Jefferson/Madison/Franklin Hated God ! ?

none | may 26 2005 | Vanity post

[mugs99]

Franklin embraced Unitarian ideals, not Deist

What is the difference?
...

[restornu]

Franklin embraced Unitarian ideals, not Deist

What is the difference?

*****

Unitarians today are like Humanist or *Global Ethic movement
a Desit is one who believe there is a God but he does not get involved with his Creation... a little to stand off for me!

* Global Ethic types were the group who felt Terri Schiavo should starve to death!

discarded lies: Empire Journal: Terri said she wants to live
... Greer, Schiavo and his attorney, George Felos, have consistently ... they can
preserve the ethic of non-intervention not being equivalent to killing. ...
http://www.discardedlies.com/entries/2005/03/empire_journal_terri_said_she_wants_to_live.php

***

My post 199 was a retort to the inflated reply of Post 129

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1412896/posts?page=129#129

[Tax-chick]

Thanks for the link! Franklin's autobiography is one of the books I've always wanted, but never got around to buying. I think I'll print off a chapter or two.

Franklin did everything his own way :-).

[jwalsh07]

First of all, I am not changing my position at all. My position from the gitgo has been the same. The Supreme Law of the Land is three pronged, the Constitution itself and the laws and treaties enacted by Congress and signed into law by the Executive. But I am happy you now understand that the "notwithstanding" phrase applies to the states, not the federal government.

And second of all, enslaving people is not an expansion of individual rights so your analogy fails miserably. Maybe we should go back to baseball?

[Matchett-PI]

"Well, that's one Bible quote I can agree with!"

No you don't, and you know that you don't agree with it, too... that's the funny part.

Romans 1:18-32 is describing those who suppress the knowledge that God has given to ALL people ABOUT HIM, ie: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and God-head, ___so that___ they are without excuse. ...they exchanged the truth of God for the lie... they did not like to retain God in their knowledge ... [they] know that [they are] worthy of death... [but don't care]."

There goes your excuse. LOL

[mugs99]

My post 199 was a retort to the inflated reply of Post 129

Ok, I see where you're coming from...It sure is inflated.

Global Ethic types were the group who felt Terri Schiavo should starve to death!

This was a raging debate where I live. I know two Christians who felt she should be allowed to pass on. Most interesting of all is the Atheist who felt starving her was a criminal act. He felt that if you're breathing on your own you are alive and should be cared for.

Desit is one who believe there is a God but he does not get involved with his Creation... a little to stand off for me!

Cool, I can understand that. The Deist view is more like the God portrayed by George Burns in the movie. "Have fun and try not to hurt each other." To most Deists, whether God does or does not get involved in his creation is a mystery that no man has the answer to.

You posted a list of religious affiliations. My problem is with all of these lists that attempt to revise our history. There has been literally dozens of them since this controversy began in 1968. Here is what started this ongoing debate:
"One of the embarrassing problems for the 19th century champions of the Christian faith was the fact that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was a Christian." (Encyclopedia Britannica, l968, vol.2, p.420)

Britannica's sources are impeccable. The Christian sources are not. The fact is that the majority of the founders were Deist and that is backed up with the historical documentation used by the Encyclopedia Britannica.

I do not understand why Christians feel the need to revise our history. Christianity has risen to be the dominant belief in America. Why not be proud of that accomplishment and leave history alone?
...

[mugs99]

No you don't, and you know that you don't agree with it, too... that's the funny part

ROFL!!!
Oh baby! Beat me with a red hot hanger! Now you're in my head? I find it hillarious that you have to resort to Bible quotes since I showed that your "primary documents" were a fraud.

I'll stand by the real and impeccable primary documents used by the Encyclopedia Brittanica. The first six presidents were Deist as were the majority of our founders. That is a verifiabls fact of American history and your attempts to revise our history are dishonest, to say the least.
See post 206. Scroll down to Encyclopedia.
...

[jwalsh07]

Almighty God, we make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection, that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government, and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large.

And finally, that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.

Grant our supplications, we beseech thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

George Washington
Written at Newburg, June 8th, 1783
Sent to the governors of all the states.

---

Yup, no doubt about it, Washington was a deist.

[Exton1]

A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district--all studied and appreciated as they merit--are the principal support of virtue, morality and civil liberty. - Ben Franklin

[mugs99]

Yup, no doubt about it, Washington was a deist

Yes, he was. That is a fact of American history, prayer or no prayer. Why does that bother you? Do you have an ulterior motive that requires you to revise history?

I think all of this boils down to one thing. You want to establish Christianity as the state religion and strip the rights of non Christians...A return to colonial times when only Christians could hold public office or vote.
...

[Pelayo]

But I am happy you now understand that the "notwithstanding" phrase applies to the states, not the federal government.

Where did I argue that it applies to the Federal Government? That would be a meaningless argument. The prerogatives of the Federal Government are established by the Constitution to begin with.

The Supreme Law of the Land is three pronged, the Constitution itself and the laws and treaties enacted by Congress and signed into law by the Executive.

In pursuance of, or in accordance with, the Federal Constitution as expressly stated in that selfsame document. Laws enacted that contradict the Constitution have no legal validity.

And second of all, enslaving people is not an expansion of individual rights so your analogy fails miserably.

No it does not, If I own the labor of some individual, so that he is my slave and he runs away, under Article IV Section II clause 3 I should get him back as his labor is my property, and no state can constitutionally deny me my property. However the famous XIV Amendment fixes this problem by establishing that no persons can be deprived of their rights save they be duly convicted, and that Congress will have the power to enforce this by enacting legislation to its effect. All this is expressly stated, and given legal authority in this amendment.

[mugs99]

A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district--all studied and appreciated as they merit--are the principal support of virtue, morality and civil liberty. - Ben Franklin

Bibles and newspapers are not the problem, intolerance and tyranny are. Read Franklin on tolerance if you're really interested in his quotes.

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Roman Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England." Ben Franklin
...

[foreverfree]

bump

[x]

What is the difference?

18th and early 19th century Unitarians were quite different from today's. The earliest Unitarians were what the name suggests: believers in one God who did not believe Jesus was -- or claimed to be -- divine. Today, Unitarians can be humanists, atheists, agnostics, pantheists, or pagans. The joke from the 1950s is that Unitarians "believe in at most one God." That was far from what 18th century Unitarians believed. There is a website for "Biblical Unitarians" who share the older view. Probably, there was a "slippery slope" that led Unitarians to where they are now once they denied certain key Christian beliefs, but it would be a mistake to equate the beliefs of early and late Unitarians.

[jwalsh07]

Yes, he was. That is a fact of American history, prayer or no prayer.

Since when do deists pray for Divine Intervention? When did Jesus Christ become the Lord of the Deists? You can't say these things with a straight face Mugs.

Why does that bother you? Do you have an ulterior motive that requires you to revise history?

Up is down, right is left, deists worship the Lord Jesus Christ.

I think all of this boils down to one thing. You want to establish Christianity as the state religion and strip the rights of non Christians...A return to colonial times when only Christians could hold public office or vote.

But of course mugs, anybody who views history through reality rather than the looking glass is a dyed in the wool advocate for theocracy. So it was written, so it was said.

[Matchett-PI]

Your god isn't the God of providence therefore your god isn't the God of America's Framers.

Sorry.

[restornu]

What I want to know with all of these Calvinist in charged at the beganning with their strong views of right and wrong........why did'nt they free the slaves?

[mugs99]

ROFL!
I enjoyed your silliness, but...You didn't answer my comment.
The man was a politician. Ceremony and political speeches do not prove or disprove anything. We see that in our own times too.
...

[jwalsh07]

I enjoyed your silliness, but...You didn't answer my comment.

Yo Mugs, silliness begets silliness and I thought I did give you an answer. Perhaps it's not the oanswer you wanted?

The man was a politician. Ceremony and political speeches do not prove or disprove anything. We see that in our own times too.

Mugs, according to you America was deist. Why would a deist ignore that and pander to Christians?

And finally, I understand that Washington didn't mean what he wrote, he meant what you wanted him to mean. Such is life in 21st Century America.

[mugs99]

with their strong views of right and wrong........why did'nt they free the slaves?

Damn good question. Lots of answers about gaining cooperation with the Christian slave owners in the south, but they all sound like bogus excuses to me. You'd think that Jefferson too would have freed his slaves asap considering he believed slavery wrong, but he didn't.
...