Ye Religion Thread

[QuakeDuke]

But I'm not sure why you're emphasizing the WE think in this particular case, as though Jefferson's words have no weight at all?  He historically being the driving force behind ensuring not just freedom of religion but freedom from religion was enshrined in the first amendment?

Regards,
quadz

No, I meant nothing special by emphasizing we other than  it seems like people aren't content to let the words stand as is - WE (everyone collectively who cites the references) seem to want to interpret what they "must have meant".

Thanks,
QD

[QuakeDuke]

If fact I keep trying to work my way out of this one but ya'll keep dragging me back in.

Well, someone keeps bringing you back, eh brother?

QD

[deft]

if there was a creator, the universe should look as it is today, a creator would account for all the "why" questions, the perceived perfection of the universe, etc.  evolution doesn't suffice.  evolution would be a nice method used by god, just like starting the universe out an expanding it into life.

[quadz]

No, I meant nothing special by emphasizing we other than  it seems like people aren't content to let the words stand as is - WE (everyone collectively who cites the references) seem to want to interpret what they "must have meant".

I think I agree in principle.  Clearly there's no need to interpret parts of the constitution like, "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years..."

But I'm not sure "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is as easily and unambiguously understood by everyone who reads it?  (And if not, then who interprets or clarifies?)

That's why in this particular case, I think we're extremely fortunate to have both a record of the numerous early drafts of the first amendment, and also the clarification from Jefferson of what the establishment clause in the first amendment means to him, the very person who had pushed for its inclusion.

I mean, how many times do we get the chance to travel back in time and ask the founding fathers, hey, what did you really mean by that?  But that's rather literally what we've got with the preservation of Jefferson's Wall of Separation letter.

Interestingly, in a sentence which Jefferson blocked off for deletion but which remains intact in his draft of the letter (he wrote in the margin that he deleted the sentence to to avoid offending members of his party in the eastern states) ^[1] -- we actually have Jefferson explaining why it's not cool to display a nativity scene at the White House. Or words to that effect:

"... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] ..."

The part in brackets was the deleted sentence.

Nice logic though, right?

  - congress is prohibited from making laws establishing religion
  - the executive can only execute acts congress can make
  - therefore the executive has no basis for going around doing religious-y things



Regards,

[QuakeDuke]

There's a lot to what you say. WHO does interpret? I think the way things are "interpreted" are filtered a great amount by what the "current" (meaning at the time) society is willing to do / not do. Just for an instance, look at the word "establishment." Which definition do we take as the meaning of establishment used in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - the primary definition seems to indicate we usually interpret the clause based on the "current" society's wants rather than acutal meaning. Thus the current (with manifold injustices on both sides) controversy.


Webster's 1828 Dictionary

ESTAB'LISHMENT, n. The act of establishing, founding, ratifying or ordaining.

1. Settlement;; fixed state.

2. Confirmation; ratification of what has been settled or made.

3. Settled regulation; form; ordinance; system of laws; constitution of government.

Bring in that establishment by which all men should be contained in duty.

4. Fixed or stated allowance for subsistence; income; salary.

His excellency--might gradually lessen your establishment.

5. That which is fixed or established; as a permanent military force, a fixed garrison, a local government, an agency, a factory, &c. The king has establishments to support, in the four quarters of the globe.

6. The episcopal form of religion, so called in England.

7. Settlement or final rest.

We set up our hopes and establishment here.

Regards,

QD

[Whirlingdervish]

if there was a creator, the universe should look as it is today, a creator would account for all the "why" questions, the perceived perfection of the universe, etc.  evolution doesn't suffice.  evolution would be a nice method used by god, just like starting the universe out an expanding it into life.

God I hope you're kidding..

"perceived perfection?"

[deft]

when science provides better answers you can support your beliefs with a strong case (no reasonable doubt), until then a theory of a simple beginnings is a nice thought, but that's all it is.  the probablities if god exists are not are as bogus as saying someone saying god exists, and I know it.  we don't have the evidence, that's just the way it is.

[Whirlingdervish]

we don't need the actual numbers to prove that the existence of a creator is less probable than a creator not existing.
Since we are already assuming things due to a lack of concrete proof about the situation, all one needs to do is compare the levels of complexity in the two proposed systems that we are assuming represent the possible options.

System 1: The universe which is very complicated exists.

System 2: The same universe exists but was created by an even more complex being.

in System 2 we've introduced more complexity and thus more room for error, essentially making the assumption that System 1 is the correct interpretation less erroneous than any assumption that the more complex System 2 is correct.

(IOW: it is more probable that System 1 correctly describes the universe because it is inherently a more simple explanation with less assumptions that could be wrong)

I could display this mathmatically but I have a sneaking suspicion that you're just trolling and don't care either way..

[reaper]

And we have such a firm grasp of "SYSTEM 1"


 

[deft]

there is no good scientific evidence concerning how the universe initially came to be, so this isn't nearly as strong of a point he makes it out to be.  i would trust my instincts, especially after reviewing the evidence to the contrary, and realizing it supports my beliefs (that there is a god, concerned with human behavior, something like we our the center of the universe)

[QwazyWabbit]

Regarding the establishment clause: If you view it in the context of the history of England up to the Revolution you can see many examples of the church reinforcing the state (king) and vice versa. This was as much on the minds of the founders as any imputed or stated agnosticism on their parts. They simply didn't want church and state and courts aligned against the people. Remember, the king was the lawmaker, the supreme judge of the law and the head of his church and the founders deemed this to be one of the defects of English rule under George III. The thrust of the Constitution is the separation of those powers in order to avoid abuse of those powers by any one sovereign.

Henry VIII broke with Rome and the Pope over the legality of his marriages and divorces and founded the CoE.
Elizabeth I fought civil wars over Catholicism vs. CoE and Protestantism and her policies were fundamental to the war with Spain. The echos of the dispute continue to this day in Ireland and England.

In 1630, The Puritans, whose beliefs included a claimed exclusive understanding of the literal truth of the Bible, came to Massachusetts for religious freedom while being intolerant of other religions, religious groups or people who were not members of the Puritan church. You had no say in how you were governed and no voice in the government at all if you were not a freeman, and there were very few of those. The "all men are created equal" was a direct address to the concepts of freemen vs. indentured and noblemen vs. commoner. One might as well as said "all men are born equal" or "all men are born free" but it doesn't quite sound as noble in concept. "That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" implies that it is a natural state for men to be free and self-sufficient. Notice also that this did not apply to women who were still considered chattel, or to slaves. The evolution was not yet complete.

The Revolution was as much an evolution of government as a revolution in government. It was ultimately the casting off of ties to sovereign kings and fealty to lords as it was a abolition of fealty to a kingly Pope or church as state.

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

If fact I keep trying to work my way out of this one but ya'll keep dragging me back in.

Well, someone keeps bringing you back, eh brother?

QD

Ehh, mabey your right. I've often woundered about that. Wether it was him that kept bringing me back or my own selfish pride. There is so much that needs discussed and so much that still needs to be spoken but I could see how I was starting to act and feel and was really not wanting/ready to go there. So i figured the best thing was to kinda drop it and "shake the dust from my feet" if you will.
But after continuing to read this AND the american pride thread and feeling the ever increased stiring in me I couldn't help but to come to only one conclusion.
Thanks QD, you've been a big help and an inspiration.

[deft]

real "proof" will never be found for either side, but for now, i think i'll stick to NOT believing in the improbable, that the universe (and what may lie beyond) as we know it was created by mere chance.  afterall, there was just one big explosion and everything turned out wonderfully   lol idiots

[ReCycled]

Evolution gets soundly rebuked by "the Atheist's Nightmare" - an explanation of God's Perfect Creation, the banana.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

[ReCycled]

And here comes the left hook - evolution never occurs in peanut butter...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&feature=related