tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post3744449385535685079..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Jon Adams on State and ReligionBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84336518893843997462009-01-12T18:52:00.000-07:002009-01-12T18:52:00.000-07:00Raven,Your comments are few and far between. I ho...Raven,<BR/><BR/>Your comments are few and far between. I hope I'll eventually learn to disperse my critique at such infrequent intervals.<BR/><BR/>I can't help but wonder if you don't have more to offer. You appear (to me) to have a keen insight into what qualifies as intolerant (antagonstic to libety).<BR/><BR/>As I think one of the foundational sentiments of our nation was to secure liberty (as well as life and happiness), I encouage you to particpate more often.<BR/><BR/>In any event, I thank you for backing me up. I slept uncomfortably last night. It is pleasing to know I'm not alone in my opinions.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56696648246884691752009-01-12T18:41:00.000-07:002009-01-12T18:41:00.000-07:00Pinky: "It is an affront to the entire blog site a...Pinky: "It is an affront to the entire blog site and has the effect of driving otherwise valuable participants away. Who needs the insults?."<BR/><BR/>As ironic as it may appear to some, I'm in complete agreement ... provided the participants intend to be constructive and honest in their participation.<BR/><BR/>If I'm seen as the harshest critic of OFT, I've earned it ... and harbor some pride it that.<BR/><BR/>Not because I favor a position of authority, but because OFT's participation has made such a tremendous turn that I am of the opinion that his change of behavior is a result of a cognitive decision.<BR/><BR/>While I deserve no credit for his congitive turn (the credit is all his) I do fancy my judgment that he was capable for more than arrogant incompetence.<BR/><BR/>Even so, I do not expect OFT's and my reasoned opinions to converge, I am happy to participate here along side of him.<BR/><BR/>What does get under my skin are snide remarks and other ad hominem style insults / disrespect.<BR/><BR/>I'll have to work on that (both my offense to such and my contribution to such).<BR/><BR/>In any event, my intention in this response was to encourage a greater participation on your (Pinky) part. Simply because I find your question and comments strike a cord with me.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-55530799651944678222009-01-12T10:12:00.000-07:002009-01-12T10:12:00.000-07:00.I know, Raven; but, thanks for mentioning it..I'v....<BR/>I know, Raven; but, thanks for mentioning it.<BR/>.<BR/>I've been doing some careful reading of Leo Strauss. I'm reminded of his comments regarding his ideas on the <B>nature, nature's god, etc..</B> <BR/>.<BR/>Tom is just expressing his <B>nature</B>; but, I must add that he does have a high level of virtue in knowledge. And I'm sure most of us certainly appreciate that. You cannot be all things to all people.<BR/>.<BR/>My bet is that he isn't married; but that may be wrong.<BR/>.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-75977117856861927812009-01-12T08:18:00.000-07:002009-01-12T08:18:00.000-07:00Don;t sweat it, Pinky. Arrogant people rarely rea...Don;t sweat it, Pinky. Arrogant people rarely realize that they are arrogant, as is the case with Mr. Van Dyke. BPABBOTT hit the nail on the head. Pot...kettle...black.Ravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05504032868942862532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53298670814944836722009-01-12T06:28:00.000-07:002009-01-12T06:28:00.000-07:00.I am not the only person who complains about bein....<BR/>I am not the only person who complains about being treated as though they are an annoyance.<BR/>.<BR/>I can take it; but, that is NOT the point. It is an affront to the entire blog site and has the effect of driving otherwise valuable participants away. Who needs the insults?.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-62500932626670501732009-01-11T21:07:00.000-07:002009-01-11T21:07:00.000-07:00pot ... kettle ... blackpot ... kettle ... blackbpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-24089557473140034762009-01-11T18:59:00.000-07:002009-01-11T18:59:00.000-07:00Actually, I've tried being solicitous with you, Ph...Actually, I've tried being solicitous with you, Phil; it makes no difference. You do not counterargue against evidence that challenges your preconceptions, you ignore it.<BR/><BR/>As you do here. Please don't mistake my tone for feelings of superiority. It's simply annoyance.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53428060291860855662009-01-11T18:38:00.000-07:002009-01-11T18:38:00.000-07:00.Your superior attitude is easy to ignore..<BR/>Your superior attitude is easy to ignore.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-47211115091823855452009-01-11T16:53:00.000-07:002009-01-11T16:53:00.000-07:00I did. You ignored it.I did. You ignored it.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-58773659728925950792009-01-11T09:44:00.000-07:002009-01-11T09:44:00.000-07:00.Tom: "I was simply using the religious tests as a....<BR/>Tom: <I>"I was simply using the religious tests as a [blatant] example of how wrong Pinky's assertion ...is. Pinky, I'm sorry that your opinions are unswayable by facts."</I><BR/>.<BR/>The day that I am unable to change my thinking about anything has not arrived, Tom.<BR/>.<BR/>So, if you can show me how <B><I>IN EFFECT</I></B> my statement is wrong, I will be happy to adjust my thinking. It will mean I have learned something I didn't know before.<BR/>.<BR/>But, you're going to have to prove your point beyond question.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-68675798604231629522009-01-10T20:29:00.000-07:002009-01-10T20:29:00.000-07:00.Jefferson!.I think so...<BR/>Jefferson!<BR/>.<BR/>I think so.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-64383896209947494542009-01-10T19:43:00.000-07:002009-01-10T19:43:00.000-07:00Pinky: "I have a sense that some of the Founders k...Pinky: "I have a sense that some of the Founders knew the power of the Constitution when it was finally put to the people for ratification."<BR/><BR/>I don't recall who, but I have a recollection that some expressed the view that such was inevitable. As Jefferson appears more than any other to have been aware of the history being written, perhaps it was he.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-90004977730316300362009-01-10T19:10:00.000-07:002009-01-10T19:10:00.000-07:00."Have I properly inferred the context of your com....<BR/><I>"Have I properly inferred the context of your comment?"</I><BR/>.<BR/>Actually, I have a sense that some of the Founders knew the power of the Constitution when it was finally put to the people for ratification. And, I guess my sense is as good as any supposition that is expressed hereabouts.<BR/><BR/>The genius of the Founders continues to express it self in our great society.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40503888497844245682009-01-10T18:27:00.000-07:002009-01-10T18:27:00.000-07:00Pinky: "When the signers put their John Hancock on...Pinky: "When the signers put their John Hancock on the Founding documents, they, in effect, gave up their individual constitutions in support of the Union."<BR/><BR/>While the individual signers of the DoI may not have intended or desired that their state constitutions yield to the (yet to be drafted) federal one, such was the eventual result (as we can attest today).<BR/><BR/>Thus, I find your comment to be a reasoned assesment of the facts, as we know them. <BR/><BR/>Have I properly inferred the context of your comment?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72375215792172270852009-01-10T17:52:00.000-07:002009-01-10T17:52:00.000-07:00True, Jon; I was simply using the religious tests ...True, Jon; I was simply using the religious tests as a blantant example of how wrong Pinky's assertion that <BR/><BR/><I>"When the signers put their John Hancock on the Founding documents, they, in effect, gave up their individual constitutions in support of the Union."</I><BR/><BR/>is. Pinky, I'm sorry that your opinions are unswayable by facts.<BR/><BR/><I>"You might be able to pull up some support for your position out of the internet; but, so what?"</I><BR/><BR/>So what, indeed, Pinky. So what, indeed.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-43708374163778843222009-01-10T16:50:00.000-07:002009-01-10T16:50:00.000-07:00Tom,It might also be interesting to note changes i...Tom,<BR/><BR/>It might also be interesting to note changes in state matters re religion thru 1800 or so. I know that PA, under Franklin as acting governor, replaced their sectarian religious test around 1786 with one that required simple believe in God and a future state of rewards and punishments period.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72986393443682727222009-01-10T16:06:00.000-07:002009-01-10T16:06:00.000-07:00.In response to my statement, "When the signers pu....<BR/>In response to my statement, <I>"When the signers put their John Hancock on the Founding documents, they, in effect, gave up their individual constitutions in support of the Union."</I><BR/>.<BR/>Mr. Van Dyke replies with, <I>"This is simply not accurate, as it elides federalism. For instance, there were religious tests for office in every state except Virginia and New York; some even insisted you be Protestant."</I><BR/>.<BR/>Read my statement again, Tom. I distinctly spoke in regards to the <B>Union</B>.<BR/>.<BR/>As dumb as I am compared to you on these things, I'm still knowledgeable enough to know that there were threats to the Union made early on. They continued. And there are still <A HREF="http://www.csa-dixie.com/" REL="nofollow">some dummies</A> who think otherwise. <BR/>The U.S. Constitution is superior to all other state constitutions and the U.S. Civil War was fought by a generation much closer to the idea of Union than you and I can imagine to prove the point. A great deal of blood was shed--great sorrow covered our land; but, the Union continues to stand.<BR/>.<BR/>You might be able to pull up some support for your position out of the internet; but, so what?<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48214507569880333932009-01-10T13:48:00.000-07:002009-01-10T13:48:00.000-07:00Not an insult, Pinky. You frquently argue that th...Not an insult, Pinky. You frquently argue that the United States is no more or less than the US Constitution [as do many these days], to wit:<BR/><BR/><I>"<BR/>When the signers put their John Hancock on the Founding documents, they, in effect, gave up their individual constitutions in support of the Union.</I><BR/><BR/>This is simply not accurate, as it elides federalism. For instance, there were religious tests for office in every state except Virginia and New York; some even insisted you be Protestant.<BR/><BR/>If I may clip from the internet:<BR/><BR/> * The New Jersey Constitution of 1776 restricted public office to all but Protestants by its religious test/oath.<BR/> * The Delaware Constitution of 1776 demanded an acceptance of the Trinity by its religious test/oath.<BR/> * The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 had a similar test/oath.<BR/> * The Maryland Constitution of 1776 had such a test/oath.<BR/> * The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 had a test/oath that restricted all but Protestants from public office.<BR/> * The Georgia Constitution of 1777 used an oath/test to screen out all but Protestants.<BR/> * The Vermont state charter/constitution of 1777 echoed the Pennsylvania Constitution regarding a test/oath.<BR/> * The South Carolina Constitution of 1778 had such a test/oath allowing only Protestants to hold office.<BR/> * The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 and New Hampshire Constitution of 1784 restricted such office holders to Protestants.<BR/> * Only Virginia and New York did not have such religious tests/oaths during this time period.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-75161704054914855442009-01-10T07:19:00.000-07:002009-01-10T07:19:00.000-07:00.I understand your point, Cap; but, the Union is n....<BR/>I understand your point, Cap; but, the Union is not any one or less than 13 of the original states. <BR/>.<BR/>When the signers put their John Hancock on the Founding documents, they, in effect, gave up their individual constitutions in support of the Union. Three generations later, President Lincoln reiterated the sovreignty of the United States--<I>"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. "</I><BR/>.<BR/>When we read the comments on John Hanson, we are reminded that there had been a strong push to have a nation based on religious law. The point I <B>keep plugging away at</B> is that the Founders recognized the danger of a society based on religious theory and provided us with a nation free of religious intolerance.<BR/>.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-42597319491652997532009-01-10T06:59:00.000-07:002009-01-10T06:59:00.000-07:00Insults,Tom?Insults,Tom?Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35829435670639485792009-01-09T19:05:00.000-07:002009-01-09T19:05:00.000-07:00Pinky,Let me add the first increment to your focus...Pinky,<BR/><BR/>Let me add the first increment to your focus on the DoI and federal constitution: the 13 original state constitutions, and perhaps the first few soon after the revolution.<BR/><BR/>The founders, in the spirit of the (French) political philosophy of the age, believed in, among other things, distinct specific and general governments. Jefferson himself explained, for those unaware, that in America those roles were taken by the state and federal governments, respectively.<BR/><BR/>All of the state constitutions are revolutionary era documents, written and ratified by the founders (understanding the founders to be a generaltion of political leaders, not just a handful of guys who wrote private letters) and integral to understanding the overall system of American government.Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54485483930742028362009-01-09T16:33:00.000-07:002009-01-09T16:33:00.000-07:00Part of it, but not all of it. Every fortnight or ...Part of it, but not all of it. <BR/><BR/>Every fortnight or so, you make this reductionist argument, Pinky, as if nothing had been written here in the two weeks in between. But keep plugging.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-88766992164594561112009-01-09T08:43:00.000-07:002009-01-09T08:43:00.000-07:00.So do I. But, how does the Constitution along wit....<BR/>So do I. But, how does the Constitution along with the Declaration of Independence treat religion?<BR/>.<BR/>Was not the Founding of America intended to be a final and fatal broadside fired against the idea of a state ruled by theological principles so that, to interpret Adams, the children and grand children would be free to develop to their fullest potential? Why should the interpretation be made that the Founders intended America to be a Christian State?<BR/>.<BR/>Doesn't this statement,<BR/><I>“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."</I>, establish the legal purpose of the Constitution?<BR/>.<BR/>Isn't this the true chase?Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72730068979750786982009-01-09T08:22:00.000-07:002009-01-09T08:22:00.000-07:00Pinky,I don't think it's a waste of time b...Pinky,<BR/><BR/>I don't think it's a waste of time because I'm convinced that the personal convictions on religion & politics evidenced by the handful of key Founders connects with the way the US Constitutiona and DOI treat religion.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76589517875967147382009-01-09T07:52:00.000-07:002009-01-09T07:52:00.000-07:00.While it is valuable to understand how one politi....<BR/>While it is valuable to understand how one politician thought and acted during the Founding; it certainly is a waste of time and energy to bring up their thoughts as though a handfull of them represented the final purposes of the Founding. The purpose is plainly stated in the Declaration of Independence.<BR/>.<BR/>No one here can get into the minds of the Founders.<BR/>.<BR/>No where have I seen one comprehensive definition of what the Founders meant by the term, <I>Civic Religion</I>. As far as I can tell, it is the Constitution with its amending process.<BR/>.<BR/>They were politicians in their day as our leaders are politicians today. The one continuous strain we see in all politicians is their propensity to lie in order to please and or influence the electorate. Some of the elitists actually think it is a noble thing to lie. It was that way in ancient times and it is that way today.<BR/>.<BR/>We need less of trying to prove a bias and more clear knowledge.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.com