Posted on 11/13/2007 1:40:53 PM PST by yoe
Exactly. Evolution/natural selection is one of the processes in creation.
Well jeepers, allmendream, deists are Christians too, at least in general outline. We could say the same of Isaac Newton, notwithstanding that many Christian sects regard him a heretic for rejecting the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (for Occam's Razor reasons, as an unnecessary complication of the essential nature of God). Newton's concept of God more closely resembles that of Judaism. Newton's God is the Pantocrator, who does the intervening into created nature all by himself, having no Son or Holy Spirit to do it for him (so to speak).
Still, it's interesting to note (again) that Franklin's speech was delivered when he was a seasoned, aged man. And it is not the speech that we would expect to hear from a deist, for he definitely suggests that God does engage himself in the affairs of men.
And also Jefferson's motto, "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God," wasn't something that he just put on his tombstone. It was graven on his personal seal, which he used constantly during life. This was in the days when letters were not sealed in glued envelopes. They were sealed with sealing wax, into which one's personal seal was impressed to secure the sturdy closure of the envelope. Jefferson was a prolific letter writer. Any recipient of a TJ letter would see the seal, and know the identity of the sender before even opening his mail. TJ chose that motto presumably because it reflected beliefs that he strongly and deeply identified with.
Not to worry, allmendream. I’m grateful for your gracious apology.
Jefferson's view was that the virgin birth of Christ was as unlikely as the mystical generation of Athena from the skull of Zeus. He was not a Christian either, except as a proponent of the philosophy of Christ. But Christianity without Spirituality is not really Christianity. Whatever the mans merits or faults, he was not a Christian as Christianity is usually defined.
By George, I think you have it. And that we have something upon which we can agree. Perhaps a good deal more than that upon which we disagree. I think to some considerable degree we may have been talking past each other rather than to each other. I acknowledge my share of the responsibility for that, and I will try to keep in mind that many pose constitutional principles in language somewhat at variance with mine.
On this business of doing one’s own research (msg 194), you were more than a little the innocent bystander in this instance. But, be advised, around here innocent bystanders get caught in the crossfire on a regular basis. And, when researching the Christian influence on the development of our nation, it makes no more sense to consult only atheist websites than it does for Christians to consult only creationist websites when they are researching science,
Funny you should mention that. I’ve heard Rush say the same thing. I agree.
How could I not agree with an all-star lineup like that. { 8^)
Well thank you for that. The statement that I wouldn’t lift a finger to defend the Constitution in any context cut me to the bone after a lifetime of intellectual and physical defense of a document I have sworn an oath to protect and defend. I will take care to include as much relevant language as possible when quoting our beloved Constitution in the future; especially when it pertains to the specific, limited, and enumerated powers granted. As to the source for the dispute between the newspaper account and Madison’s recollections (and later text of the speech, and note added later in Franklin’s handwriting); the website was the first one that came up on a google of a phrase which is present in both accounts. Do you have any evidence that the information they sourced was incorrect? It seemed pretty authoritative and definitive and agreed well with js##’s account. It would be a great blow to their credibility if they were found in an outright lie.
Only if one believes that everything that exists must have been created the same way.
I find the religious arguments about evolution to be puzzling, since evolution actually provides the best explanation for how parts of Genesis could be true.
The number of different animal species that exist in the world today is sufficiently large that putting two animals of each species into Noah's Ark would have been impossible--they wouldn't fit. If, however, one accepts evolution is a means by which a small set of progenitor species could result in a larger set of descendant species, then the size of the ark is no longer a problem. Time scale might be, but I'm not sure that the Genesis measures of prehistoric time were meant to be taken literally. Rather hard to have 'days' and 'nights', for example, before the Sun and Moon are created on the third 'day'.
Neither statement is accurate. Putting faces of historical Presidents on coinage would not be anti-religious even if some religious people would consider such behavior to be the worship of graven images. Conversely, banning the publication of any an all religious texts in printed form would clearly be anti-religious even if there was a religion whose followers carried on their traditions purely through oral/aural means.
The question of whether a behavior would be 'anti-religious' or not primarily boils down to a question of motive. And I don't think there's enough evidence to support anti-evolutionist's claims, and the proposed remedy is not appropriate in any case.
Let’s try the converse, shall we? The Science teacher, as state actor with a compelled audience, teaches that evolution is anti-religious. Is there a constitutional problem with that?
I don’t know that I have any info either way. What phrase did you google?
I can tell you that Dr. Franklin gave two speeches at the Convention; one on Thursday, June 28 (the speech quoted in msg 221), and a shorter speech given on Monday, September 17. Both are published in Farrand’s Records, and both are well known. If a newspaper committed errors in reprinting old Ben’s speech at some later date, then I can understand why Madison sought to correct the errors, but neither event has anything to do with boop’s msg 157. Her source is valid and she quoted the speech accurately.
The Sept. 17 address (Farrand’s Records, Volume 2, beginning page 641):
The engrossed Constitution being read,
Docr. Franklin rose with a speech in his hand, which he had reduced to writing for his own conveniency, and which Mr. Wilson read in the words following.1
[Note 1: 1 Franklin seems to have sent copies of this speech in his own handwriting to several of his friends, and one of these soon found its way into print (see Carey's American Museum, II, pp. 558--559). After examining several of these copies, it seems probable that Madison's copy represents the speech as it was read. The others all embody subsequent modifications. See further Appendix A, CXXVIII, CLXXXVII, CC.]
Mr. President
I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that where ever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele, a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right" -- Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison".
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an Assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good -- I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad -- Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die -- If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends. on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administered.
On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility-- and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument." -- He then moved that the Constitution be signed by the members and offered the following as a convenient form viz. "Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present the 17th. of Sepr. &c -- In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names."
End excerpt
The note 1 in the Farrand’s cited above gives us some clue that it might be this later speech which aroused the controversy, because Farrand relates that some copies apparently were not faithful to Madison’s original.
To say that some action is anti-religious is to suggest that it is driven by some anti-religious motive. What specific anti-religious motive must necessarily attach to the teaching of Darwinian mechanics? It it not plausibly being driven by other non-anti-religious motives?
I would agree that people who teach evolution sometimes push such teaching in anti-religious direction. Generally, though, the problem isn't with the teaching of Darwinian mechanics, but rather with teachings that go beyond that.
The basic principles behind Darwinian mechanics are sound, and are applicable in many fields for predicting the effects of various actions. Further, they can offer a plausible explanation for much of history and pre-history, though not for all of it. The only problem, though I'll admit it's sometimes significant, comes when it is presented as being the sole explanation for everything. The remedy, though, is not to attack the teaching of Darwinian mechanics, but rather to ensure that teachers make clear the distinctions between what things are reasonably certain, what things seem likely, and what things are essentially guesses.
I understand your reticence though to answer the converse because it makes it obvious that SCOTUS establishment clause jurisprudence makes it painfully clear that state actors can not make such statements to students compelled to be in class.
Especially since they run commercials now.
It has long been established that it is perfectly proper for agents of the state to make statements about religion. For example, a statement like "Most Jews believe that nobody resembling the Jesus Christ of the New Testament was born in ancient Rome," is simple and factual, and would be entirely appropriate in discussing the difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
I would consider a statement that evolution is not anti-religious is a statement about religion, rather than a religious statement; a claim that it is anti-religious would likewise also be a statement about religion rather than a religious statement, but would need some real evidence before I'd accept its veracity.
Not to be nasty but what you or I think is irrelevant, it is what SCOTUS has held that is relevant to our discussion and SCOTUS has held that such statements are unconstitutional, the fact that their establishment clause jurisprudence is laughable not withstanding.
From his autobiography...
“And, indeed, if it be the design of Providence to extirpate these savages in order to make room for cultivators of the earth, it seems not improbable that rum may be the appointed means. It has already annihilated all the tribes who formerly inhabited the sea-coast.”
Etc.
We can quibble over details all day long, but I have not the slightest doubt that Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, et al., are firmly within the JudeoChristian cultural orbit. The first two especially were prime figures of the American Enlightenment. Notwithstanding they believed in a Creator who is the source of unalienable human rights and, because we are his creatures, made in His image, in the sovereign dignity of every human person. Their own lives demonstrate that faith and reason aren't the mutually opposed irreconcilables as we are being taught today by such notables as Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens. There is absolutely no doubt that these Framers were not atheists; nor Buddhists, Hindus, or Muslims either. Granted the fact that they departed from certain dogmas on rationalist grounds may make them "heretical" in some people's eyes. Nonetheless they were Christian in fundamental belief. Ellis Sandoz suggests that they were generic Christians, or "Providential Christians." Indeed, my quote upthread from John Adams illustrates and supports this view.
Another thing worth considering is the history of Christian religious revival in America. The first Great Awakening was in the early 18th century; the second in the early 19th. The first ultimately spent its energies in the American Revolution itself. The second, in the Civil War, which ultimately boiled down to the institution of slavery. The abolition of slavery and the slave trade was preeminently a Christian project, first in England, in the crusade led by William Wilberforce; and then later in America. The Christian belief that all men are created equal in the sight of God is what essentially motivated this quest.
Another reason...well, you know.
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.