"In God We Trust"

[George H. Smith]

I feel so much better now....

WASHINGTON -- The House on Tuesday passed a non-binding resolution reaffirming "In God We Trust" as the national motto.

The measure sponsored by Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., supports and encourages the motto's display in all public schools and government buildings. It was approved 396-9, with 2 abstentions.

Forbes said the resolution was needed because President Obama had once called "E pluribus unum" the national motto, and the Latin phrase meaning "from many one" was engraved in the new Capitol Visitors Center until Congress ordered that it be corrected.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., called the resolution a meaningless distraction from the nation's real problems. "Nobody is threatening the national motto," he said.

"In God We Trust" first appeared on U.S. coins during the Civil War in 1864. It officially became the national motto in 1956 and began appearing on paper currency the following year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/house-in-god-we-trust_n_1071180.html?ref=politics

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't mind these things, just as i don't mind acknowledging the Christian influence on the formation of the USA.

You can change what you know. If you don't like a motto, make a movement and change it.

But not by stealth and deception (like Obama & progressives constantly try to do).

In other words, I do mind--and mind terribly--rewriting history to pretend the religious stuff was not the case in USA history. And I hate it when I seeing the pretense gaining ground by small "nudges."

While I was in Brazil, I had no idea how far down that road the USA was. But I saw it once I got back. This perception hasn't made me religious, but it has made me look at religious folks in a sympathetic light--much more than I used to.

Here's what I see right now. A Congressional resolution reaffirming the motto "In God We Trust" brings clarity of identification--yup, that's the motto all right--where the country's own leader is committed to muddying the waters. Frankly, I think that is a good thing.

If you don't agree, you don't have to like it. But you have to know it before you can change it by reasoned persuasion. When you change one thing like a motto by stealth and deception, you can change it to something else in the future by the same means. The con gets easier. That is not a good thing.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

I don't mind these things, just as i don't mind acknowledging the Christian influence on the formation of the USA.

You can change what you know. If you don't like a motto, make a movement and change it.

But not by stealth and deception (like Obama & progressives constantly try to do).

In other words, I do mind--and mind terribly--rewriting history to pretend the religious stuff was not the case in USA history. And I hate it when I seeing the pretense gaining ground by small "nudges."

While I was in Brazil, I had no idea how far down that road the USA was. But I saw it once I got back. This perception hasn't made me religious, but it has made me look at religious folks in a sympathetic light--much more than I used to.

Here's what I see right now. A Congressional resolution reaffirming the motto "In God We Trust" brings clarity of identification--yup, that's the motto all right--where the country's own leader is committed to muddying the waters. Frankly, I think that is a good thing.

If you don't agree, you don't have to like it. But you have to know it before you can change it by reasoned persuasion. When you change one thing like a motto by stealth and deception, you can change it to something else in the future by the same means. The con gets easier. That is not a good thing.

Michael

I don't put much stock in mottos. What bothers me about the reaffirmation of the U.S. motto is the sheer political hucksterism of the cheesy exercise.

Note that the resolution passed by a vote of 396 to 9, so the vast majority of Democrats voted for it as well. Do you think all those Dems were striving for "clarity of identification"?

It is not my responsibility to launch a movement to change anything. I couldn't care less about the motto. I merely wish to point out that, generally speaking, neither Democrats nor Republicans give a shit about the Constitution.

The "America is a Christian Nation" crowd is more dangerous than you might think. It's just that the present danger they pose pales in comparison to the economic devastation inflicted by the Obama goons.

Ghs

[Reidy]

Gore once famously translated "e pluribus unum" as "out of one, many," an Enlightenment-era endorsement of multiculturalism. That goes a long way to explaining why some people think he's smarter than Obama.

[George H. Smith]

Gore once famously translated "e pluribus unum" as "out of one, many," an Enlightenment-era endorsement of multiculturalism. That goes a long way to explaining why some people think he's smarter than Obama.

Gore also once referred to Thomas Jefferson as one of the drafters and signers of the U.S. Constitution. (Jefferson was in France at the time.)

I don't know about others, but I have full confidence in this brilliant man to save the planet.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't put much stock in mottos. What bothers me about the reaffirmation of the U.S. motto is the sheer political hucksterism of the cheesy exercise.

Note that the resolution passed by a vote of 396 to 9, so the vast majority of Democrats voted for it as well. Do you think all those Dems were striving for "clarity of identification"?

George,

I'm not so sure. I don't like politicians in general, but I don't see this as hucksterism pure and simple. What is a politician to gain here from hustling the folks? Votes?

I think there is a level of ridiculous that even politicians respond to. Obama has said openly that he now intends to circumvent Congress as much as possible to "get the job done," meaning whatever he wants done.

From your excerpt, Obama was having a different motto "engraved in the new Capitol Visitors Center" by his favorite tactic, stealth and deception.

To me, it looks like they cut him off at the pass. Notice that the resolution only "supports and encourages" the display of the motto at government buildings and public schools. It does not mandate it as a requirement. This was no doubt thrown in as filler to look good and make the religious members of Congress happy.

So, although the motives were mixed with what I see as a political power struggle, yes, I do believe even the Dems (at least some of them) were striving for clear identification. Clarity made it an easy battle to win to further clip Obama's power-usurping wings.

I see it as an excellent example of the checks and balances mechanism in full bloom.

It is not my responsibility to launch a movement to change anything.

I wasn't addressing you "George" in my post, but instead "you" in general. That's why I didn't address the post with your name. But I should have made that clearer. I even had a little voice at the back of my mind messing with me when I wrote it. Sorry.

Next time I'll listen to my inner nag.

The "America is a Christian Nation" crowd is more dangerous than you might think. It's just that the present danger they pose pales in comparison to the economic devastation inflicted by the Obama goons.

I agree where such Christians are old money Republican crony capitalists who like war, including their respective tribes and congregations.

I don't agree where "individual salvation" (as opposed to "collective salvation") Christians who do not like war, and do like small government, are concerned.

The first wish to redefine the country so they can rule. The second wish to keep the record straight.

I have no quarrel with people who wish to keep the record straight.

Here is a clip where Glenn Beck discussed this issue with David Barton. Glenn's assistants (mostly Pat) disagreed with him. Their point was that the USA is not a Christian nation in the sense that Israel is a Jewish nation.

Barton mentioned where traces of Christian thinking and principles are found in government documents (including over 300 court rulings outright calling the USA a Christian nation, speeches from about half the Presidents, and a ton load of laws), then ended up saying "America is most justly called a Christian nation because Christianity has so largely shaped and molded it. That's the definition of a Christian nation."

He made it clear that there was never any official federal religion--no official federal Christianity--although there were official state religions for a while. And he said the USA could be better called a Biblical nation than a Christian one (the context was looking where certain ideas came from). This is a subtle distinction on the surface, but I got his point.

This video is one of the best layman's discussions of the issue I have come across. It deserves to have a transcript. The very title is: Are we a Christian nation?

<object width="400" height="254"><param name="movie" value="http://web.gbtv.com//shared/flash/video/share/ObjectEmbedFrame.swf?width=400&height=254&content_id=19970317&property=gbtv" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="scale" value="noscale" /><param name="salign" value="tl" /><embed src="http://web.gbtv.com//shared/flash/video/share/ObjectEmbedFrame.swf?width=400&height=254&content_id=19970317&property=gbtv" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" window="transparent" width="400" height="254" scale="noscale" salign ="tl" /> </object>

From what I understood, Beck's assistants prevailed and Beck finally agreed with them (while still trying to keep the disagree pose).

I can live with this level of understanding and contention and wide-open discussion. One of the things I like about Beck is that he keeps people around him that reign in his tendency to go into la-la land when he goes into prophet mode.

You might enjoy the fact that Barton called who won the discussion and disagreement a "Three Stooges" moment where all heads got slapped.

I see it very possible to work from this kind of clarity to inject libertarian and Objectivist ideas into the system (see the Tea Party. for instance).

I do not see it possible to do so by pretending Christianity has had no greater impact on the USA than a quirk of the more ignorant people in USA history.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

I have no quarrel with people who wish to keep the record straight. Here is a clip where Glenn Beck discussed this issue with David Barton. Glenn's assistants (mostly Pat) disagreed with him. Their point was that the USA is not a Christian nation in the sense that Israel is a Jewish nation. Barton mentioned where traces of Christian thinking and principles are found in government documents (including over 300 court rulings outright calling the USA a Christian nation, speeches from about half the Presidents, and a ton load of laws), then ended up saying "America is most justly called a Christian nation because Christianity has so largely shaped and molded it. That's the definition of a Christian nation." He made it clear that there was never any official federal religion--no official federal Christianity--although there were official state religions for a while. And he said the USA could be better called a Biblical nation than a Christian one (the context was looking where certain ideas came from). This is a subtle distinction on the surface, but I got his point. This video is one of the best layman's discussions of the issue I have come across. It deserves to have a transcript.

I heard Barton on Beck's radio show yesterday morning, and his progrrammatic shtick -- which is akin to how fundies talk about Creationism -- drove me up the wall. I've been reading and hearing the same distorted accounts since my early high school days, when I first become interested in freethought. A majority of Barton's "facts" were simply wrong, especially in regard to the Declaration of Independence.

Barton concluded that America is a Biblical Nation because it practices religious tolerance, and tolerance is taught in the Bible. Yeah, right -- who does that moron think he is kidding?

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A majority of Barton's "facts" were simply wrong, especially in regard to the Declaration of Independence.

George,

Are they outright wrong (say, like his claim of a direct quote from Blackstone in the Declaration, if I remember correctly--was that wrong?), or are they just the other side of that interpretation thing I see everyone doing? (And, yes, I have my own warning bells for when he pushes the interpretation agenda. At my level of reading, of course.)

I am more interested in facts here than slant.

My real interest is clarity, not agenda.

Michael

[anthony]

Loosely connected, I know, but another case of your President re-writing history, and tradition.

I only saw recently that he sent back a bust of Winston Churchill after entering the White House.

A long-time gift from England, he peremptorily decided it had no place in his Adminstration, evidently.

Like Winnie, or not, this was strange: he could have had a flag draped over it, or sent it to the attic.

What about the new President who would like the bust back?

(Do you think he was not planning on a new President?)

Tony

[George H. Smith]

A majority of Barton's "facts" were simply wrong, especially in regard to the Declaration of Independence.

George, Are they outright wrong (say, like his claim of a direct quote from Blackstone in the Declaration, if I remember correctly--was that wrong?), or are they just the other side of that interpretation thing I see everyone doing? (And, yes, I have my own warning bells for when he pushes the interpretation agenda. At my level of reading, of course.) I am more interested in facts here than slant. My real interest is clarity, not agenda. Michael

Some of Barton's claims are outright wrong -- and so obviously wrong to qualify as outright lies. For example, Jefferson once mentioned Blackstone as one of the two most pernicious influences on American thinking. (The other was Hume.) The idea that Jefferson would deliberately incorporate wording from Blackstone into the Declaration is absurd. Is there similar wording at times? Of course. Certain phrases were exceedingly common throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. The term "Nature's God," for example, was a stock phrase of Deism, which was typically very hostile to Christianity. Jefferson was a deist, not a Christian.

I don't recall the specifics, but at one point Barton attributes something in the Declaration to the Old Testament. What crap. Jefferson absolutely detested the Old Testament. He once called the God of the Old Testament "a being of terrific character -- cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust," and he indicated similar sentiments in a number of his letters.

I have no desire to spin anything. I have fequently given credit to Christian thinkers (see my recent Cato essay, for example, where I quote the minister Richard Price), but Barton is a snake-oil salesman for Christian fundamentalism, and that's all he is. Even Beck -- whose knowledge in this area is quite skewed -- had to correct him on at least one point. If you doubt my objectivity, read this essay, "Christianity and Liberty," that I wrote around 20 years ago:

http://www.acton.org...ity-and-liberty

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Michael,

Note the many things that Barton did not mention. For example, he did not mention the Treaty of Tripoli, which was submitted by President John Adams to the Senate, where it passed unanimously in 1797.It specifically states (my italics):

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This is probably the closest thing to an official statement that we have, yet Christian fundies either ignore it or go to ridiculous lengths to explain it away.

Call America a Christian nation, if you like, but the government of the United States was never intended to be a Christian government. If this had been the intention of the Founders, they would have said so in the Constitution. But that document never mentions the word "God," much less Christianity.

Here is another little tidbit that Barton will never mention. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 proceeded without any minister or cleric whatsoever. When arguments became so heated that it looked like an impasse had been reached, Ben Franklin suggested calling in a minister to give a little prayer in the interest of conciliation. His resolution was voted down by the Convention. The official reason was lack of funds to pay a minister (as if a volunteer minister could not have been found).

Alexander Hamilton quipped that the delegates had no need of "foreign aid." I suspect that Hamilton's humorous remark hit upon the truth, namely, that the delegates, understanding the crucial role that the new Constitution would play, did not want to mix religion and politics.

These are among the historical ditties that you will never hear from the likes of Barton. Another is Madison's opposition to a National Day of Prayer. The list goes on.....

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

I don't doubt your objectivity.

I just prefer the following form:

So-and-so said this: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Here is an excerpt (in proper context) from the document he discussed: yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

Whenever I see strong emotional negativity as a first response to "so-and-so said this," I tend to not agree. I go about my own verifications (if I have time) and come to my own conclusions. Then I may agree or not--usually I detect bias on both sides. But rarely do I adopt the hatred and/or contempt one side shows the other.

I agree with you that Barton has his defects, but I would not go so far as to call him a snake-oil salesman. He has one hell of a collection of original American documents that he presents without Bowdlerizing them. A snake-oil salesman would present fakes and maybe physically alter the documents.

Barton makes a case for what he believes they mean (and that is where my warning bells sometimes go off), but in every instance when I have checked what he has said, the document itself that he discussed was as he said it was.

I don't know of any instance where he rewrote the words of any document to make it Christian where it wasn't.

He makes it so I am able to check what he says easily. He provides a simple path for me to do so. I appreciate that.

Barton does not mock ignorance. I also appreciate that, too. (Greatly.)

I see some very strong positive values to go along with the negative in Barton. Values that I resonate with--starting with encouraging people to look for themselves at original sources.

How can anyone be against that?

On the negative side, I would be interested in looking at an "outright lie" of his that I could examine for myself on a side-by-side comparison. I mean that literally. I don't devote 24 hours a day to following Barton. Actually, my time for it is not much at all. So if there is anything worth looking at that does not involve interpreting stuff, I would love to see it. My love of fact is a lot stronger than my love of what anyone says.

Here is one thing I have noticed in this dispute. (I don't necessarily mean you. Well, maybe, if you are riled enough...) The people giving the anti-Christian argument (for American history) always use quotes from someone like Jefferson to bolster their case. The Christian argument folks present other quotes from Jefferson that bolster their case. Both sides belittle and "interpret" the quotes that do not fit their respective agendas.

I think this puts the human being Jefferson into an intellectual straight-jacket--a one size to fit his entire life span--that simply never existed. Not with any human being I ever heard of. People go through phases in their thinking. Every one of us.

These phases--and contexts--are always present in our writing and communications. They cause us sometimes to write conflicting messages when put side-by-side.

There is no reason on earth I believe I should use a different standard for Jefferson. So I don't buy the argument that Jefferson was not influenced by Christianity--nor that Jefferson was fundamentally influenced by Christianity. From what little I have examined, I think he was both, depending on what you are looking at.

So I look at this stuff with my own eyes. I am grateful for indications and opinions from any and all (as I am with Barton), but I have yet to find myself in scorched earth mode against one side or the other.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

George,

I don't doubt your objectivity.

I just prefer the following form:

So-and-so said this: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Here is an excerpt (in proper context) from the document he discussed: yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

Whenever I see strong emotional negativity as a first response to "so-and-so said this," I tend to not agree. I go about my own verifications (if I have time) and come to my own conclusions. Then I may agree or not--usually I detect bias on both sides. But rarely do I adopt the hatred and/or contempt one side shows the other.

Fine, go about your own "verifications." And when you finish with Barton's nonsense about the Declaration, be sure to do a close examination of Creationism and ancient aliens.

As for my supposed "emotionalism," I detest frauds masquerading as historians. I have been much harder on Peikoff than I was on Barton, and Peikoff is an atheist.

As for the "form" you prefer, what do you expect me to do -- write a point by point refutation of Barton? Go ahead and waste your time investaigating every fraudulent claim that Christian fundamentalists care to make. It's up to you. And don't forget the many historical claims made by Muslims, while you are at it.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Here is one thing I have noticed in this dispute. (I don't necessarily mean you. Well, maybe, if you are riled enough...) The people giving the anti-Christian argument (for American history) always use quotes from someone like Jefferson to bolster their case. The Christian argument folks present other quotes from Jefferson that bolster their case. Both sides belittle and "interpret" the quotes that do not fit their respective agendas.

I think this puts the human being Jefferson into an intellectual straight-jacket--a one size to fit his entire life span--that simply never existed. Not with any human being I ever heard of. People go through phases in their thinking. Every one of us.

I am getting sick-to-death of your little condescending asides. I have been a serious student of Thomas Jefferson for nearly 40 years. I have forgotten more about Jefferson and the Declaration than you will ever know. I don't appreciate your BS that amounts to the cliche "there are two sides to every story." Jefferson, for the most part, was very clear about his beliefs. There was a good reason why his political opponents branded him an "infidel" and even an "atheist" throughout his presidency (though he was never the latter).

Btw, did you know that there are two sides to the Obama presidency? There are those who say he is doing wonderful things, and those who disagree. Who are we to judge? Obama, after all, may have gone through different phases of his thinking. You seem to get rather emotional whenever Obama's name comes up, so of course I must discount your opinion. It is probably your lizard brain in action.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Michael,

Barton mentions the many court decisions that have declared America to be a Christian nation. I don't know if he is right about the number, but I actually quoted one in ATCAG. It is from an 1871 decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court. As you read this, pay special regard to the supposed toleration that Barton contends is implied in such decisions:

The man who has the hardihood to avow that he does not believe in a God, shows a recklessness of moral character and utter want of moral responsibility, such as very little entitles him to be heard or believed in a court of justice in a country designated as Christian.

Some tolerance, eh? Do you suppose Barton ever actually quotes this decision? Let's take a wild guess.

In some states it took a long time before atheists and other unbelievers were permitted to testify in court. This meant that they could not effectively file criminal or civil charges, or defend themselves against such charges.

If you look through similar court cases, I would wager that you will find similar bigotry. But didn't Barton tell us that to be a Biblical Nation means to be a tolerant nation?

Hmmm....looks like someone is fudging the truth here.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Call America a Christian nation, if you like, but the government of the United States was never intended to be a Christian government. If this had been the intention of the Founders, they would have said so in the Constitution. But that document never mentions the word "God," much less Christianity.

George,

I agree that the USA is not a Christian government. That was the whole point of the discussion in the Beck clip above. Beck had (and probably still has) trouble with that idea.

But look at your quote above. Here goes that interpretation thing.

God is not mentioned in the Constitution. But both God and Creator are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Is that a founding document of the USA or not?

I say it is.

Almost everybody in the colonies back then considered God and Creator in Christian terms. Is there any reason to sever that context when they wrote a document?

I say there is not.

Does that make the USA a Christian government? No.

Does that mean there is no Christianity at all in the charter ideas--that all Christian influence had been filtered out?

My conclusion is no. I see no evidence of it.

I believe that tolerance of other religions (more specifically, the freedom of an individual to choose his religion) was a fundamental principle of the Founding Fathers, so if a specific religion in the charter documents had been mentioned, it would have eliminated the space for that principle to exist.

You say that the intent was not to make a Christian government. Fine. I'm cool with that.

But I do not believe that the intent was to diminish and eliminate the Christianity that did exist in the ideas. There was no intellectual war on Christianity in the charter documents. The purpose was merely to make an individual's choice of God an individual matter within a mostly Christian nation. (I think the term "mostly" here nails what "Christian nation" actually means in the sense I understand it.)

I don't know if the Founding Fathers ever speculated that the USA would be anything other than a mostly Christian nation. But if they had, I don't imagine them objecting to this on political grounds. It might break their heart, and they might think of it as the beginning of the end, but it would not violate their political principles of limited government. That's my speculation.

Which leads to barring Christian stuff from government buildings and functions. I believe the spirit of what they did would interpret such a prohibition as a violation of the freedom of religion right of the person who wants to pray (or whatever).

And I believe that if they saw some of the stuff that is spoken these days as their true meaning, they would be appalled.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am getting sick-to-death of your little condescending asides.

George,

Ding, ding, ding, dong, dong, dong!

There goes my warning bells.

Intimidation will get you nowhere.

You know better than that.

I'm out of time and this is no longer a serious discussion.

You keep your hatred.

I'll keep my mind.

You are definitely not addressing my reason right now.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Call America a Christian nation, if you like, but the government of the United States was never intended to be a Christian government. If this had been the intention of the Founders, they would have said so in the Constitution. But that document never mentions the word "God," much less Christianity.

George, I agree that the USA is not a Christian government. That was the whole point of the discussion in the Beck clip above. Beck had (and probably still has) trouble with that idea. But look at your quote above. Here goes that interpretation thing. God is not mentioned in the Constitution. But both God and Creator are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Is that a founding document of the USA or not? I say it is. Almost everybody in the colonies back then considered God and Creator in Christian terms. Is there any reason to sever that context when they wrote a document? I say there is not. Does that make the USA a Christian government? No. Does that mean there is no Christianity at all in the charter ideas--that all Christian influence had been filtered out? My conclusion is no. I see no evidence of it. I believe that tolerance of other religions (more specifically, the freedom of an individual to choose his religion) was a fundamental principle of the Founding Fathers, so if a specific religion in the charter documents had been mentioned, it would have eliminated the space for that principle to exist. You say that the intent was not to make a Christian government. Fine. I'm cool with that. But I do not believe that the intent was to diminish and eliminate the Christianity that did exist in the ideas. There was no intellectual war on Christianity in the charter documents....

Where are you getting this stuff? I never said anything like the claims you are making here.

Of course Chrsitianity had an enormous influence on many of the Founders and on early American culture generally. 18th century Americans owed many things to Christianity, including their defenses of slavery, their brutal treatment of heathen natives, their opposition to theaters, their prejudices against Jews and Catholics, and much more. So what? There were plenty of secularists in America as well, and even this minority was influenced by Christianity. It was a Christian culture.

You don't seem to understand what is involved when fundies claim that America was founded as a Christian nation. The point of this argument is to break down the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which Jefferson characterized as "a wall of separation between church and state." These people want crosses displayed on government buildings, the Ten Commandments on display in courthouses, prayer in the public schools, and much more.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I am getting sick-to-death of your little condescending asides.

George,

Ding, ding, ding, dong, dong, dong!

There goes my warning bells.

Intimidation will get you nowhere.

You know better than that.

I'm out of time and this is no longer a serious discussion.

You keep your hatred.

I'll keep my mind.

You are definitely not addressing my reason right now.

Michael

If you want your "reason" addressed, then stop with the comments about my supposed emotionalism, and so forth. I am happy to stop this exchange now, since you don't know enough about this subject to carry on a serious conversation.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Btw, did you know that there are two sides to the Obama presidency? There are those who say he is doing wonderful things, and those who disagree. Who are we to judge? Obama, after all, may have gone through different phases of his thinking. You seem to get rather emotional whenever Obama's name comes up, so of course I must discount your opinion. It is probably your lizard brain in action.

George,

I want my views to be absolutely clear on Obama. You actually need to read what I have written to make dichotomies that are relevant to me.

I think Obama is essentially a good person with good intentions added to the side of him that is a scheming politician going after power.

I have gotten a lot of flack for this view, a lot. But that is what I see. I don't see him motivated by a thirst to wreck the country and I truly believe he wants to help the poor because he believes this is good.

I also think he is an incompetent administrator totally out of his league and he adheres to a very dangerous ideology. He might be sincere in his intentions (and I think he is for the most part), but that doesn't make the left-wing ideology any less dangerous.

There is also a petty side to him that screws up everything at times.

My anger is more from the risk this ideology, incompetence and pettiness represent than any hatred of Mr. Obama as a person.

He needs to be fired because he is the wrong man for the job and plays with fire without knowing how. Not because he is Satan incarnate.

And I don't hold to moral relativism ("Who are we to judge?") with threats like the ones he poses.

Never have.

Call it a lizard brain thing.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If you want your "reason" addressed, then stop with the comments about my supposed emotionalism, and so forth.

George,

Do you seriously want me to read a snarky angry comment from you, one in scorched-earth language, one that dismisses and does not address substance, and pretend that it is not an emotional statement?

What do you want me to call it? The epitome of reasoned cerebration?

And do you seriously believe that I pigeonhole a person who makes an outburst as "an emotionalist" as if he didn't have a brain in his head?

Your "supposed emotionalism" came out of your head, not mine.

If my meaning is not clear, let me try this. I do not accept emotional outbursts--especially dismissive condemnations in an intimidating tone--as statements of fact. It doesn't matter who makes them.

And just because a person does that, I do not label such a person as "an emotionalist."

We all make emotional outbursts at times. Welcome to the human race.

We all have to go to the bathroom, too. But that doesn't mean I will call a person who defecates at times "a shitter" as his main label of identification.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You don't seem to understand what is involved when fundies claim that America was founded as a Christian nation. The point of this argument is to break down the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which Jefferson characterized as "a wall of separation between church and state."

George,

Of course I see that.

But I also see a backlash against the absurdities that have been carried out in the name of combating Christian revisionist history.

I don't believe all Christians are the same.

(btw - I didn't mention it, but I did read the essay you linked to. You made me want to read more Acton. Any intellectual hero of yours is definitely worth looking at.

Now this is a quip, so don't get your dander up. I notice you have a much more favorable view of Christians who have been dead a long time--centuries preferably--than those who are still alive. )

Michael

[George H. Smith]

God is not mentioned in the Constitution. But both God and Creator are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Is that a founding document of the USA or not?

I say it is.

Almost everybody in the colonies back then considered God and Creator in Christian terms. Is there any reason to sever that context when they wrote a document?

I say there is not.

I want to address this point before I take leave of this exchange.

Was the Declaration a founding document? The answer depends on what you mean by "founding document." It established the independence of the 13 colonies, but that is all it did. Although the colonies formed a coalition to fight Britain, they regarded themselves as separate and sovereign states. Not until the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781 did they officially unite into a single political unit, if a loosely structured one. States passed their own constitutions before the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1788.

In other words. it is absurd to say that the Declaration constitutes a founding legal document for a United States that didn't even exist in 1776.

Many Americans believed in the Christian God, but Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Frankin did not. The reference to "Nature's God" is a dead giveaway -- an unmistakable clue given in the language of 18th century theology.

The Creator of Deism created the universe and man, and then left us to our own devices. There was no "special revelation," such as the Bible, in Deism. There was only "natural revelation," i.e., the facts of the universe as understood and interpreted by human reason.

Jefferson's reference to "Nature's God" was in keeping with the literature of natural law since the early 17th century. When dealing with international relationships, even Christian philosophers understood that they could not appeal to Christian revelation, since they were addressing themselves to both Christian and non-Christian nations.

Even if Jefferson had been a Christian, it would have been counterproductive for him to refer specifically to the Christian God, or to biblical revelation, because, in attempting to justify American independence, Jefferson was showing a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind," not merely Christians. He was submitting facts to "a candid world," not merely the Christian part of the world.

It was therefore imperative that the Declaration be framed in the traditional deistic terms of natural law theory, and that is what Jefferson did. Did many Americans understand these references in Christian terms? Yes, of course, just as Jews would understand them in terms of Yahweh, and Muslims would interpret them in terms of Allah and the Qur'an. That was the point of referring to "the laws of nature" in the Declaration, just as it was the point of the many treatises on natural law and natural rights that had preceded the Declaration.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Was the Declaration a founding document? The answer depends on what you mean by "founding document." It established the independence of the 13 colonies, but that is all it did. Although the colonies formed a coalition to fight Britain, they regarded themselves as separate and sovereign states. Not until the Articles of Confideration were ratified in 1781 did they officially unite into a single political unit, if a loosely structured one. States passed their own constitutions before the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1788.

In other words. it is absurd to say that the Declaration constitutes a founding legal document for a United States that didn't even exist in 1776.

George,

I was with you until this last statement. I just can't look at July 4, the Bicentennial celebration I lived through, Abe Lincoln's interpretation, etc., and call all that absurd.

I think it's absurd to ignore that stuff, insinuating that it does not refer to a founding document of the USA, and label any thought of such matters as "absurd."

I notice your selective omissions in discussing Jefferson. (Kinda like what I said folks do when they argue this stuff.)

Rather than get into a pissing match, I'll bow out. But you have not convinced me that your view of Jefferson--or even colonial Deism--is the correct one to the exclusion of all others.

Frankly, I want to read more on my own about this stuff and come to my own conclusions.

At least I'll be able to look at material and examine it without someone telling me to consult with aliens.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

You don't seem to understand what is involved when fundies claim that America was founded as a Christian nation. The point of this argument is to break down the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which Jefferson characterized as "a wall of separation between church and state."

George, Of course I see that. But I also see a backlash against the absurdities that have been carried out in the name of combating Christian revisionist history. I don't believe all Christians are the same. (btw - I didn't mention it, but I did read the essay you linked to. You made me want to read more Acton. Any intellectual hero of yours is definitely worth looking at. Now this is a quip, so don't get your dander up. I notice you have a much more favorable view of Christians who have been dead a long time--centuries preferably--than those who are still alive. ) Michael

For decades I have been combating the silly prejudices that my fellow freethinkers have against Christian historians. I tend to favor Catholic historians over Protestant historians, however, because the former are often more knowledgeable, scholarly, and objective.

Despite my unremitting efforts to restore some balance to the freethought movement -- I say "restore," because many earlier freethinkers had no such prejudices -- I still take a lot of shit from Christian types. I will give you an example from just a few days ago. This is from personal correspondence, so I cannot mention any names.

I emailed the link to my Cato essay, "Religious Toleration Versus Religious Freedom," to an old libertarian friend of mine, a colleague and scholar who keeps in touch with many other libertarians. He sent the link to a well-known Christian libertarian who is the head of a major foundation. The guy wrote back to my friend, and he forwarded the email to me. It reads:

> I would suggest that George Smith does not understand the issues of

> religion, religious freedom or tolerance, nor the history of such matters.

>

> Instead I would recommend the following book to you which critiques the

> post-Enlightenment rise of the nation state and modern global warfarism?

>

> *The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern

> Conflict

> *By William T. Cavanaugh

> (Oxford University Press)

>

> http://www.oxfordsch...f-9780195385045

> *

> *

> http://www.amazon.co...6508816-9461647

>

>

> And here is a related article by Professor Cavanaugh:

>

> “Does Religion Cause Violence? Behind the common question lies a morass of

> unclear thinking” (*Harvard Divinity Bulletin*, Spring/Summer 2007)

>

> http://www.hds.harva...-cause-violence

>

>

I replied:

Of course I am familiar with Cavanaugh. He argues, in

essence, that a simplistic distinction between religious and

secular phenomena in which we condemn the former as more

prone to violence than the latter is unwarranted, and that

we need to examine each on a case by case basis.

I agree, as I made clear 20 years ago in an article,

"Religion and Liberty," that I wrote for the Acton

Institute. As I put it there: "Acton always stressed this

important truth: No one group or movement, religious or

secular, deserves exclusive credit for the theory and

evolution of free institutions." See:

http://www.acton.org...ity-and-liberty

My Cato essay doesn't even touch on Cavanaugh's thesis,

which is basically Acton recycled, so I have no idea what

T******is talking about. I have never maintained that

religion per se causes violence. T******should worry less

about tilting at atheistic windmills and learn to focus more

on what he reads.

Read my Cato article and tell me where you find a thesis to the effect that religions generate more violence than secular institutions. There is not even a hint of anything like this anywhere in my essay. So how did this Christian come up with this nutty criticism? Well, I cannot say for sure, but I suspect that, knowing about my reputation as an atheist, he assumed that I must have been arguing for the standard freethought line in some way.

I say this because this has happened to me countless times. I am an atheist, so I must have an irrational historical bias against religion. Whether justified or not, I picked up a strain of this attitude in one of your replies, and it pissed me off.

Ghs