About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 4:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As to "Centuries of history demonstrate that faith-based governments spawn persecution, torture, and endless bloody warfare.", I think that a short look at the history of faith-hostile governments in the 20th century will show an even more dismal situation. These claimed to be rational or even scientific in approach, and 10's of millions died. Perhaps "Today's religionists may insist that this time will be different", but so do today's rationalists.

The 20th century totalitarians were anything but adherents to reason. Self-proclamations of those that “claimed to be rational or even scientific in approach” should not be taken at face value. Dogmatic arbitrary assertions were exempt from rational debate in these societies because the process of reason was the last thing such societies were designed to uphold.


Post 21

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 5:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

None of your posts indicate that Justinian banned the teaching of Aristotle.

In addition, Jefferson was in France when the Bill of Rights were drafted.


Post 22

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 12:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Neil,

Justinian banned the teaching of all "pagan" (that is, pre-Christian) philosophy.

You are correct that Jefferson was in France - Madison essentially copied the Bill of Rights from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was drafted by Jefferson.

Roger,

Jefferson's letter written in 1802 in response to the Danbury Baptist Association, set in writing Jefferson's reasoning for the Virginia Declaration, which served as a draft of the corresponding provisions of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment.

Post 23

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 3:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam, my recollection (sorry, I have no references at hand) is the same as Roger's point. There was no "wall of separation" intended when either the constitution or the Bill of Rights was produced and accepted. Jefferson's comment came later, some say after he had considered it further.

But even when Jefferson put pen to paper to write "wall of separation", religious services were being regularly held on the floor of Congress (not during sessions of course) and in other government buildings. Do you think that given this, Jefferson intended for that wall to prevent government employees from freely practicing their religion? Or to restrict public acknowledgement of the religious roots and history of the nation?

And one last question Adam. Would your statement "There has never been a religious government that respected the individual person's right to live his own life by his own judgement" be any less true with the word "religious" removed? I submit that if it makes no difference, then religion has nothing to do with your point.


Post 24

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 3:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
David,

The fact that secular governments have allowed exceptions does not make them equal to religious governments, which do not recognize any rights that are not over-ridden by alleged "commandments" of their deity. Throughout history, no religious government has recognized any individual rights at all. Secular governments differ, but all the governments that have recognized the principle of individual rights - albeit with exceptions - have been secular.

Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 4:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam writes:

Throughout history, no religious government has recognized any individual rights at all. Secular governments differ, but all the governments that have recognized the principle of individual rights -- albeit with exceptions -- have been secular.


I find this a misleading generalization.

Among the American Founders, some of the strongest defenses of the "Rights of Man" were penned by religious figures, or cited religion as the basis for individual rights. Consider Rev. John Wise's highly influential "The Law of Nature in Government" (1717), or Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists," his 1772 precursor to Jefferson's own famous Declaration. There are countless such references throughout the colonial period. It is clear that the Founders, with few exceptions, were Christians or at least deists, and despite their devout faith managed to create the freest society in history. Nor was their governance free of the influence of religion, by any stretch, as others here have noted. We may wish that it were otherwise; but it wasn't the case. Yet at the same time these men of faith were also towering figures of the Enlightenment -- giants of practical reason and astonishing productive accomplishment. Somehow they managed to juggle or compartmentalize or perhaps meld all of these competing philosophical premises into something that was largely benign and often remarkably good in its consequences.

The second part of your statement -- that all governments that have recognized individual rights ("albeit with exceptions") have been secular -- is equally questionable. Your qualifier is a glaring one. For example, the second freest nation in history, arguably, has been Great Britain, still officially wedded to the Anglican Church. Yet is it a religious government, or not? Today it isn't run as anything like a theocracy.

My point is that there is religion, and then there is religion. They are not all the same, in content or consequences. Most are a very mixed bag; if they were entirely evil, their practitioners would all quickly die. Moreover, not all religious people are fundamentalists, and not even all fundamentalists are wannabe theocrats. Yes, faith per se is not a valid methodology for adopting and adhering to philosophical premises. But the damages caused by a particular faith can be relatively limited in one's life -- and in a nation's life -- depending on its content: faith in what? Acceptance of valid premises (say, honesty and productivity) can lead to benign or good consequences, even if held on faith rather than reason.

In short, I find the connection of religion and harm and individual rights and government to be far more complicated than your simplistic characterization of it.

Post 26

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 5:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

My speculation is that the Founding Fathers may have wanted to exclude religion from the state in order to forego the sort of religious power struggle that had been raging in Europe between Catholics and Protestants for the last hundred years or so.

Adam,
On the other hand, it is only thanks to the Islamic conquest of North Africa and Spain that the intellectuals of those countries could study Aristotle outside the reach of Justinian's prohibition.
You are correct Adam, but I would like to qualify this with two pieces are information.

Firstly, that there were in fact pagan manuscripts still in the west hidden away in monasteries. I know this because the Medici family from Florence built up one of the best Renaissance libraries by combing the monasteries of Europe and buying up these old pagan manuscripts.

Secondly, although Aristotle's books didn't survive in the west in the dark ages, apparently monks still had books that referred to the writings of Aristotle and were therefore not completely ignorant of his work.

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 7/10, 5:09pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 5:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It is too difficult for us to choose for governing our country rightly and correctly between Government and Church. For Government in today case, we certainly have to  more or less lose our freedom in Religion based on our own judgement, but for Church, we know, according to history, we would lose all our human rights that we got by numerous sacrifice from the medieval times thearchy.

Vincent


Sanction: 27, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 27, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 27, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 6:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Adam Reed continues to re-write American history, as he tells us that: “Madison essentially copied the Bill of Rights from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was drafted by Jefferson,” and “Jefferson's letter written in 1802 in response to the Danbury Baptist Association, set in writing Jefferson's reasoning for the Virginia Declaration, which served as a draft of the corresponding provisions of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment.” The claim here is that Jefferson wrote the Virginia Declaration, and that Madison “essentially copied” Jefferson’s writing.

 

As a matter of fact, the Virginia Declaration of Rights was written not by Jefferson, but by George Mason, with some minor, but important participation by James Madison. It is true that this document provided much of the inspiration for the Bill of Rights -- which, again, was written not by Jefferson, but by Madison, who was relying on the work he and Mason had done. Thus, Madison “essentially copied the Bill of Rights” not from Jefferson (or from Jefferson’s reasoning), but from Mason and himself! Further, Madison’s own amendment to the Virginia Declaration, “all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience,” is clearly the source of the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment -- not anything that Jefferson later wrote.

 

Also, ironically, not only was it not Jefferson who influenced Madison in regard to the writing of the Bill of Rights, but also it was Madison and Mason who influenced Jefferson in regard to writing of the Declaration of Independence. The Virginia Declaration, which was adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776, was drawn upon very shortly thereafter by Jefferson for the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.

 

Now, there is some truth to the claim that Jefferson influenced the content of the First Amendment to the Constitution, specifically in regard to the “establishment” clause. However, that role was not present in the 1776 Virginia Declaration (which Mason and Madison wrote), but in Jefferson’s 1777 draft of a bill promoting religious freedom for the state of Virginia. (Perhaps Adam confused this bill in his mind with the earlier Declaration of Rights.) Essentially, that bill proposed to disestablish the Anglican Church (an alternate proposal recognizing a number of other churches being rejected), and Jefferson and Madison promoted the bill for years before it was finally adopted by the Virginia legislature. It is regarded by some as the precursor to the religion clauses of the First Amendment, and it is here that Jefferson “set out his reasoning” in regard to the separation of church and state (though he did not use the phrase at this time). (I will not take up space here to present the text of this bill. It is on the Internet, for those who are interested in reading it, and it’s posted at http://www.religioustolerance.org/virg_bil.htm ) 

 

Sorry to be so pedantic about this historical matter, but I am shocked that someone of Adam Reed’s intelligence and scholarly ability would make such a series of errors and then not double-check them when challenged!

 

More importantly, and in closing, I just want to say: three cheers for James Madison, the Father of the Bill of Rights!

 

Best to all,

REB

(Edited by Roger Bissell on 7/10, 6:25pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 8:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Roger,

Thank you for the corrections. I stand in awe of your command of history. I've sent you sanctions.

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 9:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam Reed wrote: "Thank you for the corrections. I stand in awe of your command of history. I've sent you sanctions."

You're most welcome, Adam, and thank you for the sanctions!

To be honest, I have not so much an awesome command of history as a pretty good command of the "google" function. :-) I thought I knew Jefferson had not written the Virginia Declaration of Rights, so I satisfied myself that that was so, once I had found three webpages with non-identical content that said exactly who its (principal) author was. Not exactly Randian methodology, but close enough for SOLO work. :-)

Best regards,
REB



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.