Libertarian pushing morality?

[Diogenes]

Also, be careful what you wish for. I would rather be living in a country that is secular, no matter what the dominant religion is, than a country that is non secular with a religion that I can not identify with.

This is like saying "I want an ocean with waves, but without any water in it. "

E.g. Iran is one of the few non secular countries in the world. The US would be on the same level with that country, just a different color...
Of course the scientists of this world would probably abandone the US for countries where education is not spoiled by religious believes.
I can predict that as well.

I cannot fathom where you get these notions from.

Example: Scientology is a dangerous cult with world dominance ambitions.
Their goal is it to overthrow the government. In a non secular country, you have to be worried about this.

Some religions are just nut balls from the start. Others have evolved to become benign, and even essential. Your pockets of secularism could not exist at all if Christianity hadn't smoothed the angry waters into tolerating them.

[KitemanSA]

Benjamin Franklin speech during convention:

"I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service."

Doesn't the fact that he had to make that speech argue that such thought and activity was NOT ubiquitous as has been suggested? Certainly this would seem true at least among those present when he made that speech. At least that is how it seems to me.

[Diogenes]

Benjamin Franklin speech during convention:

"I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service."

Doesn't the fact that he had to make that speech argue that such thought and activity was NOT ubiquitous as has been suggested? Certainly this would seem true at least among those present when he made that speech. At least that is how it seems to me.

I think you are saying that if they were already having a daily prayer, Franklin's suggestion would not have been necessary.

About this, I do not know. I will have to research it a bit. I do know that Franklin made this suggestion after there had been much discussion with very little to show for it.

Okay, I did a little research. Apparently there are at least two issues.

1. There was concern that with delegates from different states (and therefore owing allegiance to different Official state sanctioned denominations.) meeting for the first time and not wanting to offend anyone, they chose not to call on Clergy for fear of offending a delegate from a different denomination.

2. There was concern that using just a single clergy would be objectionable by delegates of a different denomination, and using multiple clergy (so as not to offend) would cost too much. (Yes, Clergy were expected to be paid in those days.)


What they did end up doing is adjourning for three days with delegates advised to get to know each other better. They were urged to associate with delegates that were in opposition to their positions, and after three days of taking a break and getting to know each other, they all came back much refreshed and willing to work more closely with each other.
Then they all agreed to go to church together.


edit:
And then there was this.

3. Fear the public would regard a call for the blessings of clergy as proof that they were at an impasse.

Mr. Hamilton and several others expressed their apprehensions that however proper such a resolution might have been at the beginning of the convention, it might at this late day, 1, bring on it some disagreeable animadversions [criticisms], and 2, lead the public to believe that the embarrassments and dissensions within the Convention, had suggested this measure. It was answered by [Dr. Franklin], Mr. Sherman and others, that the past omission of a duty could not justify a further omission, that the rejection of such a proposition would expose the Convention to more unpleasant animadversions than the adoption of it: and that the alarm out of doors that might be excited for the state of things within, would at least be as likely to good as ill.

Mr. Williamson, observed that the true cause of the omission could not be mistaken. The Convention had no funds.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=98

[rjaypeters]

He was long accused of being a deist. He denied it repeatedly... Jefferson would have been thrown out of office had he admitted the same.

Of course Jefferson denied being a Deist, it was considered next to being an atheist. A cursory study of the politics of the day reveals viciousness which we have not yet attained in the twenty-first century. Still, just because someone denies something doesn't mean it isn't true...from the Wikipedia "Deism" article:

"For his part, Thomas Jefferson is perhaps one of the Founding Fathers with the most outspoken of Deist tendencies, though he more often referred to himself as a Unitarian. In particular, his treatment of the Biblical gospels which he titled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, but which subsequently became more commonly known as the Jefferson Bible, exhibits a strong deist tendency of stripping away all supernatural and dogmatic references from the Christ story."

[KitemanSA]

...
What they did end up doing is adjourning for three days with delegates advised to get to know each other better. They were urged to associate with delegates that were in opposition to their positions, and after three days of taking a break and getting to know each other, they all came back much refreshed and willing to work more closely with each other.
Then they all agreed to go to church together.

So this suggests that between prayer and drink, the more effective was drink? Hmmm. They may be on to something there!

[Diogenes]

...
What they did end up doing is adjourning for three days with delegates advised to get to know each other better. They were urged to associate with delegates that were in opposition to their positions, and after three days of taking a break and getting to know each other, they all came back much refreshed and willing to work more closely with each other.
Then they all agreed to go to church together.

So this suggests that between prayer and drink, the more effective was drink? Hmmm. They may be on to something there!

A long time ago, a friend once told me of a Viking custom called "The Drunk Counsel." Whenever a bunch of Vikings needed to discuss something important, they would get together and get drunk. It was expected that they would be more willing to speak their mind after having consumed sufficient quantities of drink, and so the truth of their opinions would come out unvarnished by diplomacy.

Thereafter they would then conduct the "Sober Council" during which they could discuss what had been said during the "Drunk Council."

Sounds like a pretty good methodology to me.

[mdeminico]

jefferson was the most ardent supporter of separation of church and state. he wrote it in to the constitution. and he wrote it in in much clearer and comprehensive terms into his own virginia state constitution. if i were to guess i'd say he was an atheist. he was man of science and secular principles through and through.

I have here a copy of the Constitution. Would you be so kind as to show me where the words "Separation of Church and State" appear in it?

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html

Please, HappyJack, you're a smart guy, and presumably a scientist. You wouldn't be here on this forum if you weren't. Please read the facts for yourself before you make a claim, because what the average knucklehead out there is saying *probably* isn't true.

Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase "Separation of Church and State" in a letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut, to reassure them that the Constitution (and therefore one of the few powers of the Federal Government) prohibits the State from forcing them to join the state Church.

In other words, he wrote it, to a Church, to point out the fact that Government is not allowed to force a Church to do something, or force someone to join a certain Church.

[KitemanSA]

A long time ago, a friend once told me of a Viking custom called "The Drunk Counsel." Whenever a bunch of Vikings needed to discuss something important, they would get together and get drunk. It was expected that they would be more willing to speak their mind after having consumed sufficient quantities of drink, and so the truth of their opinions would come out unvarnished by diplomacy.

Thereafter they would then conduct the "Sober Council" during which they could discuss what had been said during the "Drunk Council."

Sounds like a pretty good methodology to me.

Yea us vikings!

[ladajo]

One of the most rational things I ever heard came from a friend who could not stand up without an assist he was so drunk, "You guys just don't understand, we will know when we know!"
I left out the word slurring and spit.
Shortly after this, as I recall (like 18 years ago or so), he peed himself then passed out. A fine effort from a Vietnam Marine Helicopter Crew Chief.

[Skipjack]

Thereafter they would then conduct the "Sober Council" during which they could discuss what had been said during the "Drunk Council."

Yeah, if they could still remember that is...

[KitemanSA]

Yeah, if they could still remember that is...

Drunk, not blotto. I think they saved the "blotto" council till after the sober council.

[MSimon]

Have you witnessed what happens when people decide what is moral?

The bible was also written by people.

Are you sure? I'd like to see the video.

[MSimon]

but the Bible is divinely inspired

It was a trick by the devil and King James.

[MSimon]

I have here a copy of the Constitution. Would you be so kind as to show me where the words "Separation of Church and State" appear in it?

The Constitution does not have anything about a right to eat your own food. And yet we are thought to have that right.

It says nothing about freedom of conscience and yet we are thought to have that right as well.

And Jefferson (who was the man behind the religion part of the 1st Amendment) had this to say:

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

"We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."

Of course the religious wars of the 17th Century were fresh in people's minds then.

[MSimon]

Your pockets of secularism could not exist at all if Christianity hadn't smoothed the angry waters into tolerating them.

Actually it was the anti-clerical Enlightenment that did that job.

Woe be unto unto you if you were of the wrong religion in 1400s Catholic Spain. And Spain was only the worst of that time.

The disabilities heaped on Jews by Christian Europe pre-enlightenment tends to cast doubt on your proposition.

Europe has never been very Jew friendly (for very long) and they are reverting to their old ways. Zionism was a response to to the old ways.

BTW the uniting of religion and State goes back to the Egyptians. When they conquered a tribe the tribal religion was incorporated into the Egyptian religion. Thus the attributes of the gods changed over time. Egypt is no longer the power it once was. But they triumphed in the end. The Osiris story lives on. It took 300 some years before the belief that Jesus was not The Maker was declared a heresy. And it took a few more centuries before that heresy was mostly stamped out (and a lot of the stamping was done by force).

IMO if every person recognized their direct connection to the Maker religion would be superfluous. Clericals prey on that lack of connection i.e. religion as we know it (publicly) is a con.

Faith is very handy for governments. It can cover up a lot of malfeasance.

Joining religion to State has never been a good thing. Except for the members of the State religion. What does that conjoining get you? People whose belief is political rather than from conviction. i.e. manipulators. We see that all the time in the US. "Pay no attention to the State stealing you blind with my acquiescence if not connivance. I have the right beliefs." There is a well know huckster in the US running for President under that rubric.

BTW the same tension we see being played out in the US re: its major religion is played out in another secular State with respect to its major religion. Israel. Israel may be a State for Jews but it is definitely not a Jewish State. And some folks living there consider the State illegitimate for that reason.