Remarks of Jefferson's such as 'Christianity is the most per

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

-verted system that ever shone on man' are compatible with deism but also with atheism. So is James Madison's robust anti-clericalism: 'During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.' The same could be said of Benjamin Franklin's 'Lighthouses are more useful than churches' and of John Adams's 'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it'. Adams delivered himself of some splendid tirades against Christianity in particular: 'As I understand the Christian religion, it was and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?' And, in another letter this time to Jefferson, 'I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved - the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!'

Prof Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 991 • Replies: 19

No top replies

What's your question?

0 Replies

I just finished that book this morning.

Really enjoyed it.

I don't remember that quote above, except for the part about religion and lighthouses.

0 Replies

It is no mark of genius to observe and note the excesses of the clergy; though it may take courage to publish them.

It is something else to fully understand that these are no fault of God.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

It is something else to fully understand that these are no fault of God.

We fully understand that god is merely a concept which exists in the mind of man. And as such, can not be at fault. Apparently it is you who are yet to fully understand.

0 Replies

Lessee, the Bible says that all men are sinners, and that the heart of man is desperately wicked and beyond repair, (even giving examples of men who followed God making tremendous mistakes, turning back to evil, practicing mischief and all manner of devious and bad actions).

You (brilliant you) notice that even the best of men have tremendous faults, failings and imperfections, and that's[/u][/i] why you don't believe the Bible............?

hmmmmm, seems like you're skipping a cog, or something

Did you not notice how everything the Bible said about the nature of man is true? Far from whitewashing the issue, scripture leads front and center naming names of men of God who sinned.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

What's your question?

I didnt really have one. Just posted to show the eminently sensible views of men like Franklin Jefferson Madison Adams etc. But ok, if you want a question, whats gone wrong in the US that today there can be no place in high office for men with opinions like theirs?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Lessee, the Bible says .......

well, that answers that. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

whats gone wrong in the US that today there can be no place in high office for men with opinions like theirs

The religious establishment, unlike what it wishes to portray itself as, is actually rife with judgementalism, self righteousness, bigotry,and dismissiveness of all creeds other than its own. Weve made it a major industry for prilimanry filtering of candidates. So much so that it trumps actual abilities ina kind of Brobdingnagian manner. However, I dont think that a ressurected John Adams would have a chance unless he were able to "testify" his unwavering Jesusism.
Weve become a nation of sounding bells full of empty noise.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
What's your question?
I didnt really have one. Just posted to show the eminently sensible views of men like Franklin Jefferson Madison Adams etc. But ok, if you want a question, whats gone wrong in the US that today there can be no place in high office for men with opinions like theirs?

Not that's a question. I'm sure there are multiple reasons. FM has given one.

Here's another possibility... the original voting system was designed to allow voters the opportunity to elect representatives who then gathered and debated the merits of a candidate. Those representatives were assumed to be more knowledgeable people than the average voter, and thus able to make a wiser choice. This seemed like a reasonable system in an environment without mass communication, where many people knew nothing more about a candidate (and national issues) than a name. Our world is different now. Every single voter, if they wish, can be exposed to a huge biography of information on a candidate, but they are also exposed to much more propaganda. The result has been to squeeze the electoral representatives almost completely out of the process.

And then there's campaign financing, the engine behind propaganda.... sheesh.

0 Replies

You want a solution to campaign financing, here's one.

All campaign funds can only come from an individual who is legally qualified to vote for a candidate.

Congressional candidates in Missouri could not accept donations from Californians.

Corporations, unions, etc could not donate to a candidate since the organization is not a voter.

Adults could not funnel donations to a candidate in their childrens name.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

You want a solution to campaign financing, here's one.

All campaign funds can only come from an individual who is legally qualified to vote for a candidate.

Congressional candidates in Missouri could not accept donations from Californians.

Corporations, unions, etc could not donate to a candidate since the organization is not a voter.

Adults could not funnel donations to a candidate in their childrens name.

I haven't given it that much thought, but at first glance that seems pretty reasonable.

What about the candidate using his/her own finances? Should they be allowed to so that? I suppose not, or eventually it would be "The richest person wins" contest.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
It is something else to fully understand that these are no fault of God.

We fully understand that god is merely a concept which exists in the mind of man. And as such, can not be at fault. Apparently it is you who are yet to fully understand.

Apparently we disagree on what is meant by 'fully understand'. Let our degree of understanding not be defined by desire for reward or license.

Truth is independent of personal preference.

0 Replies

Truth is independent of personal preference.

"FACTS are independent of personal preferences, not truth. If its truth you want, Let me point you to Dr BArt'hs philosophy class"

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
It is something else to fully understand that these are no fault of God.

We fully understand that god is merely a concept which exists in the mind of man. And as such, can not be at fault. Apparently it is you who are yet to fully understand.
Apparently we disagree on what is meant by 'fully understand'.

We disagree on whether god even exists (as you so blithely assume in your first statement). And we probably disagree on the definition of god.

You assume that god is some type of external entity beyond merely your concept of what you wish existed. Yet you have not a shred of empirical evidence to support that assumption.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
You want a solution to campaign financing, here's one.

All campaign funds can only come from an individual who is legally qualified to vote for a candidate.

Congressional candidates in Missouri could not accept donations from Californians.

Corporations, unions, etc could not donate to a candidate since the organization is not a voter.

Adults could not funnel donations to a candidate in their childrens name.

I haven't given it that much thought, but at first glance that seems pretty reasonable.

What about the candidate using his/her own finances? Should they be allowed to so that? I suppose not, or eventually it would be "The richest person wins" contest.

Yes, it is reasonable, but it wouldn't pass muster with the Supreme Court. In the first place, corporations, unions and other such organizations are legally recognized as "persons" for most legal purposes. In the second place, the reform could not be anything like that simple, because corporations, unions, etc. contribute indirectly through the major party organizations, which is a way to avoid contribution limits to individuals. Additionally, corporations and unions and such organizations can fund "issure ads" which refer to the agenda of this or that candidate without naming him or her, and although it fools no one, it is perfectly legal.

The Supremes see this as a free speech issue, and you cannot therefore impose certain types of limits. The most glaring example is the private money of individuals. Ross Perot spent as little of his own money as he could, and took every penny of contributions the could legally get his hands on. But if he had to run on his own funds, the Supremes have already ruled that you can't put any limits on how much money he spends, or how he spends it. That was decided a long time ago when the Republicans had a bad case of sour grapes about the bulging campaign coffers of the Kennedy brothers--seems as though they thought someone like the Republican Nelson Rockefeller didn't really count.

0 Replies

Nevertheless

neologist wrote:

. . . Let our degree of understanding not be defined by desire for reward or license.

Truth is independent of personal preference.

Can facts be independent from truth?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
You want a solution to campaign financing, here's one.

All campaign funds can only come from an individual who is legally qualified to vote for a candidate.

Congressional candidates in Missouri could not accept donations from Californians.

Corporations, unions, etc could not donate to a candidate since the organization is not a voter.

Adults could not funnel donations to a candidate in their childrens name.

I haven't given it that much thought, but at first glance that seems pretty reasonable.

What about the candidate using his/her own finances? Should they be allowed to so that? I suppose not, or eventually it would be "The richest person wins" contest.

Yes, it is reasonable, but it wouldn't pass muster with the Supreme Court. In the first place, corporations, unions and other such organizations are legally recognized as "persons" for most legal purposes.

But not for voting. Corporations can't vote. So there is a distinction they do recognize.

Setanta wrote:

In the second place, the reform could not be anything like that simple, because corporations, unions, etc. contribute indirectly through the major party organizations, which is a way to avoid contribution limits to individuals.

I don't think they should be allowed to contribute to the parties either.

Setanta wrote:

Additionally, corporations and unions and such organizations can fund "issure ads" which refer to the agenda of this or that candidate without naming him or her, and although it fools no one, it is perfectly legal.

You're right about this one. As long as they don't explicitly endorse a candidate or target a candidate for defeat, then probably this will continue to be allowed.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

the Bible says

oh no its a magical talking book!!!!

0 Replies

BDV wrote:

real life wrote:
the Bible says

oh no its a magical talking book!!!!

Run away! Run away!

0 Replies

Remarks of Jefferson's such as 'Christianity is the most per

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know