Let me first assure you that I am more than capable of understanding what it is that you say, as well as the implicatiouns. That is why I feel it necessary to write in opposition. To wit, let me begin by quoting Madison:

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom ofthe people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
- James Madison, <a href='http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_05.htm' target='_blank'>Virgina Ratifying Convention: June 6, 1788</a>

Let's start a discussion on the source of morality in the Constitution with John Adams, <a href='http://www.constitution.org/jadams/ja1_pre.htm' target='_blank'>A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1788</a>:

Quote:It was the general opinion of ancient nations, that the divinity alone was adequate to the important office of giving laws to men. The Greeks entertained this prejudice throughout all their dispersions; the Romans cultivated the same popular delusion; and modern nations, in the consecrations of kings, and in several superstitious chimeras of divine rights in princes and nobles, are nearly unanimous in preserving remnants of it: even the venerable magistrates of Amersfort devoutly believe themselves God's vicegerents; Is it that obedience to the laws can be obtained from mankind in no other manner?
...
The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature: and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an æra in their history.[/B} Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. [B]It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven, any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or labouring in merchandize or agriculture: [B}it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses[/B].
...
neither the people, nor their conventions, committees, or sub-committees, considered legislation in any other light than ordinary arts and sciences, only as of more importance. Called without expectation, and compelled without previous inclination, though undoubtedly at the best period of time both for England and America, to erect suddenly new systems of laws for their future government, they adopted the method of a wise architect, in erecting a new palace for the residence of his sovereign. They determined to consult Vitruvius, Palladio, and all other writers of reputation in the art; to examine the most celebrated buildings, whether they remain entire or in ruins; compare these with the principles of writers; and enquire how far both the theories and models were founded in nature, or created by fancy: and, when this should be done, as far as their circumstances would allow, to adopt the advantages, and reject the inconveniences, of all. Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind. The experiment is made, and has completely succeeded: it can no longer be called in question, whether authority in magistrates, and obedience of citizens, can be grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion, without the monkery of priests, or the knavery of politicians. As the writer was personally acquainted with most of the gentlemen in each of the states, who had the principal share in the first draughts, the following letters were really written to lay before the gentleman to whom they are addressed, a specimen of that kind of reading and reasoning which produced the American constitutions.

To be fair, Adams does credit "the Christian religion", but it should be evident the emphasis on reason above superstitious or dogmatic sources.

Jefferson talks about the source of morality in a letter <a href='http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=228&division=div1' target='_blank'>TO THOMAS LAW, ESQ./POPLAR FOREST, June 13, 1814.</a>:

Quote:DEAR SIR,-The copy of your Second Thoughts on Instinctive Impulses, with the letter accompanying it, was received just as I was setting out on a journey to this place, two or three days distant from Monticello. I brought it with me and read it With great satisfaction, and With the more as it contained exactly my own creed on the foundation of morality in man. It is really curious that on a question so fundamental, such a variety of opinions should have prevailed among men, and those, too, of the most exemplary virtue and first order of understanding. It shows how necessary was the care of the Creator in making the moral principle so much a part of our constitution as that no errors of reasoning or of speculation might lead us astray from its observance in practice.&nbsp; Of all the theories on this question, the most whimsical seems to have been that of Wollaston, who considers truth as the foundation of morality. The thief who steals your guinea does wrong only inasmuch as he acts a lie in using your guinea as if it were his own. Truth is certainly a branch of morality, and a very important one to society. But presented as its foundation, it is as if a tree taken up by the roots, had its stem reversed in the air, and one of its branches planted in the ground. Some have made the love of God the foundation of morality. This, too, is but a branch of our moral duties, which are generally divided into duties to God and duties to man. If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such being exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to-wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. have observed, indeed, generally, that while in protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

Again, Jefferson almost certainly believed in a god, but no less certain is that he rejected the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. Would you then entrust Jefferson and his Razor to the Ten (+/-) Commandments?

Thomas Jefferson, stating that "Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments" in elaborating on Reason and its role in government, as well as the virtues of government without religious establishment (<a href='http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefVirg.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=17&division=div1' target='_blank'>Notes on the State of Virginia</a>):

Quote: Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desireable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter. Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves. But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments? Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely. Religion is well supported; of various kinds, indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order: or if a sect arises, whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors, without suffering the state to be troubled with it. They do not hang more malefactors than we do. They are not more disturbed with religious dissensions. On the contrary, their harmony is unparalleled, and can be ascribed to nothing but their unbounded tolerance, because there is no other circumstance in which they differ from every nation on earth. They have made the happy discovery, that the way to silence religious disputes, is to take no notice of them. Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those tyrannical laws. It is true, we are as yet secured against them by the spirit of the times. I doubt whether the people of this country would suffer an execution for heresy, or a three years imprisonment for not comprehending the mysteries of the Trinity. But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.

Now, to address the quotes that you offer. First, let's discuss what is meant by "Nature's God". Thomas Paine provides a fairly direct idea of his concept of Nature's God (noting that Jefferson, Washington, and others were often evasive about writing of their own personal beliefs). From Thomas Paine, <a href='http://ahp.gatech.edu/age_of_reason1_1794.html' target='_blank'>the Age of Reason</a>:

Quote:I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.

Continuing later...

Quote:As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of Atheism- a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of Manism with but little Deism, and is as near to Atheism as twilight is to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a Redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious, or an irreligious, eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.

The effect of this obscurity has been that of turning everything upside down, and representing it in reverse, and among the revolutions it has thus magically produced, it has made a revolution in theology.

That which is now called natural philosophy, embracing the whole circle of science, of which astronomy occupies the chief place, is the study of the works of God, and of the power and wisdom of God in his works, and is the true theology.

As to the theology that is now studied in its place, it is the study of human opinions and of human fancies concerning God. It is not the study of God himself in the works that he has made, but in the works or writings that man has made; and it is not among the least of the mischiefs that the Christian system has done to the world, that it has abandoned the original and beautiful system of theology, like a beautiful innocent, to distress and reproach, to make room for the hag of superstition.

Next, it is worth noting that a substantial portion of the quotations that you offer are variously described as fraudulant or "<a href='http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=20' target='_blank'>undocumented</a>", depending primarily to the extent with which one has invested his credibility in the suspect quotations. I will hereafter refer to these quotations as "spurious".

I have taken the liberty of color coding the items known to be spurious in red, those that are authentic in green, those that are authentic, but deceptive in the context you present in orange, and those that I have found no credible citation (and which I offer no claim to be either spurious or authentic) in purple.

Quote:

Quote:The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America


<span style='color:green'>WHEN in the Course of human Events,
it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.</span>

James Madison
<span style='color:red'>" We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart."

΄We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]
[/COLOR=red]

[COLOR=orange] I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.
Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773) </span>

<span style='color:orange'> In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
΄ An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia‘ Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress</span>

<span style='color:orange'>΄It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.‘ </span>

<span style='color:orange'> A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven. [Letter by Madison to William Bradford [urging him to make sure of his own salvation] November 9, 1772]</span>

how bout George Washington:


<span style='color:green'><a href='http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm' target='_blank'>Farewell Address</a>: The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion" ...and later: "...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..."</span>


<span style='color:red'>΄It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.‘ </span>

<span style='color:purple'>΄What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.‘ [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]</span>

<span style='color:purple'>"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]</span>

<span style='color:purple'>During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words ΄So help me God!‘ to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible.</span>

maybe Jefferson:

<span style='color:orange'>΄God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.‘ (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s <a href='http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-pubeng?specfile=/texts/english/modeng/publicsearch/modengpub.o2w&act=text&offset=388306765&textreg=2&query=conviction+in+the+minds+of+the+people&id=JefBv021' target='_blank'>
Notes on the State of Virginia</a>, Query XVIII, 1781.]</span>

or Patrick Henry:

"Orator of the Revolution."
<span style='color:purple'>' This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.'</span>
The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry

<span style='color:red'>΄It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.‘ [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]</span>

<span style='color:purple'>΄The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.‘</span>

or John Jay (psst; he's the first chief justice of the US Supremes):

<span style='color:green'>΄ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.‘ Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393</span>.

<span style='color:green'>΄Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab ["Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?" 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson.‘ [The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p.365]</span>

Now, you seem to assert that George Washington would favor displays exhibiting the primacy of Christianity in our country's founding. Let's hear what Thomas Jefferson had to say of George Washington's religion (<a href='http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefBv012.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all' target='_blank'>Jefferson's Diary</a>):

Quote: February the 1st . Doctor Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green, that when the clergy addressed General Washington on his departure from the Government, it was observed in their consultation, that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address, as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so.

&nbsp; However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice. Rush observes, he never did say a word on the subject in any of his public papers, except in his valedictory letter to the Governors of the States, when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he speaks of " the benign influence of the Christian religion." I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system than he himself did.

Washington replied to Presbyterian ministers who had complained to him about the failure of the Constitution to refer to the only true god, by saying "I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country." (Cited in a second-source <a href='http://here' target='_blank'>here</a> and <a href='http://]here[/URL' target='_blank'>).

As for your quotes from Madison, it should be noted that the "Act for the relief of the Bible Society" "economically aided" the Bible Society only insofar as it waived tax burdens, something that is fairly common practice today, but has also been controversial for a long time (for example Ulysses S Grant railed against the practice).

The phrase "mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance" comes from The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom (Jefferson's version</a>, <a href='http://legis.state.va.us/constitution/a1s16.htm' target='_blank'>version that passed</a>). It is certain that the "Christian forbearance" phrase was worked into the final act after it was first introduced, but the phrase appears to be more accurately <a href='http://gunstonhall.org/georgemason/dreisbach-essay.html' target='_blank'>attributed to George Mason</a>.

The final quote you offer on Madison is well documented, but does not appear to accurately reflect Madison's beliefs through the revolutionary period. Madison developed a "<a href='http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-paper.html' target='_blank'>'transient inclination' to enter the ministry</a>", but apparently wrote little regarding his personal beliefs thereafter, whilst wrting volumes isolating civil and spiritual authority.

Regarding the Jefferson quote that you offered (note I've provided a more extensive quote from the same document above), it should be noted that he is specifically talking about slavery and the fact that the "masters" were relatively few, and the prospect for emancipation. This particular selection is uncharacteristic of Jefferson in resorting to helfire-and-brimstone language, as well as drifting toward the supernatural.

As to your Jay quote, I'll make no pretense that isn't more favorable toward your position. I will note that you've struck the holy grail you've sought in that the constitution does prohibit one of the positions he advocates, de facto, specifically the religious test clause of <a href='http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html' target='_blank'>Article 6 of the Constitution</a>. Yet, in spite of this, Jay championed the US Constitution, "no religious test" clause and all.

The upshot of the conversation is that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen were deists, and did not recognize the divinity of Jesus. Likewise, they all likely believed in a god, and to various extents held bias against atheists. Nevertheless, they championed a secular government and fought to preserve it against considerable attempts to the contrary. (Did you really think that your compatriots failed to notice that the Constitution says nothing about any god, and the only mention of religion is the "no religious test" clause?)

If you want to shamelessly display religious artifacts throughout the halls of government, you should desist in historical revisionism and boldly advocate repeal of the establishment clause of the First Ammendment. As it is, you've made dubious assertions regarding the current Supreme Court building, and have relied on a foundation of spurious claims, which you have passed along uncritically from the plethora of websites like [URL=]this that perpetuate "spurious" scholarship, and which cultivate Madison's fruits of "pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution". It would be more honest of you to stop cursing the Supreme Court justices and start cursing the Founding Fathers for your predicament.

Quote:show me that post; i've tried to find anything about smuggling. my whole point, or at least one you could not grasp, was that the 10 Commandments were welcomed into the Supreme Court building once, and no one needed to hide them.

Your actual claim was that it was prominently displayed. You responded with a web site that fraudulently claimed three displays, where in fact there are two that include depictions of Moses with tablets. Far from this being a prominent display of the ten commandments, they are contextual displays of a wide variety of historical figures that represent the diverse legacy of the legal establishment. My comment was a parody of your claim of "prominence", where the only text on the tablet is largely concealed by the cloak and beard of Moses. Since you did not understand the claim of moral relativism, let me state it clearly: Arguments in this context that attempt to argue a philosophical position of one group of people based upon what is done by another group of people is moral relativism, and that is exactly what you have done by basing your argument on the "prominent display" or coinage minted after the founders were dead and buried.

wow. 6 days and 6000 words later, you've proven me right again. and in doing so, admirably highlighted that you're really long-winded. and still wrong.

you started this little contest with this:

I45Owl Wrote:

gruehls Wrote:that the Founding Fathers' guidance by Scripture in carving out our most fundamental liberties and rights may have been unconstitutional and unrecognized as such by them as they wrote the Constitution;

With all due respect, that must be the most ridiculous statement I've heard in the church-state discussion.

Quote:that the Supreme Court still has multiple references to the 10 Commandments prominently featured throughout its own building while insisting on restricting the use of them elsewhere;

This is quite probably false (I haven't been over the building with a fine tooth comb), but I will categorically state that the primary instance that you would site is not the ten commandments.

when your ignorance was demonstrated, you compounded it with this gem:

I45Owl Wrote:

gruehls Wrote:what part do you find difficult? that the framers of the constitution, who expressly relied upon their faith in the christian god, would be shocked to learn that the supreme court misperceives their purpose and desire? or something else?

The framers, including Paine (referred to as "the father of the constitution") are on record as specifically being against such things as proclamations regarding the timing of religious holidays, publicly funded clergy-led prayer before Congress, and religious studies programs at public universities. It is foolish to argue that they established the United States as a Christian nation and that the contemporary arguments regarding establishment of religion are not a continuation of a dialog that has raged in America for nearly 400 years.

Quote:try visiting the place, at least once, before you render your&nbsp; opinion. failing that, at least look at the available pictures or research the issue before you before you proclaim its falsity and tell me i'm wrong.

<a href='http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp' target='_blank'>This discussion</a> provides better context for the specific images in your post. Note with particular attention the specific images in the site that you posted are discussed on the site that I reference.

The Weinman frieze is the item that I categorically stated is not the 10 commandments - this according to the man who created it.

it was then necessary to educate you on the difference between madison and paine. whoops!

you now trot out this line:

Quote:Your actual claim was that it was prominently displayed. You responded with a web site that fraudulently claimed three displays, where in fact there are two that include depictions of Moses with tablets. Far from this being a prominent display of the ten commandments, they are contextual displays of a wide variety of historical figures that represent the diverse legacy of the legal establishment. My comment was a parody of your claim of "prominence", where the only text on the tablet is largely concealed by the cloak and beard of Moses. Since you did not understand the claim of moral relativism, let me state it clearly: Arguments in this context that attempt to argue a philosophical position of one group of people based upon what is done by another group of people is moral relativism, and that is exactly what you have done by basing your argument on the "prominent display" or coinage minted after the founders were dead and buried.

gee, what happened to "categorically not the 10 commandments?" seems like mr. intellectual dishonesty (that would be you) now finds it necessary to ignore the plain and plainly wrong earlier claims he made. i highlighted those above in black, just so you'd know i can use the bold function too.

here ya go genius:

Quote:Moses (c. 1300s B.C.) Prophet, lawgiver and judge of the Israelites. Mosaic Law is based on the Torah, the
first five books of the Old Testament. Moses is depicted in the frieze holding two overlapping tablets, written in
Hebrew. Commandments six through ten are partially visible.

my source on that description of the weinman frieze is the gererally reliable <a href='http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf' target='_blank'>Office of the Curator of Supreme Court of the United States</a>

since you've apparently got nothing else going on in your life, and are still in need of education on the subject, try

<a href='http://www.law.com/jsp/scm/PubArticleSCM.jsp?id=1109597701707' target='_blank'>The Supreme Court's Own Commandments</a>

you were wrong; you are wrong, and no amount of gutless wordsmithing now will change that. and i don't give a flying fig if you agree with my concept of "prominent."

good lord....

So much horrid code has been posted in this thread; invision throws up if you try to edit something.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:good lord....

So much horrid code has been posted in this thread; invision throws up if you try to edit something.

I recommend if you want the thread to become sane again regarding editing and possibly quoting... that things you quote... you should copy n' paste.... I cannot fix this thread w/o hacking the dbase.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:good lord....

So much horrid code has been posted in this thread; invision throws up if you try to edit something.

I recommend if you want the thread to become sane again regarding editing and possibly quoting... that things you quote... you should copy n' paste.... I cannot fix this thread w/o hacking the dbase.

it's a sign from god that amoral relativists should not spend 6 days working up an idiotic color-coded scheme to further demonstrate their ignorance.

geez, creation only required 6 days. snappy responses ought to be snappy.

To quote the great philosopher's of our time Green Day

I don't want to be part of the moral majority.....I want to be a minority(repeat only louder this time) :wave:

RocketAlum Wrote:To quote the great philosopher's of our time Green Day

I don't want to be part of the moral majority.....I want to be a minority(repeat only louder this time) :wave:

holy cow; stupidity rears its head from so many directions.

"great philosopher's?"

"green day?"

were you hoping to advance a position or retard it?

Well actually you have made my point.....some of you people are so full of yourselves and take things way to seriously. :stupid:

RocketAlum Wrote:Well actually you have made my point.....some of you people are so full of yourselves and take things way to seriously.&nbsp; :stupid:

try to figure out the difference between "to," "too," plural and possessive before you float the "i'm with stupid" sign.

Quote:you started this little contest with this:

Actually, you started this discussion with the ridiculous and untenable assertion that the prohibition of the display of the ten commandments is an invention of the court unsupported by the constitutional restriction on laws regarding an establishment of religion.

Quote:gee, what happened to "categorically not the 10 commandments?" seems like mr. intellectual dishonesty (that would be you) now finds it necessary to ignore the plain and plainly wrong earlier claims he made. i highlighted those above in black, just so you'd know i can use the bold function too.

Had you taken the trouble to look at the <a href='http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp' target='_blank'>snopes.com article</a> that I linked to, two things would have happenned. First, you would have realized that the frieze I was referring to was the one above the Supreme Court Bench. I was pre-emptively citing a reference that is often used by various dupes, but in fact the site (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=2441) that you referenced never includes it. So, fair enough, you never mentioned this frieze, and I inaccurately later (implicitly) claimed you had. Furthermore, I didn't make sufficiently clear which frieze I was talking about.




The second thing that would have happenned if you read the snopes site is that you wouldn't have posted fraudulent claims as to what the founding fathers said - it is almost as if you cut and paste the innacurate quotes from the snopes.com site and put them in your posts.

You have mentioned not a word about the fact that you posted quotes that are undocumented in the contemporary literature - not a denial nor a defense. Before you make claims about intellectual dishonesty, you might want to address these substantive issues.

The specifics of the friezes in the supreme court building are a sideshow in any event - your original point remains ridiculous.

Quote: it's a sign from god that amoral relativists should not spend 6 days working up an idiotic color-coded scheme to further demonstrate their ignorance.

As an additional sideshow, I leave it to the reader to click the "quote" button on any post before this one:
Gruehls, Posted: Jul 3 2005, 05:34 PM

Then, post the quote button on that post, or any subsequent one...

i'm thrilled that in the course of reading my posts you were finally able to figure out who was the father of the constitution.

trivia question for you: who wrote the 10 commandments?

Quote:The upshot of the conversation is that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen were deists, and did not recognize the divinity of Jesus.

You should offer some evidence of that. Preferably from the primary literature, b/c that's a statment that goes around, and as far as I'm concerned it's Urban Legend. No one seems to support it w/ any substance, but it sounds very "intellectual"; like something that emerged from a college professor who was trying to 'wow' his class back in the '60s.

Quote:Nevertheless, they championed a secular government and fought to preserve it against considerable attempts to the contrary.

It's only secular after you dismiss all the religious (actually blatanly Christian) artifacts. You go through a lot of intellectual gymnastics to dismiss all of the evidence to the contrary. Using Occum's razor would say you lose.

DrTorch Wrote:

Quote:The upshot of the conversation is that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen were deists, and did not recognize the divinity of Jesus.

You should offer some evidence of that. Preferably from the primary literature, b/c that's a statment that goes around, and as far as I'm concerned it's Urban Legend. No one seems to support it w/ any substance, but it sounds very "intellectual"; like something that emerged from a college professor who was trying to 'wow' his class back in the '60s.

As to Washington, see the prior quote from Jefferson that I posted. As to Paine, refer to the prior quote from Age of Reason stating he did not believe in the Christian god.

Ethan Allen, writing in Reason, the only Oracle of Man (link previously posted), wrote:

Quote:In the circle of my acquaintance, (which has not been small,) I have generally
been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, . . . .for I have
never read their writings . . . . but wish that good sense, truth and virtue may be
promoted and flourish in the world, to the detection of delusion, superstition, and
false religion; therefore my errors in the succeeding treatise, which may be
rationally pointed out will be readily rescinded.

Jefferson basically re-wrote the New Teastament of the Bible (using the razor previously referenced), entitling it <a href='http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JefJesu.html' target='_blank'>The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth: Extracted Textually from the Gospels Greek, Latin, French, and English</a>. His view can be summarized by saying that Jesus, though not divine, was fallible, but the best moral example that man has produced. It is clear that he belived in a god, and that he believed that Jesus provided a great moral example.

That leaves Madison, Hamilton, and Franklin, of which I don't have anything readily available, but will attempt to document as time permits.

It is perhaps a mistake to flatly state they were deists because the title is as elusive as "atheist" or "agnostic", to the extent that they're only titles that are accurate when self-described.

DrTorch Wrote:

Quote:Nevertheless, they championed a secular government and fought to preserve it against considerable attempts to the contrary.

It's only secular after you dismiss all the religious (actually blatanly Christian) artifacts. You go through a lot of intellectual gymnastics to dismiss all of the evidence to the contrary. Using Occum's razor would say you lose.

Another Jefferson quote, referring to the Virginia Bill for Religious freedom, from his <a href='http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-pubeng?specfile=/texts/english/modeng/publicsearch/modengpub.o2w&act=text&offset=386548806&textreg=2&query=Jesus&id=JefAuto' target='_blank'>Autobiography</a>:

Quote:The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it's protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 'Jesus Christ,' so that it should read 'a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.' The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.

Gymnastics? There is no mention of god in the Constitution. The only mention of religion in the Consitution is:

Quote:no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or
public Trust under the United States.

The only reference to religion in the ammendments of the Constitution is:

Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Do you propose that this was an accident of history?

Aside from Adams's quote above, if you want specific evidence that this was not founded as a Christian nation, the <a href='http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm' target='_blank'>Treaty of Tripoli</a> (proposed under Washington's administration, ratified unanimously by Congress, and signed under John Adams), explicitly says it:

Quote:As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of 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.

What is the evidence to the contrary? How can you apply Occam's Razor to what I have supplied and conclude that this was not founded as a secular government?

DrTorch Wrote:You should offer some evidence of that.&nbsp; Preferably from the primary literature, b/c that's a statment that goes around, and as far as I'm concerned it's Urban Legend.

I have been unable to document much about Hamilton's or Madison's personal beliefs from original sources. As an exercise, you can go to <a href='http://print.google.com' target='_blank'>http://print.google.com</a> and enter >>"Alexander Hamilton" deism<< (include the quotes - everything between >> and <<) or >>"James Madison" Deism<<.

Regarding Hamilton, he was an illegitimate child, and much of the academic sources refer to that in discussing both his religious leanings and his personal behavior (two possibly apocryphal stories I've seen regarding Hamilton are (1) his response when asked why there was no mention of god in the constitution: "we forgot", (2) Response to Franklin's request for prayer during the convention: he saw no need for "foreign aid"). Those probably indicate more about his sense of humor and are somewhat consistent with the fact that he was killed in a duel. The academic literature (read: non-polemical) is somewhat divided over whether Hamilton was a deist. As best I can determine, he was devout Christian perhaps through the early 1770s (especially when his children were young, apparently in compensation for the fact that his father never married his mother), inclined to be a Deist by the late 1780s, and perhaps more inclined to be a traditional Christian late in his life. I have seen him described as a "Christian Deist", and that is most probably accurate, though *I* can't produce documentation to show it.

What I have seen about Madison seems to indicate that we are unlikely to see much about his personal beliefs after about 1773. His commitment to the constitutional prohibition of "anything like" an establishment of Religion is abundantly clear in his writings from the 1780s forward. From Madison's writings, I am inclined to believe that his views are consistent with Deism, but I would be interested in seeing a better case that he was, in fact, a Deist.

Regarding Benjamin Franklin, in his <a href='http://print.google.com/print?id=_rf8iPO6LS0C&lpg=44&dq=revelation&prev=http://print.google.com/print%3Fq%3Dbenjamin%2Bfranklin%26btnG%3DSearch%2BPrint&pg=43&sig=VjXtwh3MdJqdf7KOrbXentNIET8' target='_blank'>Autobiography</a>, he states:

Quote:I was scarce fifteen when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.&nbsp; Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures.&nbsp; It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.

Jefferson's discussions of religion are quite involved - he never, to my knowledge, identifies himself as anything other than Christian, but his notion of being Christian is far different from conventional notions, either now or then - one that very few people would qualify. This letter provides one of his most succinct statements of his views: <a href='http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=152&division=div1' target='_blank'>Jefferson to Benjamin Rush</a>, Washington, Apr. 21, 1803.

Quote:To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.

In summary, with the exceptions of Madison and Hamilton, it is relatively easy to provide substantiation that the founders I have enumerated were in essence, if not self-proclamation, Deists. I think your conception that claims regarding Deism are Urban Legend is without merit.

I would still like to see why you think Occam's Razor is more relevant to the discussion that Jefferson's Razor...

gruehls Wrote:trivia question for you: who wrote the 10 commandments?

Alright, while I generally don't have much regard for rhetorical questions - if you have a point, make it - it now serves my purposes to respond to this.

First, let me offer this most honest decalogue, penned by Ambrose Bierce:

Quote:DECALOGUE, n. A series of commandments, ten in number -- just enough to permit an intelligent selection for observance, but not enough to embarrass the choice. Following is the revised edition of the Decalogue, calculated for this meridian.

&nbsp; &nbsp; Thou shalt no God but me adore:
&nbsp; &nbsp; 'Twere too expensive to have more.

&nbsp; &nbsp; No images nor idols make
&nbsp; &nbsp; For Robert Ingersoll to break.

&nbsp; &nbsp; Take not God's name in vain; select
&nbsp; &nbsp; A time when it will have effect.

&nbsp; &nbsp; Work not on Sabbath days at all,
&nbsp; &nbsp; But go to see the teams play ball.

&nbsp; &nbsp; Honor thy parents. That creates
&nbsp; &nbsp; For life insurance lower rates.

&nbsp; &nbsp; Kill not, abet not those who kill;
&nbsp; &nbsp; Thou shalt not pay thy butcher's bill.

&nbsp; &nbsp; Kiss not thy neighbor's wife, unless
&nbsp; &nbsp; Thine own thy neighbor doth caress

&nbsp; &nbsp; Don't steal; thou'lt never thus compete
&nbsp; &nbsp; Successfully in business. Cheat.

&nbsp; &nbsp; Bear not false witness -- that is low --
&nbsp; &nbsp; But "hear 'tis rumored so and so."

&nbsp; &nbsp; Covet thou naught what thou hast not
&nbsp; &nbsp; By hook or crook, or somehow, got.

&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; G.J.

But, you were probably referring to another one, "wrote" by god, brought to man only by Divine Revelation. And, it is probably Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Paine, and others' professed belief in "Nature's God" that prompted you to ask your question, presumably to argue that this implied their acceptance of the ten commandments.

However, to the extent that Paine's [URL=]The Age of Reason[/URL] articulates the Deist creed, you can infer that the <a href='http://www.deism.com/DeistAmerica.htm' target='_blank'>Deist Founding Fathers</a> believed (or at least gave credence to) Paine's discussion on Revelation:

Quote:"Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; ...

Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some other observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication- after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention.*

*It is, however, necessary to except the declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children; it is contrary to every principle of moral justice.

Here you have an explicit rejection of the ten commandments by someone with indisputible influence on America's leading thinkers at the time.

And, what if some (clearly not all) of the founding fathers did reject the ten commandments? The <a href='http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/42.htm' target='_blank'>Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom</a> states "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical".

While this may not constitute an iron-clad case that the founding fathers as a whole would be against the display of the ten commandments, it should eviscerate the notion that you can infer that the Founding Fathers would accept its display without objection.

What is on record, though, are Deistic references to a creator in the Declaration of Independence and a United States Consitution that contains not mention of any god and whose only mention of religion is clearly directed to create a secular government - one that does not entangle itself with religion nor the rights of conscience of the people.

you're pretty much a one trick pony, aren't ya?

So, how about that roberts nomination?