OT: A DISCUSSION on Religion and Command and ....

[Guest guest]

List Mom, I'm on a different time schedule then you stateside folks,

so if this falls outside of the timelimit, I apologize. It will be my

last post on the subject.

 

 

> 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.

 

 

Hi Butch,

 

I find it ironic, that someone who puts out posts and newsletters such

as yours would lecture ME on lecturing. ;-)

 

If you feel that I misunderstood you - I feel you've misunderstood

the spirit of my post too.

 

It was nothing more than an attempt to engage in a rather friendly

debate/dialog regarding the people who made this country great. I

honed in on that particular point because I felt it would provide a

lighthearted springboard into a subject I found interesting. You often

post on subjects you find interesting. I deliberately did not address

other points in your post that you feel were more important, because

quite frankly, I have different beliefs. It's ok to disagree, but I

was attempting to keep the spirit of the list/conversation friendly by

discussing a topic that was way over and done with, and could be

debated in a friendly way. If my tone or writing belied my intention

then both you and the group have my apologies.

 

If my post spawned a flood of " Liberal Grams " your way, then I am

sorry, it was not my intent, but I won't say I am not unhappy to see a

presence of people who have differing views on a subject stand up and

speak their mind.

 

From a posted message to Kathleen:

 

K:

> > However I just wanted to say " Thank You " just for myself. I found

your note

> > to be very interesting, thought provoking and even educational.

Thank you very

> > much. It's nice to end this fourth (It's now 12 am) by reading

such a note.

B:

> Since you found it to be so interesting and thought provoking and even

> educational .. would you mind translating it for me and showing me which

> parts fit into the above adjectival phrases?

 

I find myself a little astonished that you would make such a comment.

It certainly isn't complimentary, or even neutral, and I see no

smilies or winks - why get so miffed when I only addressed what you

admit to be an ancillary point in your post?

 

 

 

Snip

 

 

>

> > 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.

 

If you disagree with these points - you can take them up again in any

college campus where last time I checked, Locke, Hume, Hobbes and

Descartes were still relevant to the aforementioned subjects -

especially history. Not to mention Rousseau and Voltaire. And let's

not forget Adam Smith - who's works still influence our economy today.

 

But no need to even debate them point by point. These are tenets of

18th century enlightenment beliefs, they stand only to give an example

of what educated men of the 18th century, such as Washington and

Jefferson, would have been exposed to.

 

 

> > 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.

 

True, but put the whole package together and you get a more well

defined picture of who the man really was. And sometimes the writings

contain a record of actions as well, not just thoughts and feelings.

See Washington's journals.

 

 

> 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.

 

 

Yes but if we could read their journals, we would know for SURE, eh? <G>

 

 

Snip

 

 

>

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

 

I certainly hope not, since we both consulted him for our own purposes.

 

 

>

> > 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. ;-)

 

 

Again, I certainly hope not.

 

 

Snip

 

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

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

 

 

Jefferson was cited as a contemporary of Washington's. Since you also

cited him, I thought it would be a fun tie-in to to your post. Again,

note the use of FUN.

 

 

> > 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.

 

According to the structure of my post, it should be fairly obvious

that the point I was trying to make is that Washington was a Deist. ;-)

 

 

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

> likely endear him even more to the troops.

 

<g> Indeed ;-P

 

 

But here's where I get confused, because in your first post you said:

 

>normal it was for his troops to see him heading >out to the woods to

talk to his Commander and request guidance.

 

I was questioning how you know what it was he was doing in the woods.

I have also read accounts that he was going into the woods to:

 

* Smoke marijuana

 

* Practice masonic rituals to tip the scale of victory in his favor.

 

and now I'll add meeting milkmaids to the list. <G> ;-P

 

snip

 

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

 

 

Mea culpa - I got a bit carried away with my point.

 

 

snip

 

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

 

As are some of your posts on varying topics. But I wasn't aware of a

didactic slant to my post. When I get excited about something, I admit

I get carried away, so it's possible I came off to some as a bit

sententious - but I'm certainly not alone there! ;-)

 

snip

 

 

> 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.

 

 

Then why cast aspersions on the validity of the cited material?

Jefferson wrote VOLUMES. We can't start wondering at which point he

may or may not have had a drink during various passages. Everyone

drank back then. By your logic, one could speculate that the

Declaration *may* have been written after a few drinks, and the

writers were " confused and uncertain. "

 

 

>

> > 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. ;-)

 

That's why I was careful to include a developmental paragraph on 18th

century thinking - so that people would have a context in which to put

these statements.

 

 

snip

 

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

> game.

 

Whoa. Again, let me reiterate that it was not my attempt to stir

anything up, and least of all to " play a game " with you or anyone

else. If I were, I'd be responding to each and EVERY political point

you make in EVERY post - not to mention responding point by point to

the newsletters you sent me, and these posts and emails would be

filled with subtle barbs, insults and slurs on your character for

having the opinions you do. THAT'S game playing. And frankly, I

don't have that much time to spend on the Internet everyday, not to

mention negativity. I haven't done that, nor do I ever intend to. As

you should know from our previous conversations, I hold you, your

wisdom and knowledge, your years of service and experience in great

esteem, and in such a way that even though we disagree on certain

political points, they cannot change the respect I have for your

valuable contributions.

 

 

>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.

 

I attended a Moravian College and a secular grad school, I can

sympathize with you on the BS factor.

 

Regarding religion, it's also accurate to say that many MANY bad

things have come from it too - crusades, witch hunts, persecution,

jihad, inquisitions, bigotry, ignorance, 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.

 

Which historical writings? Because there are many.

 

Conversely, I think I could come up with plenty of citations showing

the abhorrence the FF had for the idea of government that smacked of

religiosity. But that's NOT to say that their religious beliefs,

didn't influence their thoughts - just that they were loathe to impose

them on anyone else as a means of government.

 

FWIW, I would think the lack of religious words, or mention of God in

the Constitution would be reference enough.

 

 

 

> > " ...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. ;-)

>

 

I think the statement speaks for itself.

 

 

snip

 

> 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.

 

 

Have done, and still feel proud and happy. I'm not sure though,

given the tumultuous history of the colonies in regards to religious

persecution, you are on the mark here. And as for unforeseen events,

see the quote below:

 

 

> > 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)<<

 

I think it's clear he was thinking on future events - though I'll

concede he may not have envisioned Internet porn. ;-P

 

 

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

>the Church of England.

 

No, the zealots at that time were protestants: the Calvinists,

Presbyterian, and Baptists etc. The Anglican Church was considered

the norm, in fact, it was the Church the George Washington belonged to

- and one could hardly call him a religious zealot.

 

 

snip

 

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

> what " progress " we have made. ;-)

 

Even from different ends, I think we can all agree on this point.

 

 

Snip

 

> 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. ;-)

 

Indeed I did. History is fun for me. I enjoy reading. People should

do more of it. Reading those words again on the Fourth really got me

in touch again with the spirit of my country, and reminded me why I

love it so much. As far as highlighting and pasting - I pasted

nothing that cannot be found in books that I own, and included the

source so that people may feel free to go read for themselves and

determine if I cited out of context. As far as implications of spin,

I feel my post has no more spin than your average expository piece

does - possibly less because I relied on the words of the men

themselves, not news bits from talking heads or made up wishful

thinking designed to sway the minds of those who cannot make up their

own. (read: media)

 

Whew.

 

In summation:

 

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

> norm and not even debated in public.

 

Certainly. Deist, not atheist

 

 

> 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.

 

Then it's all the more touching to me that Washington would include

them amongst his servants without prejudice.

 

>

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

 

Mea Culpa

 

>

> 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.

 

Forming government - yes, administering government - no. It's clear

as a bell. There is NO mention of religion in the Constitution!

There are many many references to religion made by various men, but

when it came down to it - there is a distinct absence of religion in

the documents that form the core of our Democracy.

 

The motto: In God We trust only came about in the 1950's, at first it

was : E Pluribus Unum. (Out of many, One)

 

 

> 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.

 

 

Then why the heck are we arguing? <G> ;-P

 

 

 

> > " 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.

 

No, this is *JUST* an interpretation. The words are there. This is

why we vote - to decide WHO does the interpreting and makes it stick.

 

 

> > 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.

 

I'm assuming this is an attempt to discredit the above statement.

And once again I will refer people to the original texts, not

speculation about subjects that have nothing to do with religion or

the constitution, or the men in question.

 

 

>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

 

 

Agreement has never been the point of philosophy, rather, the contrary.

 

snip

 

> 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.

 

 

Butch, I'm the wife of a Commander - I DO understand.

 

 

> 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.

 

 

My husband is a Buddhist (which does not necessarily equal pacifist

BTW) and I know that dharma probably enters into his command decisions

as well. FWIW, he, too is an promote immediately kinda guy.

 

 

> > 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.

 

Absolutely. As a person with a degree in English, I understand that

citing text with references in the only way to support your point in

expository writing. That way people can go and read the quote in the

*context of the larger work.* It's certainly more effective than just

opining with no documentary evidence at all....

 

>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.

>

 

Agreed, I never took issue with that. Let me reiterate once again

that I used your post as a springboard into another topic, with

thoughts of a friendly Fourth-of-July discussion in mind. A " no

gloves necessary " type of thing. My apologies to you, Chris and the

rest of the list for having failed.

 

 

Snip

 

 

> > 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. ;-)

 

I was having a little Fourth of July fun, hence the parting comment.

 

Disagreement is all well. I'm sorry this ruffled some feathers, it's

truly wasn't my intent.

 

May all be Well and Happy!

 

 

JenB