How can I be sure

[All-American]

It's a typical tactic of Seattle: make an outrageous claim, retreat when confronted, twist and turn the argument until you perceive yourself to be on the high ground, declare victory, and move on.

[Archaea]

I can't remember the argument any more, just SU comparing Mitt Romney with Hitler, which I found offensive.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I don't know what to say. It's like having a Bible bash with someone about the nature of the godhead and then finding out all along they don't believe in god. It makes you feel like kind of a fool, but one thing's for sure, game over dude. It turns out all along you've been in an altogether different universe. Not sufficient common ground to even stage an argument.

Let's try to be a bit more honest here, shall we?

I didn't say theocracies are ok. Again, only you said that in characterizing what I said. What I said was that they aren't inherently evil. As with anything, it depends on how you define a theocracy. I have already noted that England has hints of a theocratic regime (and you appear to think they are stalwarts of republicanism-and I agree in modern times). So they are an example of a group that isn't inherently evil for having theocratic tendencies.

Other examples would be the 9 states that had state sponsored religions after the Bill of Rights was signed. Were those governments inherently evil? Hard to argue.

Most amusing of all is that I doubt even you can tell me what your actual argument is at this point. It has evolved literally with every single post. Most recently, it seemed to shift to a point that the founders of American republicanism were largely atheists or deists who didn't believe in miracles. I would like some support for that claim. I argued, persuasively I think, that they were overwhelmingly very religious, not only within the constitutional convention but within the state ratifying conventions.

I think you have decided somewhere along the line that anything good in this world must be totally separate from religion, and you are now trying to redefine history to meet that paradigm. It simply isn't going to work with the founding generation, no matter how hard you try, nor is it going to work with any subsequent great leader of the United States (which you acknowledge as a model of republicanism).

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Let's try to be a bit more honest here, shall we?

I didn't say theocracies are ok. Again, only you said that in characterizing what I said. What I said was that they aren't inherently evil. As with anything, it depends on how you define a theocracy. I have already noted that England has hints of a theocratic regime (and you appear to think they are stalwarts of republicanism-and I agree in modern times). So they are an example of a group that isn't inherently evil for having theocratic tendencies.

Other examples would be the 9 states that had state sponsored religions after the Bill of Rights was signed. Were those governments inherently evil? Hard to argue.

Most amusing of all is that I doubt even you can tell me what your actual argument is at this point. It has evolved literally with every single post. Most recently, it seemed to shift to a point that the founders of American republicanism were largely atheists or deists who didn't believe in miracles. I would like some support for that claim. I argued, persuasively I think, that they were overwhelmingly very religious, not only within the constitutional convention but within the state ratifying conventions.

I think you have decided somewhere along the line that anything good in this world must be totally separate from religion, and you are now trying to redefine history to meet that paradigm. It simply isn't going to work with the founding generation, no matter how hard you try, nor is it going to work with any subsequent great leader of the United States (which you acknowledge as a model of republicanism).

My thesis throughout this thread is that religion poisons government. As I said, I don't agree with Hitchins that it poisons everything. But it poisons government. Religion's aim is inexorably to stamp out dialogue, freedom of speech, etc. And why shouldn't it be? Any religion except maybe the Anglican believes firmly it has a special franchise on the most important kind of truth. Mormonism is a classic example. That you think Mormonism is somehow morally superior to other religions such that the establishment clause (as it is now interpreted and applied regardless of arcane original intent) should not be needed to curb any Mormon propensity for excess just demonstrates naivete and chauvenism.

The framers' religiosity really was incidental to what they accomplished. Just words, really. Maybe just politics. Sometimes it's like the lady doth protest too much. What they did to keep religion out of civic life was revolutionary, however, and the linchpin of their achievement.

You cite Great Britain as a theocracy that was not evil. Tell that to Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and the rest of them. Republican government finally took root in America, not Great Britain, and Britain's state religion is the reason, despite the Anglican religion's unusual tolerance. Today theAnglican Church is only nominally the CHurch of England. There really isn't one. By the way, it's probably no accident that Isaac Newton, who catelized the Enlightenment, and Charles Darwin who catelized our modern age, were British, and Great Britain was the European laboratory for the liberties that were finally fully realized in the United States.

Funny thing is, you think I'm so radical but most the people in Europe and the United States with college degrees agree with me. My position is not controversial. Most people agree separation of church and state is integral to liberty becuase of any religion's intolerance for differing points of view.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

My thesis throughout this thread is that religion poisons government. As I said, I don't agree with Hitchins that it poisons everything. But it poisons government. Religion's aim is inexorably to stamp out dialogue, freedom of speech, etc. And why shouldn't it be? Any religion except maybe the Anglican believes firmly it has a special franchise on the most important kind of truth. Mormonism is a classic example. That you think Mormonism is somehow morally superior to other religions such that the establishment clause (as it is now interpreted and applied regardless of arcane original intent) should not be needed to curb any Mormon propensity for excess just demonstrates naivete and chauvenism.

The framers' religiosity really was incidental to what they accomplished. Just words, really. Maybe just politics. Sometimes it's like the lady doth protest too much. What they did to keep religion out of civic life was revolutionary, however, and the linchpin of their achievement.

You cite Great Britain as a theocracy that was not evil. Tell that to Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and the rest of them. Republican government finally took root in America, not Great Britain, and Britain's state religion is the reason, despite the Anglican religion's unusual tolerance. Today theAnglican Church is only nominally the CHurch of England. There really isn't one. By the way, it's probably no accident that Isaac Newton, who catelized the Enlightenment, and Charles Darwin who catelized our modern age, were British, and Great Britain was the European laboratory for the liberties that were finally fully realized in the United States.

Funny thing is, you think I'm so radical but most the people in Europe and the United States with college degrees agree with me. My position is not controversial. Most people agree separation of church and state is integral to liberty becuase of any religion's intolerance for differing points of view.

Let's get back to your original point in this thread that you started. You were concerned that Romney could be Hitler reincarnated. Folks here called you on it for the absolutely idiotic statement that it was and you didn't like it so you tried to twist everything to make yourself feel that you are correct.

It didn't work. Cut your losses. It's ok to be wrong once in a while. I sure can attest to that.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

My thesis throughout this thread is that religion poisons government. As I said, I don't agree with Hitchins that it poisons everything. But it poisons government. Religion's aim is inexorably to stamp out dialogue, freedom of speech, etc. And why shouldn't it be? Any religion except maybe the Anglican believes firmly it has a special franchise on the most important kind of truth. Mormonism is a classic example. That you think Mormonism is somehow morally superior to other religions such that the establishment clause (as it is now interpreted and applied regardless of arcane original intent) should not be needed to curb any Mormon propensity for excess just demonstrates naivete and chauvenism.

The framers' religiosity really was incidental to what they accomplished. Just words, really. Maybe just politics. Sometimes it's like the lady doth protest too much. What they did to keep religion out of civic life was revolutionary, however, and the linchpin of their achievement.

You cite Great Britain as a theocracy that was not evil. Tell that to Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and the rest of them. Republican government finally took root in America, not Great Britain, and religion is the reason, despite the Anglican religion's unusual tolerance. By the way, it's probably no accident that Isaac Newton, who catelized the Enlightenment, and Charles Darwin who catelized our modern age, were British, and Great Britain was the European laboratory for the liberties that were finally fully realized in the United States.

Funny thing is, you think I'm so radical but most the people in Europe and the United States with college degrees agree with me. My position is not controversial. Most people agree separation of church and state is integral to liberty becuase of any religion's intolerance for differing points of view.

Are you reading my posts at all? When did I say that the Establishment Clause shouldn't be applied firmly in today's world or that Mormons should be "exempt?" Where are you getting this stuff from?

You aren't even attempting to have an honest dialogue here. Religion's aim is to stamp out free speech? Really? And YOU claimed Great Britain isn't an "evil" theocracy (I merely agreed with YOUR statement, though I qualified mine)- YOU claimed it made sense that it was the foundation of republicanism because it has a "benign" religion!!! Now you are claiming it is the theocracy that was responsible for persecuting Paine and others (while simultaneously saying it "makes sense" that the leaders of the enlightenment were British)! It is actually incredible to behold. So much for being a benign theocracy, I guess. I should be excited that that idea lasted a full two posts before going the way of the dodo.

When have I ever taken exception to the statement that separation of church and state is good? I have consistently said it IS good! In fact, I have even pointed out that Mormons are among its biggest fans (which you then somehow turned into an argument that I think it doesn't apply to Mormons). What I have also said is that the alternative can, on OCCASION, also produce good. Were the 9 theocratic states (again using a liberal definition of "theocratic") in 1791 evil? Are Finland and Norway evil?

You keep getting on the bandwagon of "the founders got religion out of civic life," but that simply reflects a total lack of knowledge of the founders and what they were trying to accomplish (and when I describe what they did, you dismiss it as "arcane").

My head is swimming. How could most Europeans agree with your position? It isn't decipherable!

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

How could most Europeans agree with your position? It isn't decipherable!

That is exactly what appeals to them.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by DarkBritches

I'm just poking in my head here, and haven't had the stamina to follow the entire thread. Are some people really arguing against the separation of church and state? Because I think most Mormons would agree that the separation of church and state was critical for the church's early survival, and respect and tolerance for the views of other church's should be kept up in view of our heritage.

Also, the Hitchens book is not very good. Could have been summed up in a page or two, like he says about the book of mormon.

No. SU is arguing that other people are making that argument to distract people from his total lack of an argument.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by DarkBritches

I'm just poking in my head here, and haven't had the stamina to follow the entire thread. Are some people really arguing against the separation of church and state? Because I think most Mormons would agree that the separation of church and state was critical for the church's early survival, and respect and tolerance for the views of other church's should be kept up in view of our heritage.

Also, the Hitchens book is not very good. Could have been summed up in a page or two, like he says about the book of mormon.

Well, CaliCoug says theocracies are not inherantly evil citing nine of the original 13 colonies that were originally theocracies and the British government from whom the United States had to win its indepenendence. Certainly all the slave states were among those nine. They were indeed therefore inherently evil, and they actually cited their religous tradition, including the Old Testament, as justification for slavery. Looked at in the cold light of day the Civil War itself was a war between religion and secularism. The Southern Baptist Church grew out of the Civil War.

Apart from separation of Church and State, Cali and others seem to believe there is a salutory effect to having a president's religious beliefs strongly influence his decision-making. But I've cited Truman's recognition of Israel as an example of a president making a momentous decision that still haunts us today for better or worse based almost exclusviely on his religious faith. No one has had much of an answer for that, even though I support Truman's decision (not the means to it). Still recognition of Israel could be argued against to this day strongly based on the evidence and reason, as George Marshall did. I've also noted that GWB is a horrible president, including multiple grievous transgressions against civil liberties, and he has had more religious rhetoric associated with his presiency than any in modern times.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Well, CaliCoug says theocracies are not inherantly evil citing nine of the original 13 colonies that were originally theocracies and the British government from whom the United States had to win its indepenendence. Certainly all the slave state were among those nine. They were indeed therefore inherently evil, and they actually cited their religous tradition, including the Old Testament, as justification for slavery.

"Certainly" not. Virginia was especially famous for allowing freedom of religion-- Thomas Jefferson was so proud of this accomplishment that it is listed on his headstone.

Which fact I've already referenced, by the way.

You don't get to make up facts and use them as the cornerstone of your arguements.