise of the article seems to be in error.
No, if people are turning right they are turning against the dynamics spoken of negatively in the article. Thus, freedom-lovers will make allies of these folks.
The basic premise of the article, repeated multiple times, is that the root causes is the rejection of the authority of the traditional Church, and adherance to it's teachings.
And then the political realisms were brought up in the thread. Don't know the author, but I suspect that even she likely doesn't have a problem with cobbling together a political alliance with an atheist who's working against a totalitarian regime.
Once that regime is overthrown, and a governmet that operates by "consent of the governed" established, do you think this person would have any problem with that same atheist having an equal voice in setting public policy and making law?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.