"For God and my Country"

[RoryN]

This is a specific trait. Eyer is now firmly in MeeMie territory.

People who act like this on the internet are often shunned and isolated in real life. You're not going to get anything of value out of him; he's attempting damage control for how much of a failure he's trying not to realise he is. Been doing it for awhile.

 

[eyer]

You are waiting for evidence that you ridicule opinions different from you own, is that right?

No...

...I'm still waiting for evidence of this:

...he would like to be freely allowed to force his religious beliefs on every other citizen of the country, whether they like it or not, and further free to ridicule those who believe differently from him.

BTW:

How likely is it that you are guilty of your own charge above?

How many times have you ridiculed opinions different from your own?

 

[Sonny Limatina]

You seem to be forgetting your own challenge. Shall I quote it for you? I'm going to cut and paste, are you ready?

...and while you're at it, please provide a single example of me "ridiculing" anyone for "believing differently from" me.

Back up your mouth, Sonny, if you're man enough...

You asked for a single example. I've obliged. I even found one where you use the very word I suggested. If we go by the terms you set, you've lost outright.

But my terms are more generous than yours. By mine, you still get to win simply by providing an example of the opposite event--you showing respect for or interest in an opinion different from yours.

Is there a reason you're turning down an obvious win?

We can move on to me afterward, if you'd like. You can make the same challenge of me: to show where I've shown intellectual curiosity about an opinion different from mine. If you feel it's going to be difficult for me to establish, then feel free to make me show my cards.

But right now, we're still on you. I met your last one, you're not in a position to ask for another.

Why are you avoiding your half of the bargain?

Are you just being generous and avoiding hitting a hanging curveball out of the park? If so, I'll go on the record and state that I don't mind if you hit this hanging curveball out of the park.

So that's off the table.

Go on. I won't mind.

I say it's never happened. Ever.

Prove me wrong.

 

[amicus]

I take upon myself a difficult task; that of remaining civil and a distant friend of Eyer, who put forth great effort, with integrity, to illustrate the evidential Christian foundations of America. It is all truth and Eyer documented it, it cannot be rationally denied.

Religion in general and Christianity in specific, was man's first and valiant attempt to ascribe moral and ethical foundations and boundaries to human actions. It was that thread of the pursuit of understanding that provided the foundation of human decency, peace and understanding among men of all rank and class.

But it was far from perfect or ideal, in the modern, rational and objective sense of the words.

The Founding Fathers, almost to a man, called upon the best of the accumulated knowledge of the entire world in order to form a more perfect Union of men under one Law. They did an admirable job, one that cannot be denied or vilified.

Man, by his innate curiosity requires answers to the unanswerable and Religion, Faith and Belief, supplied acceptable answers to life, death, the purpose of living; that which is right and wrong and good and bad. It served with adequacy for thousands of years and that fact should be acknowledged and taken into consideration in any discurssion or morals and ethics and rational human behavior.

But the mind of man inherently questions. Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden illustrate that well, better than well, by contrasting faith and knowledge as incompatible and indeed they are, by definition. It is the question of whether believing is superior to knowing.

It was the Tree of Knowledge that facilitated man being exiled from Paradise and thrown into the world of reality.

It is that 'reality' that man has since been trying to comprehend.

There is great contrast and comparison in contemporary political conflict as the Left insists upon applying faith in the collective and the Right insists on setting free the individual to decide, individually upon his choice of life styles.

I wrote earlier on this forum that I would not challenge the faith of any individual; that I grant each the freedom and the liberty to his own beliefs. I do not retract that statement, but in the case of Eyer, I conclude that he is putting his faith and belief before an open forum seeking refutation or confirmation of his conceptual position.

In my defense as a non believer, I can only offer the History of critical thought that has challenged, and in most cases refuted the tenets of faith and belief, one by one, until none any longer exist.

I stipulate without reservation, that the loss of faith and belief in a Deity, and the corresponding moral and ethical absolutes, has left man and society, in a most perilous dilemma and conundrum as no rational alternative has been judiciously presented.

I would propose, sincerely, that the reference to pragmatic historical references be dispensed with and that a true, objective consideration be given to the fundamental premises involved.

You all, each and every, know those basic questions.

Express them, define them, and deal with them.

Amicus Veritas

 

[RobDownSouth]

I take upon myself a difficult task; that of remaining civil and a distant friend of Eyer, who put forth great effort, with integrity, to illustrate the evidential Christian foundations of America. It is all truth and Eyer documented it, it cannot be rationally denied.

Excuse me, I pointed out in my initial response to Eyer that one of his key quotes regarding the purported "Christian foundations of America" was in fact a complete and utter fabrication.

Your assertion that Eyer's post was "all truth" does not pass the "truthiness" test itself.

 

[amicus]

Excuse me, I pointed out in my initial response to Eyer that one of his key quotes regarding the purported "Christian foundations of America" was in fact a complete and utter fabrication.

Your assertion that Eyer's post was "all truth" does not pass the "truthiness" test itself.

~~~

I did not document every assertion made by Eyer, nor will I. I do not accept him or you as being infallible or error free; I did state that he made a sincere effort to establish the Christian religious ethic as a foundation of the American Institution and I stand by that.

In your effort to dismiss, dis, Eyer, you fail to see the forest for the tree as it is incontrovertible that Judeau Christian Morality formed the foundation of moral truths in America.

You seem to engage a familiar ploy of finding a single weak spot in a presentation and then capitalizing on it as if that destroyed the entire thesis; petty, RDS, petty, and picayune.

You are either purposefully myopic or the trait is embedded in your psyche, in either case, it is of no consequence as you fail to sense history.

Instead of being a typical collectivist reactionary, why not offer instead, your concept of the origin of American morals and ethics? You don't because you cannot; Eyer is correct in the larger sense and you are just a jerk.

Eyer has proven the point that American morals are and have always been Christian morals; the issue is, that since the Industrial Revolution and the Darwinian era, that the import of faith and belief has waned in the face of science, reason and rationality.

But then, that is an abstract concept, far beyond your pragmatic conceptual abilities. Why not just sit in the cheap seats and watch instead of making a fool of yourself?

Amicus

 

[Byron In Exile]

How essential was God in the lives of so many of the founders and framers of this great nation?

And how essential did they believe God's favor to be for its future?

I start off with - who else - George Washington:

"The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations." - George Washington's letter of August 20, 1778 to Brig. General Thomas Nelson, in John C. Fitzpatrick, editor, The Writings of George Washington, Vol. XII (Washinton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 343.

On Washington's Christian character:

"Woodlawn, 26 February, 1833

Sir,

I received your favor of the 20th instant last evening, and hasten to give you the information, which you desire.

Truro Parish [Episcopal] is the one in which Mount Vernon, Pohick Church [the church where George Washington served as a vestryman], and Woodlawn [the home of Nelly and Lawrence Lewis] are situated. Fairfax Parish is now Alexandria. Before the Federal District was ceded to Congress, Alexandria was in Fairfax County. General Washington had a pew in Pohick Church, and one in Christ Church at Alexandria. He was very instrumental in establishing Pohick Church, and I believe subscribed [supported and contributed to] largely. His pew was near the pulpit. I have a perfect recollection of being there, before his election to the presidency, with him and my grandmother...

He attended the church at Alexandria when the weather and roads permitted a ride of ten miles [a one-way journey of 2-3 hours by horse or carriage]. In New York and Philadelphia he never omitted attendance at church in the morning, unless detained by indisposition [sickness]. The afternoon was spent in his own room at home; the evening with his family, and without company. Sometimes an old and intimate friend called to see us for an hour or two; but visiting and visitors were prohibited for that day [Sunday]. No one in church attended to the services with more reverential respect. My grandmother, who was eminently pious, never deviated from her early habits. She always knelt. The General, as was then the custom, stood during the devotional parts of the service. On communion Sundays, he left the church with me, after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent the carriage back for my grandmother.

It was his custom to retire to his library at nine or ten o'clock where he remained an hour before he went to his chamber. He always rose before the sun and remained in his library until called to breakfast. I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, "that they may be seen of men" [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6].

My mother [Eleanor Calvert-Lewis] resided two years at Mount Vernon after her marriage [in 1774] with John Parke Custis, the only son of Mrs. Washington. I have heard her say that General Washington always received the sacrament with my grandmother before the revolution. When my aunt, Miss Custis [Martha's daughter] died suddenly at Mount Vernon, before they could realize the event [before they understood she was dead], he [General Washington] knelt by her and prayed most fervently, most affectingly, for her recovery. Of this I was assured by Judge [Bushrod] Washington's mother and other witnesses.

He was a silent, thoughtful man. He spoke little generally; never of himself. I never heard him relate a single act of his life during the war. I have often seen him perfectly abstracted, his lips moving, but no sound was perceptible. I have sometimes made him laugh most heartily from sympathy with my joyous and extravagant spirits. I was, probably, one of the last persons on earth to whom he would have addressed serious conversation, particularly when he knew that I had the most perfect model of female excellence [Martha Washington] ever with me as my monitress, who acted the part of a tender and devoted parent, loving me as only a mother can love, and never extenuating [tolerating] or approving in me what she disapproved of others. She never omitted her private devotions, or her public duties; and she and her husband were so perfectly united and happy that he must have been a Christian. She had no doubts, no fears for him. After forty years of devoted affection and uninterrupted happiness, she resigned him without a murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the assured hope of his eternal felicity [happiness in Heaven].

Is it necessary that any one should certify, "General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country. His mottos were, "Deeds, not Words"; and, "For God and my Country."

With sentiments of esteem,

I am, Nelly Custis-Lewis"

(Nelly Custis-Lewis was Martha Washington's granddaughter and George's step-granddaughter and had lived with the Washingtons since her birth in 1779; when Nelly's father died, George and Martha adopted both Nelly and her brother George Washington Parke Custis; Nelly lived at Mount Vernon til she was married in 1799...the year George Washington died).

At the end of the Revolutionary War, when the announcement of official peace arrived in America, George Washington issued his final sentiments. In his circular letter to the States on June 8, 1783, even though Washington gratefully acknowledged that we had won the war, he urged them to recall something of much greater importance and to remember…

"…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."

While encamped on the banks of a river, Washington was approached by Delaware Indian chiefs who desired that their youth be trained in American schools. In Washington's response, he first told them that "Congress... will look on them as on their own children." That is, we would train their children as if they were our own. He then commended the chiefs for their decision:

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html

Edit:

I'm removing the former last paragraph:

According to George Washington, what students would learn in American schools "above all" was "the religion of Jesus Christ."

...because the website writer included "American schools" in his commentary on GW's quote.

GW's quote:

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."

...stands as verified.

Thanks...

I wonder that you are still posting, Singor Eyer... nobody marks you.

 

[Byron In Exile]

This is a specific trait. Eyer is now firmly in MeeMie territory.

People who act like this on the internet are often shunned and isolated in real life. You're not going to get anything of value out of him; he's attempting damage control for how much of a failure he's trying not to realise he is. Been doing it for awhile.

Sure, they are often shunned and isolated in real life. But you are shunned and isolated in real life. You see the difference?

 

[RobDownSouth]

~~~

I did not document every assertion made by Eyer, nor will I. I do not accept him or you as being infallible or error free; I did state that he made a sincere effort to establish the Christian religious ethic as a foundation of the American Institution and I stand by that.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. Your initial conjecture that eyer's post was "all truth" makes a mockery of your above-the-fray pretentions above.

The fact that you are not man enough to own up to your errors speaks volumes as to your lack of character.

In your effort to dismiss, dis, Eyer, you fail to see the forest for the tree as it is incontrovertible that Judeau Christian Morality formed the foundation of moral truths in America.

Your specious argument presumes that "morality" is somehow exclusive to the Judeo-Christian religion. A person less closed-minded than yourself would realize that virtually every major religion in the world has morality as a key tenet.

You seem to engage a familiar ploy of finding a single weak spot in a presentation and then capitalizing on it as if that destroyed the entire thesis; petty, RDS, petty, and picayune.

Ah yes, now we're drifting into more familiar territory for you and people like you...demonize the opposition.

Truth be told, I felt neither the time nor inclination to deconstruct eyer's cut-and-paste on a line-by-line basis. I singled out his most egregious misrepresentation as an example of the lack of scholarly research that eyer exhibited.

You are either purposefully myopic or the trait is embedded in your psyche, in either case, it is of no consequence as you fail to sense history.

Instead of being a typical collectivist reactionary, why not offer instead, your concept of the origin of American morals and ethics? You don't because you cannot; Eyer is correct in the larger sense and you are just a jerk.

Eyer has proven the point that American morals are and have always been Christian morals; the issue is, that since the Industrial Revolution and the Darwinian era, that the import of faith and belief has waned in the face of science, reason and rationality.

But then, that is an abstract concept, far beyond your pragmatic conceptual abilities. Why not just sit in the cheap seats and watch instead of making a fool of yourself?

Amicus

Thank you for the personal attacks. They show us all beyond a shadow of a doubt your absolute inability to debate issues on their merits alone.

 

[amicus]

Clever, sophisticated and somewhat correct. My intentional attack on your method was to draw you out and sense the quality of your response. I am impressed; good on you.

Instead of being a typical collectivist reactionary, why not offer instead, your concept of the origin of American morals and ethics? You don't because you cannot;

Reacting to another's thesis. as you did to Eyer's, left you wide open to my critical response. It is also the preferred dialectic in such disagreements wherein the critic offers nothing but criticism.

If, as I implied above, Christianity was not the foundation, what then was? Present, support and defend your own thesis, as eyer did his.

I personally would like to read it.

I am truly curious as to what direction you might take in presenting the lineage of a moral and ethical system, pre 1600, that does not reflect Judeau Christian ethics. Would it be Eastern Philosophy and Religion, would it be pre Renaissance, would it be Pagan or Asian or Animalism? I, and everyone here, I think, would be greatly impressed if you would offer as consistent, congruent and contiguous presentation of a pre existing moral and ethical system as did Eyer.

Perhaps my ad hominem approach to your critique of Eyer was in error; should that be the case, my abject apology would be forthcoming. So, let your brilliance shine upon us and enlighten us as to the alternative.

The world is waiting....(was that Admiral Bull Halsey?) I should google it...but what the hell, I ain't doin a doctoral here now, am I? Jes a little extemporaneous enjoyment ....

Bring it on.

Amicus

 

[Byron In Exile]

Clever, sophisticated and somewhat correct. My intentional attack on your method was to draw you out and sense the quality of your response. I am impressed; good on you.



Reacting to another's thesis. as you did to Eyer's, left you wide open to my critical response. It is also the preferred dialectic in such disagreements wherein the critic offers nothing but criticism.

If, as I implied above, Christianity was not the foundation, what then was? Present, support and defend your own thesis, as eyer did his.

I personally would like to read it.

I am truly curious as to what direction you might take in presenting the lineage of a moral and ethical system, pre 1600, that does not reflect Judeau Christian ethics. Would it be Eastern Philosophy and Religion, would it be pre Renaissance, would it be Pagan or Asian or Animalism? I, and everyone here, I think, would be greatly impressed if you would offer as consistent, congruent and contiguous presentation of a pre existing moral and ethical system as did Eyer.

Perhaps my ad hominem approach to your critique of Eyer was in error; should that be the case, my abject apology would be forthcoming. So, let your brilliance shine upon us and enlighten us as to the alternative.

The world is waiting....(was that Admiral Bull Halsey?) I should google it...but what the hell, I ain't doin a doctoral here now, am I? Jes a little extemporaneous enjoyment ....

Bring it on.

Amicus

lol... <- just that.

 

[phrodeau]

The US was founded on reason and compromise. In support of this, I offer the following bit of light reading: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=...tle=1935&chapter=118621&layout=html&Itemid=27

As for the lineage of any moral or ethical system, first one needs proof that such a system exists.

Many corporations and religious institutions share the same basic administrative structure. Who borrowed it from whom?

 

[Peregrinator]

The US was founded on reason and compromise. In support of this, I offer the following bit of light reading: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=...tle=1935&chapter=118621&layout=html&Itemid=27

As for the lineage of any moral or ethical system, first one needs proof that such a system exists.

Many corporations and religious institutions share the same basic administrative structure. Who borrowed it from whom?

Not to mention that, while the Founders may very well have gotten their ethical and moral precepts from ancient mythology filtered through medieval and Renaissance thinkers with a few delusional shamans and hallucinating priests thrown in, that has little or no relevance today. I don't need whatever Tooth Fairy eyer believes in to know that rape is bad. Ancient people knew that, too, even before Jesus came along. People in other parts of the world knew it before the Bible was rammed down their throats by missionaries and crusaders and conquistadors.

The Iroquois Confederacy was probably not a bastion of Christian thinking. Neither was Aristotle. I can't, off the top of my head, recall what Locke thought about Christianity.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Not to mention that, while the Founders may very well have gotten their ethical and moral precepts from ancient mythology filtered through medieval and Renaissance thinkers with a few delusional shamans and hallucinating priests thrown in, that has little or no relevance today. I don't need whatever Tooth Fairy eyer believes in to know that rape is bad. Ancient people knew that, too, even before Jesus came along. People in other parts of the world knew it before the Bible was rammed down their throats by missionaries and crusaders and conquistadors.

The Iroquois Confederacy was probably not a bastion of Christian thinking. Neither was Aristotle. I can't, off the top of my head, recall what Locke thought about Christianity.

They make me post five characters, now, so that's what I do.

 

[about_average]

Sure, they are often shunned and isolated in real life. But you are shunned and isolated in real life. You see the difference?

Yeah, I've found people who are always yelling "Slander!" are people who feel picked on in life and have low self esteem.

As for the OP...
Many founding fathers were Christians. So fucking what? Some were deists and some were atheists. So what? It doesn't matter.
What matters is the constitution. I've no doubt many would be turning in their graves if they could see how many theocracy based laws there are today.

The US is not supposed to be a Christian nation, despite the religious zealots' efforts.

Article 11:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

Unanimously ratified, it became law on June 10, 1797.
Signed in to law, you might note, by a devout Christian.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp

President Adams said about the treaty:
Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed, and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Yeah, I've found people who are always yelling "Slander!" are people who feel picked on in life and have low self esteem.

As for the OP...
Many founding fathers were Christians. So fucking what? Some were deists and some were atheists. So what? It doesn't matter.
What matters is the constitution. I've no doubt many would be turning in their graves if they could see how many theocracy based laws there are today.

The US is not supposed to be a Christian nation, despite the religious zealots' efforts.

Article 11:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

Unanimously ratified, it became law on June 10, 1797.
Signed in to law, you might note, by a devout Christian.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp

President Adams said about the treaty:
Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed, and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.

Are you honest?

 

[KingOrfeo]

I take upon myself a difficult task; that of remaining civil and a distant friend of Eyer, who put forth great effort, with integrity, to illustrate the evidential Christian foundations of America. It is all truth and Eyer documented it, it cannot be rationally denied.

Yes, it can be, and is, here, rationally denied.

 

[amicus]

The US was founded on reason and compromise. In support of this, I offer the following bit of light reading: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=...tle=1935&chapter=118621&layout=html&Itemid=27

As for the lineage of any moral or ethical system, first one needs proof that such a system exists.

Many corporations and religious institutions share the same basic administrative structure. Who borrowed it from whom?

~~~

Light reading indeed...for those who accept no universal absolutes of human behavior and doubt the existence of any such moral absolutes, then they indeed would insist upon proof that such a system exists and then set about casting doubt and attempting to disprove it. What else do you have, lacking knowledge, but to be skeptics and cynics, who have existed right alongside rational men since the beginning of time.

The lineage of faith and belief far precedes the lineage of reason and rationality and Eyer has a much easier path of proof than you would ever have to make your point.

To make a pragmatic point, the Founders found it unnecessary to debate on which side of the road they rode their horses and pulled their carriages and buggies, they knew and thus no debate or statements were necessary. Since you will pretend to be dull and insist upon an explanation, I will provide it beforehand: each founder knew and believed and acted upon the will of God as the Creator and the arbiter of human morality and ethical behavior and thus found no need to state in within mundane discussions of practical matters.

What they did do, however, in such a way as to direct the future of a nation, was to codify in the Declaration and the Constitution, the formal acknowledgements of Divine Guidance that directed an entire Nation.

And you don't get it?

Meh?

Tell us your real motivations and agenda's for advocating a Godless society without moral absolutes. Secular Humanism, Agnosticism, Nihilism? From whence cometh ye?

giggles. (cuz thas a 'gotcha' and you know it"

ur amicableness....

 

[Peregrinator]

Yes, it can be, and is, here, rationally denied.

Oh, that's a keeper. Most excellent, Orf.

In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:

As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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 document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today.

 

[Byron In Exile]

~~~

Light reading indeed...for those who accept no universal absolutes of human behavior and doubt the existence of any such moral absolutes, then they indeed would insist upon proof that such a system exists and then set about casting doubt and attempting to disprove it. What else do you have, lacking knowledge, but to be skeptics and cynics, who have existed right alongside rational men since the beginning of time.

The lineage of faith and belief far precedes the lineage of reason and rationality and Eyer has a much easier path of proof than you would ever have to make your point.

To make a pragmatic point, the Founders found it unnecessary to debate on which side of the road they rode their horses and pulled their carriages and buggies, they knew and thus no debate or statements were necessary. Since you will pretend to be dull and insist upon an explanation, I will provide it beforehand: each founder knew and believed and acted upon the will of God as the Creator and the arbiter of human morality and ethical behavior and thus found no need to state in within mundane discussions of practical matters.

What they did do, however, in such a way as to direct the future of a nation, was to codify in the Declaration and the Constitution, the formal acknowledgements of Divine Guidance that directed an entire Nation.

And you don't get it?

Meh?

Tell us your real motivations and agenda's for advocating a Godless society without moral absolutes. Secular Humanism, Agnosticism, Nihilism? From whence cometh ye?

giggles. (cuz thas a 'gotcha' and you know it"

ur amicableness....

I didn't read any of what you wrote because the person you're responding to is more intelligent than you by an order of magnitude.

 

[phrodeau]

~~~

Light reading indeed...for those who accept no universal absolutes of human behavior and doubt the existence of any such moral absolutes, then they indeed would insist upon proof that such a system exists and then set about casting doubt and attempting to disprove it. What else do you have, lacking knowledge, but to be skeptics and cynics, who have existed right alongside rational men since the beginning of time.

The lineage of faith and belief far precedes the lineage of reason and rationality and Eyer has a much easier path of proof than you would ever have to make your point.

To make a pragmatic point, the Founders found it unnecessary to debate on which side of the road they rode their horses and pulled their carriages and buggies, they knew and thus no debate or statements were necessary. Since you will pretend to be dull and insist upon an explanation, I will provide it beforehand: each founder knew and believed and acted upon the will of God as the Creator and the arbiter of human morality and ethical behavior and thus found no need to state in within mundane discussions of practical matters.

What they did do, however, in such a way as to direct the future of a nation, was to codify in the Declaration and the Constitution, the formal acknowledgements of Divine Guidance that directed an entire Nation.

And you don't get it?

Meh?

Tell us your real motivations and agenda's for advocating a Godless society without moral absolutes. Secular Humanism, Agnosticism, Nihilism? From whence cometh ye?

giggles. (cuz thas a 'gotcha' and you know it"

ur amicableness....

Thy screed hath the quality of a cowpie.

Research the Olive Branch Petition, and the role of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in early American politics. These were people who "knew and believed and acted upon the will of God", and thus were opposed to any conflict with Great Britain. The Pennsylvania delegate John Dickinson, a Quaker, was pacifist to a fault, and refused to sign the Declaration of Independence.

 

[amicus]

JesusJumpingup Christ, KingOreocookies Procastinator and Barrenexiled with their one-liners and sound bytes pretending sophistication are the true bottom feeders of the GB, sucking mud and farting methane, or meethane as the backward Brits say.

You folks don't even have a remote clue as to the real issue at hand here and that doesn't surprise me at all. Of course, you, in your faithless superiority complex, pretend to be above it all in your amorality, since you know neither right nor wrong good nor bad, can always feign righteousness and claim superiority because you never take a stand on anything....that is for the plebes, right?

Fuck y'all! You are such a joke in the real world.

Amicus

 

[Sonny Limatina]

JesusJumpingup Christ, KingOreocookies Procastinator and Barrenexiled with their one-liners and sound bytes pretending sophistication are the true bottom feeders of the GB, sucking mud and farting methane, or meethane as the backward Brits say.

You folks don't even have a remote clue as to the real issue at hand here and that doesn't surprise me at all. Of course, you, in your faithless superiority complex, pretend to be above it all in your amorality, since you know neither right nor wrong good nor bad, can always feign righteousness and claim superiority because you never take a stand on anything....that is for the plebes, right?

Fuck y'all! You are such a joke in the real world.

Amicus

King of Orfeo posted a link to an article. Why not forget the rest and focus on that article. That way you don't have to deal with the people who displease you, you can argue the old-fashioned way by engaging purely with the data.

 

[amicus]

King of Orfeo posted a link to an article. Why not forget the rest and focus on that article. That way you don't have to deal with the people who displease you, you can argue the old-fashioned way by engaging purely with the data.

~~~

Sonny Limatina, you and others may believe that Pragmatism or Empiricism are the answers to all things, but most of the rational world knows otherwise.

The philosophy you implicitly advocate is that of clerks and beancounters; data and statistics. Your philosophy inevitably justifies the 'one child policy' of China, or the final solution of Germany in and prior to, WW2, numbers without morals or ethics.

Dealing purely with data is a death trap and you should know that.

Think upon what I say, it is not said lightly.

Amicus

 

[phrodeau]

~~~

Sonny Limatina, you and others may believe that Pragmatism or Empiricism are the answers to all things, but most of the rational world knows otherwise.

The philosophy you implicitly advocate is that of clerks and beancounters; data and statistics. Your philosophy inevitably justifies the 'one child policy' of China, or the final solution of Germany in and prior to, WW2, numbers without morals or ethics.

Dealing purely with data is a death trap and you should know that.

Think upon what I say, it is not said lightly.

Amicus

Do you realize how many different faiths were represented in the Colonies?

To claim that the Founding Fathers acted through the guidance of a particular God is a bit disingenuous.