Posted on 09/03/2009 4:52:50 AM PDT by spirited irish
I've read some of Paine's works that were very critical of Biblical literalism and "reveled religion", but have not seen anything written by him that denies the existence of God, and in fact much that affirms it. I have seen many of his quotes lifted out of context and used by atheists but nothing from Paine himself that would support the conclusion that he was an atheist.
You said:
"He went from siding against the English "chrisian" despots to siding with the French atheist despots."
He was supporting the revolutionaries. By what measure were they "French atheist despots"?
There was a strong atheistic strain among them. I'm sure there were many believers among them, of course, but atheism (free-thinking) was growing in France at the time and their thinking influenced the Russian revolutionaries who went even further in their atheism.
and in fact much that affirms it.
I have not seen quotes from Paine affirming his belief in God. Plenty of them bashing religion and the Bible. This is what led me to think he was atheist...because he largely fails to give God any credit whatsoever. If you have some quotes showing he did believe, I would be interested to read them.
Okay,some of them were atheists. How is it they were despots?
Okay. From The Age of Reason, Part First, Section 1:
I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
Do you require more?
Actually, I don't require any of them. But I would be interested to know if Paine continued in his belief all through his French revolutionary days when the atheists there went through their "goddess of reason" phase and all that.
The word of God is the creation we behold; and this word of God revealeth to man all that is necessary for him to know of his Creator.
Do we want to contemplate His power ? We see it in the immensity of His creation.
Do we want to contemplate His wisdom ? We see it in the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible whole is governed.
Do we want to contemplate His munificence ? We see it in the abundance with which He fills the earth.
Do we want to contemplate His mercy ? We see it in His not withholding that abundance even from the unthankful.
Do we want to contemplate His will, so far as it respects man ? The goodness He shows to all is a lesson for our conduct to each other.
In fine, do we want to know what God is ? Search not the book called the Scripture, which any human hand might make, but the Scripture called the Creation.
Most might think the suspension of the rule of law in favor of mob rule involves some kind of despotism.
Thanks for the quotes. Indeed, he looks like a deist at least in his earlier years.
Would he have written in opposition to the hereditary monarchies, that they were repugnant to the idea that all men are equal before God if he had abandoned his faith?
In every revolution there is a period of "suspension of the rule of law" between the time one government loses control and another is established in it's place, but calling that "despotism" seems much of a stretch.
Most of the Founding Fathers used words similar to describe the French Revolution. If you prefer "Reign of Terror" to "despotic" that was another term commonly used.
Some did, some didn't. I don't have enough reference which ones did or didn't agree with him on the subject. It seems,though, that the worst is being assumed about him on scant evidence from some quarters.
to read later!
ph
snip: do you think she’d consider the US Constitution fundamentally flawed because it not only allows it, but protects that right?
In response to your question, we’ll turn to Charles Hodge, married to the great-granddaughter of Ben Franklin, received his doctorate from Rutgers and was a professor at Princeton for 50 years. In 1871, he anticipated the coming paranoid-schizophrenic Christophobic intolerance of people just like you, the ACLU, etc:
“The proposition that the United States is a Christian nation, is not so much the assertion that the great majority of the people are Christians, but that the organic life, the institutions, laws, and official action of the government, is in accordance with the principles of Christianity...In the process of time thousands have come who are not Christians. Some are Jews, some are infidels, and some are atheists,...All are welcomed; all are admitted to equal rights and privileges. All are allowed to acquire property, and to vote in every election. All are allowed to worship as they please, or not to worship at all...No man is required to profess any form of faith, or to join any religious association...More than this cannot reasonably be demanded. More, however, is demanded...The infidel demands that the government should be conducted on the principle that Christianity is false, the atheist demands that it should be conducted on the assumption that there is no God...The sufficient answer to all of this is that it cannot possibly be done.” (Back Fired, William J. Federer, p. 171)
Why can’t it be done? Because ideas have consequences, and in that this nation, described by d’Tocqueville as the ‘freest, most enlightened’ civilization in the history of the world is founded on, “the organic life, the institutions, laws, and official action of the government, is in accordance with the principles of Christianity..,” these fundamental presuppositions cannot be set-aside to please Muslims and atheists without destroying our inalienable rights and liberties.
Federer’s book is a detailed history of the Christian founding of this nation. As he shows, Jews, Unitarians, Muslims, atheists and other non-believers were allowed to come here and enjoy the liberties and rights available here. However, Christian tolerance towards these others has been used by many of them to, in the words of Federer, “throw the Christians out of the boat.’
And that is precisely your own attitude, which is compounded of both hostility and paranoia.
Read the words of Einstein and learn from them:
“Being a lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly. Albert Einstein
If it's fundamentally flawed, what do you propose to do about it?
snip: If it’s fundamentally flawed, what do you propose to do about it?
Spirited: Nothing, nothing at all. Why? In that ‘pride goes before a fall,’ then by extension, if one gives a prideful person enough rope, he’ll absolutely hang himself. And ‘hanging yourself’ is exactly what you’ve been doing to yourself every time you evidence your ‘willful’ inability to see reason (truth). To pompously claim that Einstein and the people who founded this country and maintained it are somehow ‘fundamentally flawed,’ for it is their truth-claims you derided and not mine, is to hold yourself up as a ridiculous gasbag.
Yes, you’ve been hanging yourself. For every time you quibbble, distort, equivocate, bluff, misrepresent, and in the words of Orwell, “doublespeak,” you simply prove the truth of the author’s contentions regarding moral imbecility, all of which points back to Augustine’s astute observation regarding Libido Dominandi.
The Founders declared the Constution will guaranteed freedom of religion. You use arguments from Hodge and Federer to argue that this is simply not possible.
You seem impressed with Federer. He writes glowingly of the religious beliefs of FDR, and conveniently ignores that FDR attributed his theology to the teachings of Endicott Peabody - an avowed socialist.
ping
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.