tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post3341542834166443143..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Dependence on God: An American TraditionBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40005734863374801832010-02-14T11:59:11.162-07:002010-02-14T11:59:11.162-07:00"...but the tradition of our faith in God and..."...but the tradition of our faith in God and dependence on Him is deeply American. It's a rich part of our nation's heritage and history, and if we ever lose that, we will lose something very precious."<br /><br />Well said Brian. I think there is a great amount of irrational fear and paranoia among liberals that Christians would like to follow a course of 1. Prove Christianity is part of American Heritage 2. Use that to return us to some "fundamentalist" way of Old Testament living. Nothing could be further from the truth in my opinion. Enjoyed reading this morning!Andrewhttp://whatisthebible.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30187845094725178032010-01-06T13:00:04.493-07:002010-01-06T13:00:04.493-07:00Explicit Atheist writes: "So one of the premi...Explicit Atheist writes: "So one of the premises of the argument that Brian Tubbs is making, that we should start with a particular conclusion about what is true and anyone who doesn't reach that conclusion shouldn't be elected to public office, is an irrational and untenable argument."<br /><br />I agree such an argument is "irrational and untenable," which is why I didn't make it. :-)<br /><br />Either you're distorting my views or you have misunderstood them.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-79669475528836622082010-01-06T12:56:04.178-07:002010-01-06T12:56:04.178-07:00Let me add another clarification (as Pinky/Phil al...Let me add another clarification (as Pinky/Phil also clarified, for which I'm thankful)...<br /><br />I am NOT arguing that a majority has the right to demand an official or legal religious test in civil elections. <br /><br />I am saying that the individual voter has the right to cast his or her vote based on whatever criteria he or she sets. If that involves a private religious test ("I will only vote for a Baptist"), that is his/her right, just as it would be for them to only vote for pet owners, people with disabilities, war veterans, or whatever. <br /><br />I'm simply defending the right of people to vote their conscience.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-12298860753458831492010-01-06T12:53:16.955-07:002010-01-06T12:53:16.955-07:00Angie, the Founders did not establish the United S...Angie, the Founders did not establish the United States as an "oligarchy," as you seem to imply. <br /><br />Unless, of course, you are defining a Republic as an oligarchy.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91254896289061818922010-01-06T12:52:27.987-07:002010-01-06T12:52:27.987-07:00To answer Ray's question about the painting, I...To answer Ray's question about the painting, I just did a search on Google images and came up with that one. <br /><br />Here's a link to it...<br /><br />http://tiny.cc/YiuRy<br /><br />I recognized it as being one of the more commonly published paintings and thought it would be okay to use it.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-45106609769103571922010-01-04T00:01:57.528-07:002010-01-04T00:01:57.528-07:00Lets talk about this notion that we must believe i...Lets talk about this notion that we must believe in god as expressed in the quote "I couldn't live a day of my life without God." that Brian says "Americans are gratified to read". Is this ideological addiction to a particular conclusion about the way the world works good? Is such dependency on a fixed conclusion the proper way to hold such beliefs? Is this the way we generally hold our beliefs? The answers are no.<br /><br />Our beliefs about how the world works are held on a weight of the evidence basis. We don't walk into walls because we know, from weight of the evidence experience, that we can't walk through walls. There is no reason to hold beliefs about how the world works, which includes beliefs concerning the existence and nature of gods, on any basis other than weight of the evidence.<br /><br />Since we hold our beliefs on the basis of weight of the evidence it is the evidence that dictates our beliefs and not the other ways around. We are born into the world and the evidence is a just a brute fact. We don't choose the evidence and therefore we don't choose our weight of the evidence derived beliefs.<br /><br />So it doesn't make any sense to insist that we cannot live without believing in any particular conclusion about how the world works. That is like insisting that the weight of the evidence must be one way and not the other way. But we don't get to choose the evidence because evidence is a brute fact like the brute fact of our eye color and our height.<br /><br />So one of the premises of the argument that Brian Tubbs is making, that we should start with a particular conclusion about what is true and anyone who doesn't reach that conclusion shouldn't be elected to public office, is an irrational and untenable argument.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32715043341645918262010-01-03T13:40:06.992-07:002010-01-03T13:40:06.992-07:00Yup.Yup.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-79833488254374720612010-01-03T08:49:32.833-07:002010-01-03T08:49:32.833-07:00Thanks for the props Tom.
When passions get a bit...Thanks for the props Tom.<br /><br />When passions get a bit warm here, I often wonder if both sides aren't arguing against, rather than for, particular positions ... i.e. one against the Bartonites and the other against the Zinnites.<br /><br />As neither camp has a presence here (that I'm aware of), such debates look to be strawmen slaughter houses.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-43561421718545542872010-01-02T23:51:16.945-07:002010-01-02T23:51:16.945-07:00Regarding the misleading title, I wished the autho...<i>Regarding the misleading title, I wished the authors had changed the title to <b>"The Godless Constitution - of a Christian Nation"</b> ... that would certainly have stirred up a lot more controversy ;-)</i><br /><br />Ben, you got some serious clarity and marketing chops goin' on lately. No Bartonite or Zinnite or anyone in between could have resisted that title.<br /><br />Not only that, but leaving the content of the book itself aside, it has the virtue of being entirely accurate on the truth of the matter.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-12595832612555129642010-01-02T19:41:59.649-07:002010-01-02T19:41:59.649-07:00Tom,
Re: "Basically, I challenge the entire ...Tom,<br /><br />Re: "<i>Basically, I challenge the entire premise of the book as stated by its own title.</i>"<br /><br />I'm uncertain as to what you meant to communicate. Are you challenging the book's content (after reading it), or what you infer it contains after reading the book's title?<br /><br />I've read a few reviews of the book. I'd paraphrase my understanding as (1) it intends to be read by laymen (it is not a text for scholars), (2) it intends to directly confront the claim that our Nation was founded on Christian principles/doctrine and intended to fulfill a Christian purpose, and (3) it's title was changed to fan the controversial flames ... i.e. marketing controversy is easier than marketing boredom ... and <i>makes more money</i> to boot :-)<br /><br />I've not come across any evidence that it is irreligious, and have read enough quotations to be convinced the authors make that apparent.<br /><br />However, I may be way off on my understanding ... as I haven't actually read it.<br /><br />Regarding the misleading title, I wished the authors had changed the title to "<i><b>The Godless Constitution - of a Christian Nation</b></i>" ... that would certainly have stirred up a lot more controversy ;-)bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56175714662193985722010-01-02T18:48:01.901-07:002010-01-02T18:48:01.901-07:00The book was retitled:
The Godless Constitution: ...The book was retitled:<br /><br />The Godless Constitution: A Moral defense of the <i>Secular</i> State<br /><br /><br />Italics mine.<br /><br />Basically, I challenge the entire premise of the book as stated by its own title.<br /><br />The question isn't whether America was Founded as a Christian nation.<br /><br />Religion was left to the states, which by and large, already were Christian, and ratification didn't change that.<br /><br />And I have no idea what they mean by invoking the word "moral." Samuel Adams said that Christianity itself required tolerance as early as 1772.<br /><br />But JRB, defend the book's ideas all you want. I think Dreisbach and Fea [and meself] have poked major holes in its thesis. <br /><br />I object to self-described "polemics" given any standing in a scholarly discussion at all. Leave that for the culture wars on other blogs, and for people only interested in "their" side of the story.<br /><br />The only reason the book was brought up at all was because of yet another David Barton controversy. I'd prefer we leave as many 3rd parties out of the discussion as humanly possible. Leave the gun, take the canoli.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-7082075299902606682010-01-02T18:37:50.801-07:002010-01-02T18:37:50.801-07:00.
I have no problems about it.
..<br />I have no problems about it. <br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-68679871916165735362010-01-02T18:34:07.913-07:002010-01-02T18:34:07.913-07:00I really think that if the book (as opposed to the...I really think that if the book (as opposed to the general thesis), <i>The Godless Constitution</i>, is to become central to the discussion then it should be read. It is not an anti-religion or anti-Christian screed. If you think so then it's only from loose scrutiny of the title.<br /><br />Really. There are Christians that like both the thesis and the Book. From a <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n24_v113/ai_18612645/" rel="nofollow">review</a> in<br /><br /><a href="http://www.christiancentury.org/cpage.lasso?cpage=about" rel="nofollow">Christian Century</a>*, August 14, 1996, by Edwin S. Gaustad, emeritus professor at the University of California in Riverside:<br /><br /><i>“THIS SMALL BOOK is readable, timely, argumentative, solidly informed and informative. Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore confess to being "polemical," or, as they gently put it, "we allow ourselves an editorial voice." But that voice, never strident, is informed by historical understanding and insight.</i><br /><br />...<br /><br />“’The creation of a godless constitution was not an act of irreverence,’ the authors point out. ‘It was an act of confidence in religion,’ allowing religion to make its contributions to democracy without ‘being tied to the fortunes of this or that political faction.’<br /><br />...<br /><br />“They speak and write in defense of the Jeffersonian wall that, on occasion, more resembles a leaky dike. All hands (and fingers) are welcome.”<br /><br />----<br /><br />And, from the 2005 version of <i>The Godless Constitution: A Moral defense of the Secular State</i>, p. 15:<br /><br /><i>"So let us</i> [the authors] <i>be clear as we can be at the outset. We are aware of the crucial role that religion played in America's revolutionary struggle, of the importance that many Constitution makers attached to it, and of the energy it gave to many American crusades for social justice."</i><br /><br />And, let it be stated again here, that regardless of the passions then and now that wanted the Constitution to provide a clearly Christian foundation for the state and the nation, and those who at the time railed against the Godless Constitution (not the book, the actual Constitution), it just did not happen. The foundational document for civil government was and is, as seen from both sides at the time, a Godless document as it only makes a framework for the people of a new nation to govern themselves in the best form that could be cobbled together and generally agreed upon at the time. The constitution is as it is. <br /><br />The state of the nation however, at least in terms of self identity, is now, as then, largely religious to some degree and largely of the Christian persuasion.<br /><br />*About us<br /><br /><i>For decades, the Christian Century has informed and shaped progressive, mainline Christianity. Committed to "thinking critically and living faithfully," the magazine explores through argument and reflection what it means to believe and live out the Christian faith in our time. As a voice of "generous orthodoxy," the Century is both loyal to the church and open to the world.</i><br /><br />PS Why is my captcha word "Crazi?" I sense a conspiracy :)jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-19118566004303696182010-01-02T18:18:27.789-07:002010-01-02T18:18:27.789-07:00Pinky,
The one thing Brad made clear when he invi...Pinky,<br /><br />The one thing Brad made clear when he invited me to contribute here was that I could post on about anything I want. I assure you that there are no biases here. Not site wide. If you are talking about individuals then yes I am sure all of us have them. I know I do. But that is all the more reason to have the intentional plurality of contributors here.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-58560059470560495322010-01-02T18:02:57.991-07:002010-01-02T18:02:57.991-07:00"Clarity is more important than agreement.&qu..."Clarity is more important than agreement."---Dennis Prager<br /><br />I think that's our motto around here. Cheers to all, and thank you for being you.<br /><br />Love,<br />TVDTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56739218466144938622010-01-02T17:33:31.295-07:002010-01-02T17:33:31.295-07:00.
I'm not talking about agreement.
.
My point ....<br />I'm not talking about agreement.<br />.<br />My point was totally regarding some of the closed minded comments that speak from some bank of predetermined knowledge that appears to be locked down and judged to be unassailable. .<br />There's not a lot of that; but, enough to show the bias.<br />.<br />I understand your point and say this is the best site of its type I've ever visited.<br /><br />I only wish I had developed a better base of historical knowledge years ago.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91605656143402647022010-01-02T17:33:12.043-07:002010-01-02T17:33:12.043-07:00.
I'm not talking about agreement.
.
My point ....<br />I'm not talking about agreement.<br />.<br />My point was totally regarding some of the closed minded comments that speak from some bank of predetermined knowledge that appears to be locked down and judged to be unassailable. .<br />There's not a lot of that; but, enough to show the bias.<br />.<br />I understand your point and say this is the best site of its type I've ever visited.<br /><br />I only wish I had developed a better base of historical knowledge years ago.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40627149203204307112010-01-02T17:12:35.129-07:002010-01-02T17:12:35.129-07:00Pinky,
I agree with Brad. The best thing about t...Pinky,<br /><br />I agree with Brad. The best thing about this blog is that people do not agree. It is why I like it. One can learn many angles of the same topic and decide for himself. Tom and I agree more than most on here but we still disagree. See our discussions on the whether theology should be discussed as much as it does. <br /><br />One might think that Jon and I totally disagree. That is not the case. I think we agree on more than we disagree. It is on 2 or 3 issues we disagree. Those come out more because there has been a good back and forth on it.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-88461446646252164382010-01-02T16:44:57.167-07:002010-01-02T16:44:57.167-07:00Well, I wouldn't call The Godless Constitution...Well, I wouldn't call <em>The Godless Constitution </em> purely polemics. Yes, it does deserve criticism and I think what you have cited is appropriate. And I too would be interested in hearing what the fans of TGC have to say in its defense. Like I said before, I don't think we should throw the book to the dogs. It simply wasn't that bad. But at the same time, I think you are right that the book has become a "texbook" of sorts for the secularists. Hell, the title itself should be indicative of that fact. <br /><br />Like I mentioned in my previous comment, it's too bad that this issue has become so damned politicized. I know people (I argue on Facebook with lots of them) who will insist that Glenn Beck's take or TGC's take is absolute, irrefutable fact, which becomes so aggravating at times that I often wonder of Susan Jacoby was right when she argued that we currently live in an "Age of American Unreason" (not that her book is any better than TGC). <br /><br />Further proof that a blog like this is needed to safeguard reality and sift out the shit.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20110178446994056102010-01-02T16:33:43.869-07:002010-01-02T16:33:43.869-07:00As for The Godless Constitution, I wouldn't co...<i>As for The Godless Constitution, I wouldn't completely throw it away but Tom's critique is somewhat sound. I do think, however, that it's appropriate for a person to first read the book before issuing their opinion to all.</i><br /><br />I'm not interested in reading all the polemics out there because there's a lot of work to be done on undiscovered and overlooked truth. However, the authors have designed their polemic as a handbook of arguments to be used by those who hold their POV.<br /><br />Readers and adherents of The Godless Constitution are invited to use their provided ammo here and see how it holds up. I'd prefer we look for the <i>whole</i> truth, however, not just plugging manifestos.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-27499548274760112372010-01-02T16:15:40.294-07:002010-01-02T16:15:40.294-07:00@ TVD, Pinky and Angie:
I think it's clear th...@ TVD, Pinky and Angie:<br /><br />I think it's clear that this is a politically-charged issue. Separating the founding fathers from modern politics is often as hard as separating the wheat from the tares. It's inevitable that some of us will favor certain historians while others are disgusted with them. As for <em>The Godless Constitution</em>, I wouldn't completely throw it away but Tom's critique is somewhat sound. I do think, however, that it's appropriate for a person to first read the book before issuing their opinion to all. But still, the critiques he cites here are sound. Like I have said before, the books is an ok read. Nothing amazing, nothing horrible. Just ok.<br /><br />As far as this blog's "bias," Pinky, we have tried very hard to assemble a diverse cast. Yes, Tom and others probably lean more to the right while others here go left. We are constantly on the lookout for new talent that is interested in signing up. In my opinion, this is American Creation's greatest strength. Too many blogs today pretend to represent "objectivity" and claim to be "all-encompassing." They are not. This blog, however, is. How do I know this? Because I have "locked horns" with almost every single person here. We've all had it out over the past 2 years and rarely if ever are in complete agreement. And as Lyndon Johnson stated, "If two people are ever in complete agreement on anything, you can rest assured that one is exercising dominion over the other."<br /><br />Not here. Not with this cast. Hell, some (both right and left) have become so agitated over the diversity of opinions here that they chose to leave. And I for one say good riddance. If people think that democracy isn't a clash of ideas then they probably don't know what democracy is. <br /><br />But please, if there are any out there (of whatever opinion) who have the desire, knowledge and time to invest in this blog then WE WANT YOU to join us.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-13969744294656571062010-01-02T16:11:26.391-07:002010-01-02T16:11:26.391-07:00.
Party politics are guaranteed by the First Amend....<br />Party politics are guaranteed by the First Amendment in the freedom of association clause. They can be quite destructive of democratic rule.<br />.<br />Shain a paleocon? is that a joke?<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76881885887014327142010-01-02T16:04:11.100-07:002010-01-02T16:04:11.100-07:00Well, I think party politics are inseparable from ...Well, I think party politics are inseparable from democracy, as the formation of Jefferson's second party proved.<br /><br />As for Barry Shain, it was Jon who said he was a paleo-con and an advocate. I wrote that I haven't seen it in his work as a scholar of history. I've found him to be an excellent resource.<br /><br />And yes, I do have harsh words for Kramnick and Moore, for the reasons given. However, their facts are certainly on the table, and are being argued for and against all over the blog right now.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-36369221773326139982010-01-02T15:55:18.709-07:002010-01-02T15:55:18.709-07:00.
I have never said that everything you write is a....<br />I have never said that everything you write is anti-liberal trash; but, every once in a while, it is.<br />.<br />There is a strong bias here and it deals with who is and is not an acceptable scholar for reference. You pretty well put Shain and his authors off the table with some harsh rhetoric.<br />.<br />But, so what? That's the privilege of rank.<br />.<br />I'm not complaining--just observing.<br />.<br />From what I'm discovering, I don't think the men at the Constitution Convention really wanted to let everything hang out like it has developed over the years. I know some were quite concerned about a run-a-way democracy. It seems that's Angie's complaint.<br />.<br />But, it is a Democracy, after all.<br />.<br />Party politics seems to be the fly in the ointment much moreso than democracy.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84845003767616909902010-01-02T15:34:51.393-07:002010-01-02T15:34:51.393-07:00Well, Pinky, I think I'm well on record as beg...Well, Pinky, I think I'm well on record as begging folks to leave contemporary politics out of the discussions here. But Ray's and Angie's subtext was quite clear to anyone with an IQ above room temperature, so instead of playing the disingenuousness game, I spoke directly to the elephant in the room.<br /><br /><i>The problem with "voting blocks" is that individual's within them, start to tout the view of the mob, without considering the issues themselves.</i><br /><br />Angie, I have never seen you apply this criticism to anyone but on the religious right. You've written endlessly on the cementheads in the church you left.<br /><br />Regardless, I think it's unhelpful and dehumanizing to describe anybody that way.<br /><br />Instead of accusing me of bias, Phil, present some worthwhile counterarguments. I don't see how I could be more even-handed than writing<br /><br /><i>But neither do I argue that maintaining America's "Christian-y" ethos is demanded by the Constitution or our cultural history. If the 48 states that have "God" in their constitutions wish to take Him out, fine.</i>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com