Is Secularism and Legalism good for this country?

JerryPitts wrote:

Honestly Heidi, and I do not mean to sound uncaring or unreceptive to what you are saying. It appears that most of what you have written above, is a justification of your 'belief' system.

Now I believe I understand how you want to resolve this discussion. You seek to set a ground rule prohibiting any attempt to justify either of our belief systems because, as you honestly admit, you cannot justify yours beyond admitting that you have been subject to religious indoctrination.

Jerry, continued:

I have not attempted to justify my belief system, and in fact have stipulated that it (my belief) is based upon religious indoctrination. Can you also be honest enough to not attempt to justify that which you cannot prove.

I do not accept your idea that backing up one's belief system is dishonest. I also reject the idea that UN-belief in religious dogma is somehow unsupportable with proof. This is an illogical trap. You seem to expect me to prove a negative.... i.e. the Devil does not exist. I don't think the Purple People Eater exists, either. I don't need to prove that. Any believers in the Purple People Eater would need to prove that it does exist. The same goes for Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns and Satan.

You seem to want me to describe my beliefs without attempting to justify them or support them in any way. Are you trying to level the playing field, so to speak? In other words, because you admittedly have no convincing justification for your beliefs, you want to prevent me from postulating any justifications for mine?

OK. I do not believe in an anthropomorphic deity; I do not believe in a Devil. I do not believe in a specific place called Heaven, or in a specific place called Hell. I do not believe that the bible or any other written material upon which any religious dogma has been based was written or inspired by any deity.

However, in my ongoing search for truth and my continuing interest in whatever discoveries are unfolding around me from a variety of sources, I am open to learning about such phenomena as verified near death experiences, children who remember past lives, and experiments designed to discover whether or not some professed mediums actually do receive communications from the surviving consciousness of those who have passed out of this form of biological existence.

Organized religion likes to label these pursuits of knowledge as some kind of influence from the Devil. I believe that religious dogma stifles the search for knowledge... just as it did when Galileo was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for discovering that the Earth orbits around the Sun.... and just as it did when John Scopes was tried and fined $100for teaching the Theory of Evolution to High School biology students.

Your earlier diatribe describing the early forms of life that originated in the oceans as something from the sewer reflects a negative attitude. Others consider this evidence to be a fascinating indication of the burgeoning diversity of life. I do not reject the possibility of the influence of a universal intelligence of some kind in creating the increasingly intricate series of species that led eventually to Homo Sapiens. However, I do not feel the need to denigrate the other species in comparison to my own species. Other species have exceptional hearing, or eyesight, or flying abilities, or swimming abilities, or physical strength beyond our own. I don't feel the need to catagorize my own species into a completely different realm from all the others and decide that we and only we must be created in the image of "god". There is absolutely no proof that humans were created in the image of any so-called god, either. The evidence seems to indicate a gradual process of continuing refinement from one species to another, in branches, not linear development.

If you care to debate evolution and the very existence of god with scientists and other highly educated people who can truly enlighten you on this subject, visit:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php

It is the tendancy for religious dogmatists to place those who do not believe, or those who are not like them, into separate catagories (i.e. those presumed to be unsaved, or damned) which has led to a terrible, sad history of serious abuses of those others ... whether they be other humans who believe differently, or other humans who look different, or act different, or other whole species.

Jerry wrote:

Personally, I believe in the existence of the Devil, but have never seriously considered laying at the fault of the Devil, my misdeeds. If anything, I would have to blame all of the world problems on God Himself.

You just nailed one of my reasons for not believing the bible. How can some devil be responsible for evil when god is supposed to be all knowing and all powerful and always in control?

After all He is Omniscent, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent. He is in control of everything. Nothing can happen without His consent. No decision can be made that was not within His prior knowledge and within His consent. Are those things to be considered a 'fault'? Not hardly.. they are the privilege of being the OmniSovereign.

Right. So it makes no sense at all to believe that some devil character influences everyone to do "evil".

Back in 2004, after Hurricane Charlie was supposed to come through our neighborhood, but turned inland farther south instead, I was shopping in the local hardware store when one of my religious neighbors said, in all sincerity, "Aren't we BLESSED? The Lord turned that hurricane before it could come here!"
to which I immediately and spontaneously replied,
"Well... I guess god didn't give a $h*t about all those people down in Punta Gorda, then!". The guy just looked at me in shock, and didn't know what to say. There was an awkward pause, and then my husband changed the subject.

Originally Posted by Heidi Guedel

JerryPitts wrote:


Now I believe I understand how you want to resolve this discussion. You seek to set a ground rule prohibiting any attempt to justify either of our belief systems because, as you honestly admit, you cannot justify yours beyond admitting that you have been subject to religious indoctrination.

Jerry, continued:


I do not accept your idea that backing up one's belief system is dishonest. I also reject the idea that UN-belief in religious dogma is somehow unsupportable with proof. This is an illogical trap. You seem to expect me to prove a negative.... i.e. the Devil does not exist. I don't think the Purple People Eater exists, either. I don't need to prove that. Any believers in the Purple People Eater would need to prove that it does exist. The same goes for Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns and Satan.

You seem to want me to describe my beliefs without attempting to justify them or support them in any way. Are you trying to level the playing field, so to speak? In other words, because you admittedly have no convincing justification for your beliefs, you want to prevent me from postulating any justifications for mine?

OK. I do not believe in an anthropomorphic deity; I do not believe in a Devil. I do not believe in a specific place called Heaven, or in a specific place called Hell. I do not believe that the bible or any other written material upon which any religious dogma has been based was written or inspired by any deity.

However, in my ongoing search for truth and my continuing interest in whatever discoveries are unfolding around me from a variety of sources, I am open to learning about such phenomena as verified near death experiences, children who remember past lives, and experiments designed to discover whether or not some professed mediums actually do receive communications from the surviving consciousness of those who have passed out of this form of biological existence.

Organized religion likes to label these pursuits of knowledge as some kind of influence from the Devil. I believe that religious dogma stifles the search for knowledge... just as it did when Galileo was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for discovering that the Earth orbits around the Sun.... and just as it did when John Scopes was tried and fined $100for teaching the Theory of Evolution to High School biology students.

Your earlier diatribe describing the early forms of life that originated in the oceans as something from the sewer reflects a negative attitude. Others consider this evidence to be a fascinating indication of the burgeoning diversity of life. I do not reject the possibility of the influence of a universal intelligence of some kind in creating the increasingly intricate series of species that led eventually to Homo Sapiens. However, I do not feel the need to denigrate the other species in comparison to my own species. Other species have exceptional hearing, or eyesight, or flying abilities, or swimming abilities, or physical strength beyond our own. I don't feel the need to catagorize my own species into a completely different realm from all the others and decide that we and only we must be created in the image of "god". There is absolutely no proof that humans were created in the image of any so-called god, either. The evidence seems to indicate a gradual process of continuing refinement from one species to another, in branches, not linear development.

If you care to debate evolution and the very existence of god with scientists and other highly educated people who can truly enlighten you on this subject, visit:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php

It is the tendancy for religious dogmatists to place those who do not believe, or those who are not like them, into separate catagories (i.e. those presumed to be unsaved, or damned) which has led to a terrible, sad history of serious abuses of those others ... whether they be other humans who believe differently, or other humans who look different, or act different, or other whole species.

Honesty is all that I was expecting from you Heidi. If you had come forward from the start of this conversation and admit your standing, as you have now done, the conversation would have not ended in a debate. I would simply have accepted your statement of position as such and would have gone my way.

I was straight forward in answering your questions, as you have so indicated. You should have done the same, rather than to attempt a justification. I did not attempt to justify my beliefs, and did not request that you justify yours.

Now that we both know where each are coming from, I would expect that this conversation can go forward with a civil discussion on whether or not secularism is good for this country.

On that point, I will simply ask, if secularism was the original intent of the founders, then why the mention of God in the basic documents of this country?

Without definition in those founding documents as to the meaning of Natures God, it can be easily ascertained that they (the founders) might have intended a society wherein God as the Christians reference, and also a society wherein the other non-christian sects would also be invited and share equal protection under those founding documents.

http://www.achw.org/sepcs.htm

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, it is probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labour in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel:"
(Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787.)


"How comes it that Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, is recognized by all the departments of Government? In the law, Sunday is a ‘dies non;' it cannot be used for the service of legal process, the return of writs, or other judicial purposes. The executive departments, the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; ...neither House of Congress sits."
(U.S. Senate, January 19, 1853, on Congressional Chaplains.)

"...I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them. We...neglect...the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government...
the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible...."
(Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, A Defence of the Use of the Bible in Schools, 1830.)

"...it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion."
(Noah Webster, History of the United States, 1832, public school textbook.)

"...the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."
(Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828.)

"No person who denies the being of God or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil department of the State."
(Constitution of the State of Mississippi, 1817. Other states had similar requirements.)

Article VII
"DONE in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth."

(Dated recognizing the birth of Jesus Christ: Anno Domini/Christmas!)

"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles....This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government."
(Noah Webster, History of the United States, 1832, public school textbook.)


"The laws of nature are the laws of God, Whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth."
(George Mason, before the General Court of Virginia, 1772.)

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?"
(Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781.)

"We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient, He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come."
(Samuel Adams, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, August 2, 1776.)

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were....the general principles of Christianity."
(John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813.)

Jerry

are we all guilty of attempted indoctrination of the members and visitors of this forum?

n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies
The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

i·de·o·log·i·cal
adj.
Of or relating to ideology.
Of or concerned with ideas.

in·doc·tri·nate
tr.v. in·doc·tri·nat·ed, in·doc·tri·nat·ing, in·doc·tri·nates
To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents.

doc·trine
n.
A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.
Archaic Something taught; a teaching.

With all due respect, Jerry, I did not subscribe to your limitations regarding justifying or supporting my beliefs when I replied to this thread. I replied as I preferred. That being said, I respectfully disagree that the founding fathers of this nation were Christian.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...till/myth.html

The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible.

These beliefs were forcefully articulated by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason, a book that so outraged his contemporaries that he died rejected and despised by the nation that had once revered him as "the father of the American Revolution." To this day, many mistakenly consider him an atheist, even though he was an out spoken defender of the Deistic view of God. Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe.

Fundamentalist Christians are currently working overtime to convince the American public that the founding fathers intended to establish this country on "biblical principles," but history simply does not support their view. The men mentioned above and others who were instrumental in the founding of our nation were in no sense Bible-believing Christians. Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was fiercely anti-cleric. In a letter to Horatio Spafford in 1814, Jefferson said, "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes" (George Seldes, The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey Citadel Press, 1983, p. 371). In a letter to Mrs. Harrison Smith, he wrote, "It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest" (August 6, 1816).

That last sentence is particularly apt, IMHO.

See also:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism.htm

and

http://www.deism.com/



Jerry wrote:

are we all guilty of attempted indoctrination of the members and visitors of this forum?

Many of us have attempted to present our own opinions in the course of these debates and discussions.

Originally Posted by Heidi Guedel

I respectfully disagree that the founding fathers of this nation were Christian.

Why do people insist by implying that I am saying something that has not been said? I have not suggested that they were, and If correctly viewed, I really don't think you will see where any of quotations indicated that the author of the quotation stated that he was a Christian. You are apparently reading into the texts, items that are not apparent.

Also, did you also read the post just prior to your last post? Are you not also attempting to indoctrinate others into your particular belief system?

Jerry

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

If you will kindly look back at my statements, you will find that I have deliberately included the statement that my belief system is based upon 'religious indoctrination'. Isn't that kinda like having it drilled into you and after a period of time, accepting it in blind faith, without any standard of proof? I have never claimed to have the evidence available or otherwise be able to prove the authenticity or accuracy of the Bible. Also, if upon examination of the statement of mine that you have quoted, you will find that I have not asked Heidi to prove anything, but rather have requested that she not attempt to prove (justify) her belief system.

Others would believe that mankind crawled out of the primordial waters and over billions of years grew legs and became what we know today as homosapiens. Never minding the fact that the odds against such an event are 100 trillion to one against it - at least, and that somewhere along the line, those sewer creatures all of a sudden quit coming out of the water.. go figure.

Jerry - I also noted all the incorrect assumptions and was prepared to reply but you caught them all.

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

Personally, I believe in the existence of the Devil, but have never seriously considered laying at the fault of the Devil, my misdeeds. If anything, I would have to blame all of the world problems on God Himself. After all He is Omniscent, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent. He is in control of everything. Nothing can happen without His consent. No decision can be made that was not within His prior knowledge and within His consent. Are those things to be considered a 'fault'? Not hardly.. they are the privilege of being the OmniSovereign.
Jerry

Well, here I would disagree on one point. That being I would argue that the wrongs being committed in the world (or in the example of my own personal sins) can be attributed to free will and not walking in the light of God (following his word). We all have personal interests and selfish tendencies which, unfortunately, are not always in harmony with God's word.

[MADDOG]

Posted by Jerry Pitts:

Why do people insist by implying that I am saying something that has not been said? I have not suggested that they were, and If correctly viewed, I really don't think you will see where any of quotations indicated that the author of the quotation stated that he was a Christian. You are apparently reading into the texts, items that are not apparent.

You're right Jerry - you didn't actually specify "Christian". Your quotes allude to belief in God, not specifically Christianity, and so do the quotes from Heidi - so the founding fathers do not appear to have been athiests. They did profess belief in God.

Secular (according to Webster's New World Dictionary) is defined as: "not connected with church or religion"

and religion is defined as: "1. Belief in God or Gods; 2. system of worship"

Heidi's objection seems focused upon whatever dogma it is in whatever religion that teaches intolerance of others and labels others 'infidels'.

So back to your question, Jerry - Is a secular society good for the USA?

A diverse society, with tolerance for a variety of backgrounds and spiritual paths would be good for the USA, IMHO. And standards of respectful behavior taught in our homes that encourage all people to respect other people(s) and treat them as we would like to be treated (as Jesus said, and so did Buddah). That attitude alone, if sincerely taught and lived up to by everyone in the world, would have prevented centuries of religion-inspired wars.

MADDOG wrote:

You're right Jerry - you didn't actually specify "Christian". Your quotes allude to belief in God, not specifically Christianity,

I reread your posts more carefully, Jerry, and I mistakenly assumed you were claiming that the founding fathers were all Christians. I stand corrected.

Sorry to have derailed this thread for so long from your original question about a secular society.

When I share about my beliefs and why I have arrived at what I believe, I may hope to find kindred spirits out there, and also to influence people away from dogma that preaches intolerance of others ... but I am not deliberately trying to indoctrinate anyone here.

I do get the impression that you view a secular society as automatically undesirable. Is that true... or did I misunderstand you? It's a moot point anyway, because I don't forsee any society in which everyone becomes an agnostic or an athiest any time soon. So my question should really be: do you view the secular elements in society as automatically undesirable? Have you stereotyped them as "evil"?

Originally Posted by Heidi Guedel

MADDOG wrote:


I reread your posts more carefully, Jerry, and I mistakenly assumed you were claiming that the founding fathers were all Christians. I stand corrected.

Sorry to have derailed this thread for so long from your original question about a secular society.

NOT a problem Heidi, the important matter is that it has been resolved.

Originally Posted by Heidi Guedel

When I share about my beliefs and why I have arrived at what I believe, I may hope to find kindred spirits out there, and also to influence people away from dogma that preaches intolerance of others ... but I am not deliberately trying to indoctrinate anyone here.

I also have to meet (as you say) Kindred Spirits.. another subject altogether. I also attempt to influence others in a manner that liberates them from the chains of common understanding.

Looking back at my posts, I also published an extract of definitions. The point behind those definitions, was to show where, even the subject matter (in general) of this forum, is a form of indoctrination. We publish ideologies regarding legal matters, in an attempt to garner support for the political/jurisprudential doctrine of our concern, whether it be tax issues, sovereignty, travel, judicial corruption, etc.. We publish these ideologies because we believe what we are saying,,, at least until we are proven wrong or ill-informed. Yet we preach the doctrine of Jurisprudence and Legalism.

Aside from personal edification/enlightenment/education, there is no reason for any of us to post views of our own. If self edification/enlightenment/education is the issue, then we could remain silent and learn from the matters that are discussed from others. By interjecting our own views, whether they be pro or con, shows that we are attempting to influence the beliefs of others.. ie.. we are indoctrinating those that can be susceptible to our indoctrination.

Originally Posted by Heidi Guedel

I do get the impression that you view a secular society as automatically undesirable. Is that true... or did I misunderstand you? It's a moot point anyway, because I don't forsee any society in which everyone becomes an agnostic or an athiest any time soon. So my question should really be: do you view the secular elements in society as automatically undesirable? Have you stereotyped them as "evil"?

Before I can adequately and without misleading statement, answer your question(s) as to my personal view of 'secular society', I must inquire as to your meaning and usage of the word "elements". What specifically are the 'elements' that you have in mind? If those elements are personas, then please provide the title that those personas bear. Categorical listing would be sufficient.

Jerry..