A Response "A Response to "Hey Liberals, I Propose a Compromise"" or "Learn to read a fucking book instead of burning PissedOffRightWinger you 'tard" (427 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.67 on 4 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Zoidberg (View user info) at 2005-03-08 02:15:31 EST
In response to http://www.ubersite.com/m/61444
Your "argument" for lack of a better word, was riddled with so many factual errors and inaccuracies that I thought it best to just go for the jugular and eviscerate you with the most glaringly obvious ones.
<<However, this is far from what is really true. The Puritans, the first to truly populate the country were Puritans, who were Christian in the most basic sense.>>
Wrong.
Actually the first PERMANENT settlement was Jamestown, it was founded in 1607. When the Puritans showed up in 1643 the Jamestown settlers wouldn't let them in (and who can blame them? Those fuckers early on were dull. Puritans didn't even allow harmonic singing of *hymns* until well towards the end of the 18th century. They thought church music that sounded good would encourage Papism.)
Again, emphasis on PERMANENT. The Jamestowners were the first, not the Puritans, and while they were Church of England, they arrived for the sake of profit, not religion.
Further, neither group "founded" the country. There were no thoughts of independence, this was simply an act of colonization. An revolution-minded colonist does not first get permission to settle from his monarch (they were called charters back then).
Furthermore if you want to make the place of religion in government a contest of "who was here first" then you better start building a monument to "The Great Spirit" outside your town hall, because the white man was predated by quite a bit.
Next you go on to say (and this is quite funny)
<<Then all of our founding fathers were extremely religious, they were also heavily Christian, even more than the Puritans.>>
Wrong.
Any serious historian would laugh in your face if you said that. I can only assume you've been subjected to that monstrous revisionist garbage David Barton has been hawking at Christian conventions and gatherings.
Point of fact: Many were deists. (I will admit this is a matter of some contention, I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Examinations of primary source documents of the signing members of the Convention suffice to show that while many were Church of England, its not the sort of bible thumping fundamentalism you're thinking of. A sort of lapsed Christianity would be the best way to describe their humanist leanings. One fire and brimstone preacher some 50 years later described most of the founding fathers as closer to being "Unitarians" a term of religious derision with much the same meaning back then as it is now.)
That aside, even if they were Christians, what of it? Your burden of proof sir, is to show that the founders *intended* for there to be religion in Government, something the religious revisionists are UNABLE to do without making up quotes and taking others out of context. Thomas Jefferson, in my opinion our greatest founding father believed *NOTHING* of the sort.
Jefferson argued in quite a few letters to friends that, contrary to what some less informed souls were preaching, common law existed well before Christianity, and served its purpose quite well. (He also went on to condemn the church for spreading lies that Christianity was necessary for law) (If you really, really insist I'll go through my Letters and dig that tidbit up, but I'd rather not)
That aside, it might interest you to know that many fundy preachers in the post-revolutionary period actually villified our founding fathers and constitution as ung_dly. Hardly the sort of thing to lend credit to the "they were good Christians argument" no?
I think you're falling for the sophist trap that Barton and his ilk have laid for your weak minds. Christians teach that Deists = Atheists = Agnostics = Deists. The fact is Deists are NOT atheists. Nor are they agnostics. They believe very strongly in the existence of G_d. However Barton has taken quotes from avowed Deists who mention G_d and trumpet it as an example of Christianity. This is simply not true. A Deist mentioning G_d makes them a Christian no more then my mentioning Buddha makes me a Buddhist.
Next up
<<This was most definitely a country founded on Christian beliefs.>>
I'm not even going to justify such ill-informed garbage with a lengthy reply. Instead, I'll just give you Article 11 from the Treaty with Tripoli which was unanimously approved by Congress.
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is NOT (emphasis added), in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.
How odd. In 1797, only 21 years after the founding of the United States, our Congress and founding fathers (many of whom were still very much alive and serving in government) have absolutely NO problem with the statement that the United States was not founded on Christianity. Yet you, some 200 some years later seem to know something the original signers of the Constitution don't? You're a very entertaining person.
Moving on with your history lesson. You go on to say (and I must thank you, I got quite a chuckle out of this one, you just sounded so...convinced!)
<<This means that the United States Government or the governments of its respective states shall not establish a church of any kind.>>
This is a commonly accepted myth, and technically half true, but only because a series of Supreme Court amendments in the early half of the 20th century extended the rights of due process (you know, 14th amendment) to include the states. Before then, well...
Read the amendment again, this time thinking like a lawyer.
"***CONGRESS***shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Did you catch it? Try reading again. Think of what it doesn't say, and how you can exploit that. There ya go.
CONGRESS. The First Amendment applied ONLY to the Federal Government.
But you go say
<<the governments of its respective states shall not establish a church of any kind.>>
Tell me, where in the amendment do you see those words? Where is anything to do with limiting the rights of the State?
I'd like to think you read Madison's original 17 proposed Amendments one of which read, "No STATE (emphasis added) shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." but I doubt it, and since that particular amendment never passed anyway, moving on...
The States ALWAYS had the power to censor the press, to establish religion etc etc. The fact that you think the opposite is more the fault of the poor state of public education and your own laziness (it's in books, read dammit!)
Elliot's "Debates in the State Conventions", while monstrously boring, clearly shows that several states were GREATLY in favor of the First Amendment as we have it now precisely BECAUSE it would protect their own STATE FOUNDED AND RUN religions. The First Amendment gave the STATES the RIGHT to have their own religion. It gave the STATES the RIGHT to censor the press.
Doubt me? I'll hit ya up with a favorite Jefferson quote of mine. "While we deny that Congress have a right to control the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the right of the states, and their EXCLUSIVE (emphasis added) right to do so." This in a letter to John Adams.
So that's another argument of yours down. Towards the end you just slipped into vagaries and sophistries that I was really too lazy to challenge. Perhaps if you and your kind cite some sources aside from "The Holy Spirit guiding my hand" I might be more inclined to argue. But I feel this was enough of a bitchslap to negate any effective argument that might have been in your post.
No wonder you're pissed off, people always going around making you look dumb. But dammit, you make it so EASY!
Just because I like quotes, I dug up a few for ya
James Madison - "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
Thomas Paine (not really a founding father, a lot of them thought he was nuts but still turns a mean phrase) - "It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."
Madison again - Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
I could go on and on, but it would be far easier just to say that you sir, were just PWNED.
User Reviews
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2005-04-11 21:49:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Coming from College Guy.
That's a fucking hoot.
Submitted by Chronicles_of_College_Guy (user info) at 2005-04-10 13:16:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You're one of the least interesting people on this site.
Submitted by Chinaski (user info) at 2005-04-06 01:37:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You sure can, faggot!
Submitted by Affinity (user info) at 2005-03-08 06:00:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Holy Crap!
May a warm breeze blow up your trouser
leg and tickle your fancy oh noble educator