OT: A Lecture on Religion and Command and Disagreeing With Something (?) in Butch's Post ;-)

[Guest guest]

Hey Jen,

 

> Snip

>

>>And .. as for religious beliefs .. I will mention that George Washington

>>was a pious man .. normal it was for his troops to see him heading out

>>to the woods to talk to his Commander and request guidance. His actions

>>raised the morale of his troops .. and morale was needed at a time when

>>one was lucky to have a potato for dinner and a rag to wrap one's feet.

>

> Hiya Butch, Happy Fourth!

 

And to you. Hope you had a good one. :-)

 

> Mind if I debate with you a little on this point? :-P

 

Not at all .. cause its a minor point and takes nothing away from the

message I tried to deliver .. which is a message I think might have

troubled a lot of folks. But I have no regrets for doing that. But I

must admit that I am a bit puzzled why you honed in on what to me was

the least significant point I made in an 8 page post. ;-)

 

> To say Washington was a " pious man, " well, we might need to define

> what " pious " is.

 

We could use this logic on any term if we wanted to debate. We could

say that " advantageous " is relative .. especially if we want to discuss

water (H2O) .. cause it can also be deadly. ;-)

 

But the definitions we can choose from are ..

 

Devout .. affectionate .. good .. clean. (Applies to most dawgs)

Having or showing religious devotion. (Applies to many old folks)

Zealous in the performance of religious devotion. (Applies to Osama)

Spring from actual or pretended religious devotion or moral motives.

(Though I think this applies more to Greens and Pacifists) ;-)

Seemingly virtuous. (Describes Bill Clinton)

Affecting virtue hypocritically (Applies to many men of the cloth.)

 

There are a dozen or so more definitions in my Webster's New World.

 

> Founding Fathers, such as Washington and Jefferson, (Franklin, John

> Adams and others, but for the sake of this argument we'll keep it

> short,) were very much products of the time in which they lived - that

> is the 18th century. The 18th century is also called the " Age of

> Reason. " There's a whole lot of writing on the subject, and it would

> take another hard drive to get into it all here but in summary:

 

Fair that is.

 

> The universe is fundamentally rational, that is, it can be understood

> through the use of reason alone

 

That is certainly debatable .. though there are a small few folks who

might be able to understand the universe through the use of reason.

 

But there are few who can understand the nature of current events when

they get beyond emotion.

 

> Truth can be arrived at through empirical observation, the use of

> reason, and systematic doubt

 

Jeez .. I haven't seen this kinda dialogue since I took Oceanography,

Logic, Biology, Chemistry and Philosophy. ;-)

 

But .. in order to not have to debate the credibility of the statements

I'll say that I think they are true .. when .. used in the context of

Natural Science .. but NOT TRUE .. when .. used in a context of History

or any study concerning behavior of man .. Sociology, Psychology,

Philosophy, Political Science, Military Science, or International Affairs.

 

> Human experience is the foundation of human understanding of truth;

 

Right .. a good example would be the three blind man describing the

elephant. Or .. an true understanding of Jihad.

 

> authority is not to be preferred over experience

 

Bovine Excrement .. if that is true then we should not hope for any form

of authority in the Palestinian community in the future.

 

> All human life, both social and individual, can be understood in the

> same way the natural world can be understood;

 

Rarely is this true. Nature is fixed .. humans are beyond fixing. ;-)

 

> once understood, human life, both social and individual, can be manipulated

> or engineered in the same way the natural world can be manipulated or

engineered

 

In those rare instances that the above is true .. there are some cases

where this can be done .. but certainly not in all cases.

 

> Human history is largely a history of progress

 

Might need to define 'progress' to answer this one. Modernization has

its costs .. normally those costs are Social costs.

 

> Human beings can be improved through education and the development of

> their rational facilities

 

Some human beings can be changed. Not all! " Improved " would also need

to be defined and a conclusion agreed upon by the persons debating

before any agreement could be reached.

 

> Religious doctrines have no place in the understanding of the physical

> and human worlds

 

I totally disagree. And .. I am NOT a follower of any religion that has

ever been written for man .. monotheistic religions. Many professional

scientists will also disagree with the above.

 

> It is impossible to study and truly understand these men outside of

> the context of their own time.

 

Not impossible .. difficult.

 

> And it would be necessary to study not only what others have written

> about them, but their own writings (public and personal correspondence.)

 

That is why Historians can continue to be Historians .. because they are

still seeking to prove themselves (or others) wrong.

 

> to glean any kind of real understanding of their personal characters.

 

Disagree .. I think their recorded actions can say much about their

personal characters. Continued Behavior reflects Character .. and vice

versa. This does not apply to the occasional behaviors.

 

If that is true then we must beware of our relationships with those

around us .. those we call friends. They might not be what we think

they are. Which is probably pretty good advise.

 

> In this context it is quite clear that the four men listed above, are

> not Christians, but DEISTS, meaning that they believe in a Creator

> God, but not a God who interfered in human affairs.

 

Might be true .. but those who pray for wisdom and strength also accept

that many times their prayers are not answered. If one believes that a

tree has divine powers its possible to pray to the tree and ask for

guidance .. and receive that guidance. From where it comes is another

thing .. but it might come.

 

> Deism: (1) The belief in the existence of a God on purely rational

> grounds without reliance on revelation or authority; especially in the

> 17th and 18th centuries. (2) The doctrine that God created the world

> and its natural laws, but takes no further part in its functioning.

> (Webster's New World Dictionary - Third College Edition)

> ~~

 

Well .. how could ol' Dan'el; possibly be wrong? ;-)

 

> While Washington attended Church, (his own diaries show he attended

> about 12 times a year) it is documented that he never did take

> communion, while his wife, Mary, did.

 

May he burn in Hell. ;-)

 

> And from Thomas Jefferson:

>

> " Dr. Rush told me (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 disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or

> not. 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 "

> (Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572).

 

Probably true .. I didn't focus much of Jefferson in my post .. except

to mention his visions of Freedom and Self Rule for mankind.

 

> Who was Asa Green? Chaplain to Congress during Washington's

> administration.

 

Yep.

 

> A closer examination of Washington's public works reveals that he

> speaks quite loosely of God, never actually saying " God " or " Jesus "

> but always referring to the creator by some euphemistic term such as:

> " Great Author " . (FWIW, those terms are frequently used in Deism.) Not

> even in his last will and testament is there any mention of Jesus or God.

 

Sounds fine .. but I'm not sure what the point is.

 

> That Washington was observed going into the woods, we do know. To say

> to what purpose he went into the woods, *we can only speculate*.

 

Mayhaps he was meeting a milk maid in the woods .. if so, it would most

likely endear him even more to the troops.

 

> To say that Washington was pious in a CHRISTIAN context is misleading

> given the copious amounts in information to the contrary. In his

> personal and public correspondence, it it clear that Washington was a

> Deist.

 

I didn't use the word " Christian, " .. and I implied nothing.

 

> To imply that our country was founded on Christian values is also

> misleading. Both John Locke and Thomas Paine (men who's writings

> greatly influenced the FF) were inarguably Deists. Once again, we

> must remember the philosophical and ideological zeitgeist of the 18th

> century, which was a turning away form the era of faith and reliance

> of reason.

 

This is not a debate .. this is a lecture. ;-)

 

> Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the biggest Deist of them all, said:

>

> " The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the

> Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed

> with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter "

> (Works, Vol. iv, p. 365)

 

Maybe he said it .. maybe he didn't .. and maybe the context in which it

was said could shine a different light on it. Man can say much when he

is confused or uncertain .. and has a few toddies for the body. But if

he said it or not I see no positive or negative implications.

 

> And from a letter to John Adams:

>

> " It is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his

> doctrines. I am a Materialist. "

 

That can blow a lotta minds here cause the term Materialist has gained

new meanings from the original philosophical usage. ;-)

 

> But this is not to imply that he in anyway opposed to the *teachings*

> of Jesus? No

 

OK.

 

> " Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I

> find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the

> most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, of

> so much absurdity, so much untruth and imposture, as to pronounce it

> impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the

> same being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross, restore to

> him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some and the

> roguery of others of his disciples "

 

That .. is at best .. a mouthful. ;-)

 

> But to Christianity, or ANY organized religion? Yes:

>

> " I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the

> world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity]

> one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and

> mythologies " (Letter to Dr. Woods).

 

He is not totally wrong. Lemme say this afore I continue playing the

game. My first Undergrad was at Chaminade College, a Marianist School.

http://www.chaminade.edu/mbp/presentation.html

 

I am not now nor have I ever been a Catholic. My term paper for

Philosophy 101 was entitled, " Religion: The Myth. " My professor

counseled me on it .. said he could not give me a passing grade due to

the flawed logic .. but he appreciated the presentation and support of

the flawed logic. ;-) I told him I would NOT change it and it would

stand on its own .. and if he failed me I would reclama and stir up as

much crap as I could. The short of it is .. the administration agreed

to give me a C for the course .. though my test scores (that is, my

regurgitation of the school solutions) was in the A range. It was a

good paper .. and not at all critical of religion.

 

I have often written that I believe all good things sprang from man's

religions .. Freedom, Laws, Human Rights. etc.

 

> It is apparent that he was opposed to imposing any sort of religious

> doctrine on the American people:

 

Nowhere in any historical writings was that done. I have often written

that there are no references to be found in support of " Separation of

Church and State, " though most Americans think there are such

references. But I could come up with a lot of references showing use of

religious dogma in the planning and arguments of many of the Founding

Fathers.

 

> " ...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus

> Christ...the holy author of our religion,' which was rejected 'By a

> great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the

> mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and

> the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.' "

 

OK. If they had known about the " Free Sex " churches out and about (I

can reference a few) they should have included them too. Drop your

drawers .. I'm gonna give you the Key to Heaven. ;-)

 

> And truly, when I read this - I feel such pride that our FF were so

> generous of heart and spirit that they resisted the urge to only share

> democracy with the Christians. I am sure that the Pagans, Buddhists,

> New Agers, Agnostics, Muslims, Hindus and everyone else must feel that

> too. Democracy is NOT just for Christians, it's in the Bill of Rights!

 

I would suggest you look more closely at the Bill of Rights and see the

what for and why it was determined to be needed in the second place. It

had nothing to do with equal treatment of non-Christians. Nice to think

that they were that Avant Garde in their reasoning but they weren't.

Nor did they plan for telephones or spaceships or Mad Cow or AIDS.

 

> Lastly, I wanted to share this strangely prophetic quote, so relevant

> to our times:

>

> " I doubt whether the people of this country would suffer an execution

> for heresy, or a three months' imprisonment for not comprehending the

> mysteries of the Trinity. But is the spirit of the people 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 become

> persecutor, and better men become his victims. " (Thomas Jefferson,

> Notes on Virginia)

 

That is pure Jeffersonian .. and I have always leaned in that direction

though he was a bit too far out for me in some of his writings.

 

> It seems that Jefferson was attempting to prepare for a day when

> religious zealotry would creep back into government, after he and

> others strove so diligently to keep it out.

 

True it was .. and the Religious Zealotry of the time was that of the

Church of England. Much like hunters in times of old had to protect

themselves from Mastodons .. hunters today are concerned about Grizzly.

 

> I think if ANYONE is spinning in their graves these days - it is

> surely Mr Jefferson.

 

I think Jefferson and all the Founding Fathers would be shocked to see

what " progress " we have made. ;-)

 

>>>Religious conviction is a good thing methinks .. if not badly

>>>displaced. Better it is to follow a leader who needs spiritual

>>>guidance than it is to follow one who thinks they they have all the

>>>answers .. but really have NONE!

 

True this statement is .. one who thinks he needs guidance (be it from a

tree or a Deity or from his own inner self) is likely to make far better

decisions than a spring butt who thinks he has all the answers.

 

> To debate your final your point that our leaders should be men of

> religion, I would put forth the argument that our Founding Fathers,

> who were so essential to the construction of Freedom and Democracy,

> were NOT great men of Christian Religion. Nor did they believe that

> religion had a place in Government:

 

I hope you had fun looking up all those references, highlighting and

pasting and such .. cause you done sho'nuf worked hard to disprove

points that were never made in the second place. ;-)

 

1. In the days of our Founding Fathers belief in God was accepted as a

norm and not even debated in public.

 

2. Though you didn't touch on it at all .. during those days Papists,

Mohammedans (that was the term then) and Jews were not held in high

esteem.

 

3. I didn't mention the word " Christianity " in my post.

 

4. There are dozens and dozens and dozens of references to religion in

the writings of the Founding Fathers .. so this does not support your

claim that they didn't believe religion had no place in government.

 

5. I personally believe religion has no place in government and I

personally believe government has no right to make laws that restrict

the freedom of religion .. or the placement of the Ten Commandments ..

or the placement of Nativity Scenes .. and so forth. But they damn sure

do it .. and they do it contrary to the Bill of Rights.

 

6. I would prefer to follow a commander who has religious beliefs even

if I don't agree with those beliefs.

 

> " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of

> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to

> assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

> (Article I, Bill of Rights)

 

That is what most folks misinterpret as being the so-called separation

of Church and State.

 

> In fact they felt so strongly against religion in government that they

> made it the first subject in the Bill of Rights.

 

I think you are reading Article 1 in a manner that supports your

lecture. In fact, the intent was to promote no religion over another.'

This is the interpretation of folks much wiser than I am.

 

> I can say with certainty that John Locke and Thomas Paine (who's

> writing greatly influenced the drafting of the Constitution) would

> vehemently oppose your statement above.

 

I can say that many folks then would have bet money that bleeding was

the right way to handle many diseases and many now will bet money that

the reason 9/11 occurred is because we allow homosexuals to hold public

office. If anyone wants to take a close look at the lives and times or

Locke and Paine they will find they were very special " characters " in a

time where man was seeking truth.

 

Locke was a philosopher .. not a bad duty if one can get away with it.

But its impossible to get two philosophers to agree even on the time of

day. http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/constitution/locke-bio.html

 

Paine was a radical .. but I do like some of the things he wrote. Might

be that his Quaker upbringing got him on that path .. but he was smart.

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/political/bldef_painethomas.htm

 

> Personally, I disagree because I feel a leader who questions and

> examines situations before acting, rather than assuming he has all the

> answers and is reactionary, is a good thing. But that's just MHO.

 

I am a bit prejudiced in this regard as I have been there and done that.

There is no person more lonely than a commander. He can get input

from the specialists on his staff but when it comes down to making the

final command decision the burden rests with him/her alone. In many

cases information available to the commander is such that trying to

second guess the outcome aforehand is the determining factor on which

way the command decision will flow .. which is better than flipping a

coin .. sometimes. In such cases, the wisdom of that decision will be

known after the fact .. based on the success or failure of the mission.

And the monkey rests on the back of that commander .. he will get his

just reward or he will be crucified.

 

My Officer Efficiency Reports always had me in the block of Promote

Immediately and all the other good humma-humma buzz words that we need

to climb the ladder. More than once I took over commands that were

falling on their asses and turned them into smooth operations .. and

even though then (as is the case now) I had total confidence in my own

ability as a commander and leader .. there were times when I was not

totally comfortable with decisions I had to make .. especially in the

'Nam. But I was one of the lucky ones .. I called the coin correctly.

 

So whatever I believed was sufficient .. and at that time I had a very

strong belief in a Supreme Being .. and talked to that being often.

 

> Anyway, thanks for inspiring me to spend part of my holiday with my

> nose in the writings of these incredible men. I can think of no

> better way to cherish our freedom than to remember it's roots.

 

You are most welcome. We learn as we teach .. that is a fact. :-)

 

But as an amateur but dedicated historian, I understand that pulling

references from here and there can support any point we wish to make

because they will fit the context of the argument. My intent in making

a VERY SHORT statement on George Washington's habit of praying was that

he was NOT a pompous ass .. not a typical Redcoat or Lobster Back or

whatever most British Officers were noted for being at that time .. and

that he was able to inspire a bunch of rag tag, poorly armed, poorly

fed, poorly clothed and poorly trained ignorant kuntry folks and keep

them pointed in the right direction .. which was the direction of the

mightiest army in Europe .. and eventually conquer that mighty army.

 

If one wants to look at inspirational commanders and their relationship

with God .. or lack thereof .. they might want to look at the great

contrast between two of the greatest leaders to take the field Andy (Old

Hickory) Jackson and his unbelievable success at the Battle of New

Orleans .. and Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson during the Civil War.

 

Stonewall was a real Preacher Man .. Old Hickory a real Wild Man. ;-)

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/aj7.html

http://home.san.rr.com/stonewall/

 

> And a Happy Fourth to you all!

 

Hope y'all had a good one. :-)

 

> Respectfully exercising her right to dissent, ;-P

 

Not sure what you were disagreeing with .. but I agree with most of it

and disagree with the rest. ;-)

 

> JenB

 

Y'all keep smiling. :-) Butch