Nothing new under the sun?

To be fair to Spencer, his proposal was not that different sorts of organisms aggregated, segment by segment, to form insects, as the butterfly notion does. Rather, Spencer suggested (roughly) that the segments were formed from individual organisms of the same sort, with segmental differentiation being caused by different selective pressures operating on the several segments.

You'd think the "minor" issue of reproduction of such a chimera would give Margulis and Williamson pause.

Spencer at least had the excuse that he didn't know how reproduction occurs, in the sense of which cells actually produce gametes.

Glen Davidson

There is nothing per se weird about Spencer's idea. Consider, for example, salps or siphonophores. It just happens to be wrong.

So the preacher in Ecclesiastes was right: there’s nothing new under the sun.

So the preacher in Ecclesiastes was right: there’s nothing new under the sun.

What is up with religious claims on a blog devoted to “the integrity of science”? Say, the claim that there existed such a historical person making such a pronouncement. At the very least then we must also mention for balance that actual preachers are almost 100 % factually incorrect. There are no gods, no demons, no miracles, no souls, no a historical Jesus, no genesis of the universe or planets or species, no global flood, no lone human founder pair, et cetera et cetera for good reasons of physics and history. Which are the beliefs they want to replace facts with.

The preacher in Ecclesiastes may not have existed, but someone wrote Ecclesiastes and put that sentence in there.

balloonguy said: The preacher in Ecclesiastes may not have existed, but someone wrote Ecclesiastes and put that sentence in there.

(Also, in general, I don’t consider the Bible to be accurate about science or religion, nor usually especially accurate about history, but I do consider it to be interesting and extremely worthy of unbiased study.)

Karen S. said: btw, I was just explaining to my sister the importance of knowing Greek mythology. Her complaint was that it was not Christian, so why bother?! Well, I'm a Christian and I can well understand the importance of knowing Greek mythology.

Ecclesiastes has always been something of an embarrassment for pious Jews. Like the Book of Job, another work that is hard to assimilate to conventional religion ideas, it seems to have been included in the canon of the Bible because of its undeniable literary quality. I've thought for a long time that the rabbis who decided it belonged in scripture showed a great deal of integrity. If they had left it out, they would have had a lot less 'splaining to do.

Imagine not even knowing about the original Icarus myth!

Wax on, wax off?

Karen S. said:

Wax on, wax off?

Nope, it's the "lost wax" method.

Henry J said:

Karen S. said:

Wax on, wax off?

Nope, it's the "lost wax" method.

Or the "I'm melting! I'm melting!" syndrome?

apokryltaros said:

Karen S. said: btw, I was just explaining to my sister the importance of knowing Greek mythology. Her complaint was that it was not Christian, so why bother?! Well, I'm a Christian and I can well understand the importance of knowing Greek mythology.

A lot of Christians apparently delight in remaining ignorant on things they deem not Christian. It's sad, in my opinion.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Speaking of old non-factual ideas:

So the preacher in Ecclesiastes was right: there’s nothing new under the sun.

What is up with religious claims on a blog devoted to "the integrity of science"? Say, the claim that there existed such a historical person making such a pronouncement.

apokryltaros said: A lot of Christians apparently delight in remaining ignorant on things they deem not Christian.

balloonguy said: The preacher in Ecclesiastes may not have existed, but someone wrote Ecclesiastes and put that sentence in there.

"I, Clavdivs..."

fnxtr said: "I, Clavdivs..."

Ecclesiastes 12 (King James Version)

1 Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh , when thou shalt say , I have no pleasure in them; . 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing , whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Paul Burnett said:

apokryltaros said: A lot of Christians apparently delight in remaining ignorant on things they deem not Christian.

...which means that essentially everything that happened in the BC era simply doesn't count, in their universe. I enjoy pointing out to fundagelicals and other Christian ignorami that the names of some of the days of the week celebrate pagan gods: Sunday - the Sun's day Monday - the Moon's day Tuesday - Teiwaz's / Tiw's day (the Germanic name for the god Mars) Wednesday - Wotan's / Woden's / Odin's day Thursday - Thor's / Thunor / Thunraz's day Friday - Frigg's / Freyja's day (Wotan's / Odin's wife) Saturday - Saturn's day (the planet more than the Roman god)

Henry said:

Paul Burnett said:

apokryltaros said: A lot of Christians apparently delight in remaining ignorant on things they deem not Christian.

...which means that essentially everything that happened in the BC era simply doesn't count, in their universe. I enjoy pointing out to fundagelicals and other Christian ignorami that the names of some of the days of the week celebrate pagan gods: Sunday - the Sun's day Monday - the Moon's day Tuesday - Teiwaz's / Tiw's day (the Germanic name for the god Mars) Wednesday - Wotan's / Woden's / Odin's day Thursday - Thor's / Thunor / Thunraz's day Friday - Frigg's / Freyja's day (Wotan's / Odin's wife) Saturday - Saturn's day (the planet more than the Roman god)

How are those false gods doing? It looks like they faded away a long time ago.

Henry said:

fnxtr said: "I, Clavdivs..."

The Caesars are dead and gone many centuries ago, but Christ was dead and is alive forever more at the right hand of God the Father.

Two after the Caesars. Januarius was a Roman god - a minor one, the deity in charge of openings, beginnings and doorways. We remember him also with janitor, which originally meant much the same as "doorman". February after either Februus, a god older even than Rome, or the festival of purification named after him; March after the god Mars; April from the Latin verb aperire, "to open"; referring probably to the buds; May apparently from the name of the Latin goddess Maiesta; June after Juno, wife of Jupiter; July and August after Julius and Augustus. The rest of the months echo Roman numbers, from their original position in the succession, before the Caesars got their hands on it.

So not only all our days but five of our months were named after pagan gods or goddesses - seven if you count the Caesars, who were deified later.

But no, it isn't idolatry or apostasy simply to use their names. Those deities weren't half so insanely narcissistic or paranoid as Yahweh, anyhow.

The point is, people believed in them, once. There's just exactly as much reason to believe they existed as that King Solomon existed, let alone wrote Ecclesiastes - that is, some unknown person said so, a long time ago.

apokryltaros said:

Henry said:

fnxtr said: "I, Clavdivs..."

The Caesars are dead and gone many centuries ago, but Christ was dead and is alive forever more at the right hand of God the Father.

Then why did the Caesars get two months named after them? Oh, wait, no, you don't give a literal damn about anything other than making an Idiot For Jesus out of yourself with your interjection of your Nonsense and Lies For Jesus.

Dave Luckett said: Two after the Caesars. Januarius was a Roman god - a minor one, the deity in charge of openings, beginnings and doorways. We remember him also with janitor, which originally meant much the same as "doorman". February after either Februus, a god older even than Rome, or the festival of purification named after him; March after the god Mars; April from the Latin verb aperire, "to open"; referring probably to the buds; May apparently from the name of the Latin goddess Maiesta; June after Juno, wife of Jupiter; July and August after Julius and Augustus. The rest of the months echo Roman numbers, from their original position in the succession, before the Caesars got their hands on it. So not only all our days but five of our months were named after pagan gods or goddesses - seven if you count the Caesars, who were deified later. But no, it isn't idolatry or apostasy simply to use their names. Those deities weren't half so insanely narcissistic or paranoid as Yahweh, anyhow. The point is, people believed in them, once. There's just exactly as much reason to believe they existed as that King Solomon existed, let alone wrote Ecclesiastes - that is, some unknown person said so, a long time ago.

In fact, Matthew traced Jesus' legal lineage through Solomon, giving Jesus the legal right to the throne of David.

Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

Jesus hasn't been picking up his mail in a long time, either, Henry.

As for Solomon, if I said that not even Scrooge McDuck could afford that, would that make Scrooge a real person?

Dave Luckett said: Jesus hasn't been picking up his mail in a long time, either, Henry. As for Solomon, if I said that not even Scrooge McDuck could afford that, would that make Scrooge a real person?

Henry said:

apokryltaros said:

Henry said:

fnxtr said: "I, Clavdivs..."

The Caesars are dead and gone many centuries ago, but Christ was dead and is alive forever more at the right hand of God the Father.

Then why did the Caesars get two months named after them? Oh, wait, no, you don't give a literal damn about anything other than making an Idiot For Jesus out of yourself with your interjection of your Nonsense and Lies For Jesus.

The last time I checked the Caesars are still dead.

apokryltaros said:

Henry said:

apokryltaros said:

Henry said:

fnxtr said: "I, Clavdivs..."

The Caesars are dead and gone many centuries ago, but Christ was dead and is alive forever more at the right hand of God the Father.

Then why did the Caesars get two months named after them? Oh, wait, no, you don't give a literal damn about anything other than making an Idiot For Jesus out of yourself with your interjection of your Nonsense and Lies For Jesus.

The last time I checked the Caesars are still dead.

Then why doesn't Jesus have any months or days named after Him?

apokryltaros said:

Henry said:

apokryltaros said:

Henry said:

fnxtr said: "I, Clavdivs..."

The Caesars are dead and gone many centuries ago, but Christ was dead and is alive forever more at the right hand of God the Father.

Then why did the Caesars get two months named after them? Oh, wait, no, you don't give a literal damn about anything other than making an Idiot For Jesus out of yourself with your interjection of your Nonsense and Lies For Jesus.

The last time I checked the Caesars are still dead.

Then why doesn't Jesus have any months or days named after Him?

Silly argument. Nobody's disputing that the Christian church was for the best part of two millennia one of the fundamental cultural institutions of western civilisation, and that a great deal of our everyday behaviour, law, customs, traditions and usage derive from it in various ways - although we have often learned to do better. That isn't any sort of evidence that the major doctrines of Christianity are true in fact, or that the Bible is, either.

Oh, and pagans? They're everywhere. I know three myself.

Dave Luckett said: Oh, and pagans? They're everywhere. I know three myself.

Dave Luckett said: Silly argument. Nobody's disputing that the Christian church was for the best part of two millennia one of the fundamental cultural institutions of western civilisation, and that a great deal of our everyday behaviour, law, customs, traditions and usage derive from it in various ways - although we have often learned to do better. That isn't any sort of evidence that the major doctrines of Christianity are true in fact, or that the Bible is, either.

Then the Founding Fathers would be incapable of logical thought, in your book, Henry. I rather doubt that to be the case.

Dave Luckett said: Oh, and pagans? They're everywhere. I know three myself.

You know, this conversation just became creepy. What gods other people worship is none of your business, Henry, or mine either, really. Forget I said it.

Dave Luckett said: Then the Founding Fathers would be incapable of logical thought, in your book, Henry. I rather doubt that to be the case.

Dave Luckett said: You know, this conversation just became creepy. What gods other people worship is none of your business, Henry, or mine either, really. Forget I said it.

Henry said:

Dave Luckett said: Then the Founding Fathers would be incapable of logical thought, in your book, Henry. I rather doubt that to be the case.

John Dickinson Signer of the Constitution Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity. Will of John Dickinson

apokryltaros said:

Dave Luckett said: You know, this conversation just became creepy. What gods other people worship is none of your business, Henry, or mine either, really. Forget I said it.

It's our own fault for trying to reason with someone who deludes himself into thinking the Founding Fathers were Fundamentalist Christian bigots like himself. Of course, Henry also assumes that Science = Atheism = Paganism = Satanism, too.

apokryltaros said:

Dave Luckett said: You know, this conversation just became creepy. What gods other people worship is none of your business, Henry, or mine either, really. Forget I said it.

It's our own fault for trying to reason with someone who deludes himself into thinking the Founding Fathers were Fundamentalist Christian bigots like himself. Of course, Henry also assumes that Science = Atheism = Paganism = Satanism, too.

Henry said: James McHenry Signer of the Constitution [P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry said: James McHenry Signer of the Constitution [P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.

And the perfect models for that kind of society are Salem with its famous witch trials, the burning of Michael Servetus and Giordano Bruno at the stake, the showing of the instruments of torture to Galileo, the Jonestown massacre, and all the personality cults of prideful ignorance that exercise their freedom of “religion” under the US Constitution to routinely demonize from their pulpits the secular society that feeds and protects them. Yeah sure, we would all like to live in a society like that. Yeah, we would all just love to be as willfully ignorant and as stupid as the trolls who hang out here. None of them appear to have completed middle school let alone high school; and they live in slack-jawed ignorance and in continously hyped paranoia. Yeah, what a utopian society that would be!

Mike Elzinga said: And the perfect models for that kind of society are Salem with its famous witch trials, the burning of Michael Servetus and Giordano Bruno at the stake, the showing of the instruments of torture to Galileo, the Jonestown massacre, and all the personality cults of prideful ignorance that exercise their freedom of “religion” under the US Constitution to routinely demonize from their pulpits the secular society that feeds and protects them.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Mike Elzinga said: And the perfect models for that kind of society are Salem with its famous witch trials, the burning of Michael Servetus and Giordano Bruno at the stake, the showing of the instruments of torture to Galileo, the Jonestown massacre, and all the personality cults of prideful ignorance that exercise their freedom of “religion” under the US Constitution to routinely demonize from their pulpits the secular society that feeds and protects them.

Don't forget the Boston Martyrs, hanged by Christians for being of the wrong denomination.

Henry said: James McHenry Signer of the Constitution [P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures.

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry said: James McHenry Signer of the Constitution [P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.

And the perfect models for that kind of society are Salem with its famous witch trials, the burning of Michael Servetus and Giordano Bruno at the stake, the showing of the instruments of torture to Galileo, the Jonestown massacre, and all the personality cults of prideful ignorance that exercise their freedom of “religion” under the US Constitution to routinely demonize from their pulpits the secular society that feeds and protects them. Yeah sure, we would all like to live in a society like that. Yeah, we would all just love to be as willfully ignorant and as stupid as the trolls who hang out here. None of them appear to have completed middle school let alone high school; and they live in slack-jawed ignorance and in continously hyped paranoia. Yeah, what a utopian society that would be!

stevaroni said:

Henry said: James McHenry Signer of the Constitution [P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures.

Um... The Holy Scriptures are generally distributed. They are within easy reach of just about every person in America. There are literally thousands of denominations, from Anabaptists to Zoarostrarians that will be more than happy to explain them in detail to anyone who walks in the door. Apparently, that is not quite enough for you, Henry, unless the government compels their use in public. That being said, how exactly shall we decide which of the 10,000 doctrines get taught? I propose a time share, where each denomination gets one week on the public monuments and in the public schools. Interestingly, "Pastafarian" comes before "Protestant", but hey - that's life.

Henry said: How is that representative of Christians then and now or during the Founding of the United States?

The Salem witch trials were not normal occurrances, no, Henry. In the last quarter of the eighteenth century, no, they weren't. They were quite normal up until the first quarter, though, and very commonplace in earlier centuries. The same for heresy and blasphemy trials, often followed by barbarous and cruel executions.

Now, why, do you suppose, did people stop hanging and burning witches, pretty generally, during that century? It wasn't the Christian religion that made a difference, and it wasn't Protestantism or Calvinism. Those had been around for quite a while, and stayed around. In fact, the rise of Protestantism seems to have happened in lockstep with an actual rise in witch trials, not to mention heresy, etc. Association is not causation, but it's... suggestive, wouldn't you say? No, of course you wouldn't, on account of you'd rather carry out an autolobotomy with an ice pick than think about something like that.

Still, we really need to look at something other than religion for a cause for the fact that mostly we stopped burning harmless people whenever their neighbours thought they acted a little odd. So what else was happening at the same time, the eighteenth century?

Could it be, Henry, that for the first time ever in the history of western civilisation, people generally began to ask themselves for objectively demonstrable reasons for believing things, acting in this way, behaving like this? Could it be that in the maybe a hundred and fifty or so years since it began, that mode of thought had already proven itself capable of actually finding out how the Universe really worked? That the benefits that flowed from that were so impressive that anybody who was actually prepared to assess them in a - oh I don't know, let's call it a "rational" way - could not ignore the fact that civilised people could not go back to doing stuff because some spit-flecked loon in a cassock told them to?

Oh, sure, there's still those people hiding in the holes and corners. We may never be shot of them. But they don't run government or law any more, Henry. And neither do you.

Dave Luckett said: Still, we really need to look at something other than religion for a cause for the fact that mostly we stopped burning harmless people whenever their neighbours thought they acted a little odd. So what else was happening at the same time, the eighteenth century?

Could it be, Henry, that for the first time ever in the history of western civilisation, people generally began to ask themselves for objectively demonstrable reasons for believing things, acting in this way, behaving like this?

Could it be that in the maybe a hundred and fifty or so years since it began, that mode of thought had already proven itself capable of actually finding out how the Universe really worked? That the benefits that flowed from that were so impressive that anybody who was actually prepared to assess them in a - oh I don't know, let's call it a "rational" way - could not ignore the fact that civilised people could not go back to doing stuff because some spit-flecked loon in a cassock told them to? Oh, sure, there's still those people hiding in the holes and corners. We may never be shot of them. But they don't run government or law any more, Henry. And neither do you.

Dave Luckett said: Oh, sure, there's still those people hiding in the holes and corners. We may never be shot of them. But they don't run government or law any more, Henry. And neither do you.

Incidentally, the atrocities and sectarian infighting among the various religious leaders who led the early colonies in America arose from things like ”A Model of Christian Charity” by John Winthrop.

How can such a “nice” document lead to such atrocities as witch burning? Read carefully the final paragraphs to gain a sense of the sectarian paranoia used to bind the colony together.

Sectarian religion is not always what sectarians would have you believe.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology3.iii.v.viii.html#iii.v.viii-Page_343

Proof that this is a Christian and Protestant Nation.

The proposition that the United States of America are a Christian and Protestant nation, is not so much the assertion of a principle as the statement of a fact. That fact is not simply that the great majority of the people are Christians and Protestants, but that the organic life, the institutions, laws, and official action of the government, whether that action be legislative, judicial, or executive, is, and of right should be, and in fact must be, in accordance with the principles of Protestant Christianity.

1. This is a Christian and Protestant nation in the sense stated in virtue of a universal and necessary law. If you plant an acorn, you get an oak. If you plant a cedar, you get a cedar. If a country be settled by Pagans or Mohammedans, it develops into a Pagan or Mohammedan community. By the same law, if a country be taken possession of and settled by Protestant Christians, the nation which they come to constitute must be Protestant and Christian. This country was settled by Protestants. For the first hundred years of our history they constituted almost the only element of our population. As a matter of course they were governed by their religion as individuals, in their families, and in all their associations for business, and for municipal, state, and national government. This was just as much a matter of necessity as that they should act morally in all these different relations.

2. It is a historical fact that Protestant Christianity is the law of the land, and has been from the beginning. As the great majority of the early settlers of the country were from Great Britain, they declared that the common law of England should be the law here. But Christianity is the basis of the common law of England, and is therefore of the law of this country; and so our courts have repeatedly decided. It is so not merely because of such decisions. Courts cannot reverse facts. Protestant Christianity has been, is, and must be the law of the land, Whatever Protestant Christianity forbids, the law of the land (within its sphere, i.e., within the sphere in which civil authority may appropriately act) forbids. Christianity forbids polygamy and arbitrary divorce, Se does the civil law. Romanism forbids divorce even on the ground of adultery; Protestantism admits it on that ground. The laws of all the states conform in this matter to the Protestant rule. Christianity forbids all unnecessary labour, or the transaction of worldly business, on the Lord’s Day; that day accordingly is a dies non, throughout the land. No contract is binding, made on that day. No debt can be collected on the Christian Sabbath. If a man hires himself for any service by the month or year, he cannot be required to labour on that day. All public offices are closed, and all official business is suspended. From Maine to Georgia, from ocean to ocean, one day in the week, by the law of God and by the law of the land, the people rest.

If the United States was a "Christian and Protestant Nation," then it would be illegal to not be a Christian or a Protestant. Yet, it is not.

We've been over this lie, before, Henry.

Henry said: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology3.iii.v.viii.html#iii.v.viii-Page_343 Proof that this is a Christian and Protestant Nation. ...

apokryltaros said: If the United States was a "Christian and Protestant Nation," then it would be illegal to not be a Christian or a Protestant. Yet, it is not. We've been over this lie, before, Henry.

Christianity is not the basis of the Common Law of England. The guiding principles behind it are not found in any specifically Christian teaching. The Common Law arises, as its name implies, not from any revelation to any person, nor from any apostolic or prophetic authority, nor from Scripture, but from the mutual wish of ordinary people to do justice and right among themselves. The jury system, the ballot box, the subjection of government to the will of the people, all exist not because of the will of God, nor from any idea that the will of the people is the will of God, but solely because they are the will of the people.

Common Law is not some changeless iron contract. It is a continuing search for fair dealing. It is intensely human, not divine; pragmatic, not idealised; practical, not theoretical; compromising, not rigid. It is not, it never was, God's Law. Nobody ever pretended it was, until fanatics started trying to rewrite history and wreck science.

The United States arose not out of a leader or a demagogue or a prophet - nor from a Holy Book. The Constitution was not handed down from on high. Rather, it is the expression of the mutually accepted principles of mutual respect for their rights, decency, fairness, justice and freedom that the people of the United States agreed on, through their representatives. It was hammered out, clause by clause, word by word, not from Scripture, but by committees and caucuses, argument and council, compromise and debate, from human ideas that a century before its writing would have been considered novel, radical, peculiar - even ridiculous.

Paul wrote in Romans 13 that governors wielded power that they derived from God. That was always the position of the Christian church. The Constitution of the United States denies that, flat and plain. The just powers of the governors derive from the free consent of the governed, and from nowhere else. What else is the founding principle of the United States? What else did you fight for? Why else are you a nation?

Biggy is peddling another untruth. He thinks it's true, but he's addled. It is not true. But he's worse than addled. He's malignant. What he and those of his mind would do if they could peddle their falsehoods to enough people is horrifying.

Sorry, that was Henry. Biggy, if you're watching, why don't you tell us what you think? If you think differently to Henry, I'll apologise.

Henry said: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology3.iii.v.viii.html#iii.v.viii-Page_343 Proof that this is a Christian and Protestant Nation. The proposition that the United States of America are a Christian and Protestant nation, is not so much the assertion of a principle as the statement of a fact. That fact is not simply that the great majority of the people are Christians and Protestants, but that the organic life, the institutions, laws, and official action of the government, whether that action be legislative, judicial, or executive, is, and of right should be, and in fact must be, in accordance with the principles of Protestant Christianity.

Dave Luckett said: Sorry, that was Henry. Biggy, if you're watching, why don't you tell us what you think? If you think differently to Henry, I'll apologise.

apokryltaros said: If the United States was a "Christian and Protestant Nation," then it would be illegal to not be a Christian or a Protestant. Yet, it is not. We've been over this lie, before, Henry.

The pseudo christian demands that his myths be taught in publicly funded science classes to the exclusion of all other myths. This is illegal and immoral as any rational person can plainly see.

No one gives a rats hairy behind what the first people who came here and stole the land from the native Americans used as a justification for their immoral actions. We have now set up a system of government that insures religious freedom for all. Those who demand a theocracy should find somewhere else to live.

Henry said: The atheist demands...

And here we go again. If government is neutral toward Henry's faith, and does not officially endorse it as True, then government must necessarily OPPOSE Henry's faith. Remaining silent on religion MEANS endorsing the falsehood of that religion. There is no neutral.

And as usual, the enormously complex constellation of motivations for all of the millions of people who started colonies, or immigrated, or have formed any sorts of organizations or have influenced both legislative and case law, is simplified down into binary religious terms. There are those who love Henry's god, and those who deny Henry's god, and nothing else, and none of those other motivations matter. In Henry's world, everything from microbes to mountains is evaluated solely in the light of his religion, and the only possible merits anything can have are religious merits.

Henry said:

apokryltaros said: If the United States was a "Christian and Protestant Nation," then it would be illegal to not be a Christian or a Protestant. Yet, it is not. We've been over this lie, before, Henry.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology3.iii.v.viii.html#iii.v.viii-Page_346 When Protestant Christians came to this country they possessed and subdued the land. They worshipped God, and his Son Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world, and acknowledged the Scriptures to be the rule of their faith and practice. They introduced their religion into their families, their schools, and their colleges. They abstained from all ordinary business on the Lord’s Day, and devoted it to religion. They built churches, erected school-houses, and taught their children to read the Bible and to receive and obey it as the word of God. They formed themselves as Christians into municipal and state organizations. They acknowledged God in their legislative assemblies. They prescribed oaths to be taken in his name. They closed their courts, their places of business, their legislatures, and all places under the public control, on the Lord’s Day. They declared Christianity to be part of the common law of the land. In the process of time thousands have come among us, who are neither Protestants nor Christians. Some are papists, some Jews, some infidels, and some atheists. All are welcomed; all are admitted to equal rights and privileges. All are allowed to acquire property, and to vote in every election, made eligible to all offices, and invested with equal influence in all public affairs. All are allowed to worship as they please, or not to worship at all, if they see fit. No man is molested for his religion or for his want of religion. No man is required to profess any form of faiths or to join any religious association. More than this cannot reasonably be demanded. More, however, is demanded. The infidel demands that the government should be conducted on the principle that Christianity is false. The atheist demands that it should be conducted on the assumption that there is no God, and the positivist on the principle that men are not free agents. The sufficient answer to all this is, that it cannot possibly be done.

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry said: How is that representative of Christians then and now or during the Founding of the United States?

You sectarians never learn from history. You not only don’t know the history of religion in general, you don’t even know the history of Christianity or the history of your own cult (which may not even be derived from Christianity). In fact, you are not capable of learning anything. Sects such as yours wallow proudly in ignorance as a badge of honor and fidelity to sectarian dogma. Your profile says everything we need to know about your sectarianism. Your sectarian dogma is but one of the thousands of dogmas of literally millions of sectarians that have hated and killed each other over the centuries. You would be most comfortable in a theocracy like the Massachusetts Bay Colony. You would be part of the crowds judging and condemning the followers of other religions to death. You would be one of those who would put witches on trial and hang them. You would be right beside John Calvin in condemning Michael Servetus to a death sentence. You would be calling for slow burning green wood to burn Michael Servetus at the stake. You know nothing of the history of the US Constitution and the effects that sectarian hatreds and killings had on the drafting of that document in order to keep that kind of sectarian crap out of government. Just because your sectarian beliefs caused you to stop learning back in middle school doesn’t mean that everyone else stopped learning also. Stop wasting your time here and go back to school and get at least a GED. Learn some history for a change. You might even get thrown out of your cult if you do. That would be progress.

Henry said: Thanks for your advice...

phhht said:

Henry said: The atheist demands...

This atheist demands that you put up or shut up. Your beliefs in gods and demigods and miracles and demons are delusions. YOUR BELIEFS ARE FALSE. YOU ARE WRONG. C'mon Henry, can't you even come up with one itty-bitty piece of evidence to refute my claim? "The sufficient answer to all this is, that it cannot possibly be done."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

... In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. – Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. ... And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance. 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, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor 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: ...I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.

Henry said: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology3.iii.v.viii.html#iii.v.viii-Page_346 When Protestant Christians came to this country they possessed and subdued the land.

They worshipped God, and his Son Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world, and acknowledged the Scriptures to be the rule of their faith and practice.

They introduced their religion into their families, their schools, and their colleges.

They abstained from all ordinary business on the Lord’s Day, and devoted it to religion.

They built churches, erected school-houses, and taught their children to read the Bible and to receive and obey it as the word of God.

They formed themselves as Christians into municipal and state organizations. They acknowledged God in their legislative assemblies. They prescribed oaths to be taken in his name.

They closed their courts, their places of business, their legislatures, and all places under the public control, on the Lord’s Day.

They declared Christianity to be part of the common law of the land.

In the process of time thousands have come among us, who are neither Protestants nor Christians. Some are papists, some Jews, some infidels, and some atheists.

All are welcomed; all are admitted to equal rights and privileges. All are allowed to acquire property, and to vote in every election, made eligible to all offices, and invested with equal influence in all public affairs.

All are allowed to worship as they please, or not to worship at all, if they see fit. No man is molested for his religion or for his want of religion. No man is required to profess any form of faiths or to join any religious association.

More than this cannot reasonably be demanded. More, however, is demanded. The infidel demands that the government should be conducted on the principle that Christianity is false.

The atheist demands that it should be conducted on the assumption that there is no God, and the positivist on the principle that men are not free agents. The sufficient answer to all this is, that it cannot possibly be done.

phhht said:

Henry said: Thanks for your advice...

That's what I thought, Henry. You can't even come up with enough of a defense for your deluded faith to respond to a challenge. There is only one sane answer to an accusation of delusion: Here are the facts which back me up. But you have no facts. You have nothing but baseless assertion and incredulity. YOUR BELIEFS ARE FALSE. You don't dare try to defend them because you have no defense.

Henry said:

phhht said:

Henry said: Thanks for your advice...

That's what I thought, Henry. You can't even come up with enough of a defense for your deluded faith to respond to a challenge. There is only one sane answer to an accusation of delusion: Here are the facts which back me up. But you have no facts. You have nothing but baseless assertion and incredulity. YOUR BELIEFS ARE FALSE. You don't dare try to defend them because you have no defense.

God does rule in the affairs of men. Europe in a few more generations will lose its civil liberties because its birth rates are too low to maintain its populations so the Muslims will implement Sharia law without any opposition. Since Europe wants to go secular, then kiss God's blessings goodbye which includes civil liberties.

Henry said: God does rule in the affairs of men. Europe in a few more generations will lose its civil liberties because its birth rates are too low to maintain its populations so the Muslims will implement Sharia law without any opposition. Since Europe wants to go secular, then kiss God's blessings goodbye which includes civil liberties.

Henry said:

phhht said:

Henry said: Thanks for your advice...

That's what I thought, Henry. You can't even come up with enough of a defense for your deluded faith to respond to a challenge. There is only one sane answer to an accusation of delusion: Here are the facts which back me up. But you have no facts. You have nothing but baseless assertion and incredulity. YOUR BELIEFS ARE FALSE. You don't dare try to defend them because you have no defense.

God does rule in the affairs of men. Europe in a few more generations will lose its civil liberties because its birth rates are too low to maintain its populations so the Muslims will implement Sharia law without any opposition. Since Europe wants to go secular, then kiss God's blessings goodbye which includes civil liberties.

DS said:

Henry said:

phhht said:

Henry said: Thanks for your advice...

That's what I thought, Henry. You can't even come up with enough of a defense for your deluded faith to respond to a challenge. There is only one sane answer to an accusation of delusion: Here are the facts which back me up. But you have no facts. You have nothing but baseless assertion and incredulity. YOUR BELIEFS ARE FALSE. You don't dare try to defend them because you have no defense.

God does rule in the affairs of men. Europe in a few more generations will lose its civil liberties because its birth rates are too low to maintain its populations so the Muslims will implement Sharia law without any opposition. Since Europe wants to go secular, then kiss God's blessings goodbye which includes civil liberties.

So god is a Muslim! Good to know. I guess you must be pretty scared, right Henry? Or maybe you are hoping that Muslims will get to preach their myths in US science classes?

j. biggs said:

DS said:

Henry said:

phhht said:

Henry said: Thanks for your advice...

That's what I thought, Henry. You can't even come up with enough of a defense for your deluded faith to respond to a challenge. There is only one sane answer to an accusation of delusion: Here are the facts which back me up. But you have no facts. You have nothing but baseless assertion and incredulity. YOUR BELIEFS ARE FALSE. You don't dare try to defend them because you have no defense.

God does rule in the affairs of men. Europe in a few more generations will lose its civil liberties because its birth rates are too low to maintain its populations so the Muslims will implement Sharia law without any opposition. Since Europe wants to go secular, then kiss God's blessings goodbye which includes civil liberties.

So god is a Muslim! Good to know. I guess you must be pretty scared, right Henry? Or maybe you are hoping that Muslims will get to preach their myths in US science classes?

It is funny Henry said it this way. I know it was more of a threat that, "If you don't see things my way, the muslims will take over and destroy our civil liberties just like they are going to in Europe. You'll see." But read literally it sounds like Henry is saying that it's God's (Allah's) will that Europe will become an Islamic Theocracy. Absolutely hilarious.

Henry said:

j. biggs said:

DS said:

Henry said:

phhht said:

Henry said: Thanks for your advice...

That's what I thought, Henry. You can't even come up with enough of a defense for your deluded faith to respond to a challenge. There is only one sane answer to an accusation of delusion: Here are the facts which back me up. But you have no facts. You have nothing but baseless assertion and incredulity. YOUR BELIEFS ARE FALSE. You don't dare try to defend them because you have no defense.

God does rule in the affairs of men. Europe in a few more generations will lose its civil liberties because its birth rates are too low to maintain its populations so the Muslims will implement Sharia law without any opposition. Since Europe wants to go secular, then kiss God's blessings goodbye which includes civil liberties.

So god is a Muslim! Good to know. I guess you must be pretty scared, right Henry? Or maybe you are hoping that Muslims will get to preach their myths in US science classes?

It is funny Henry said it this way. I know it was more of a threat that, "If you don't see things my way, the muslims will take over and destroy our civil liberties just like they are going to in Europe. You'll see." But read literally it sounds like Henry is saying that it's God's (Allah's) will that Europe will become an Islamic Theocracy. Absolutely hilarious.

We know from the Old Testament that God used the heathen nations around Israel to punish her for her idolatry so He can use Muslims to do punish apostate nations today.

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry said: God does rule in the affairs of men. Europe in a few more generations will lose its civil liberties because its birth rates are too low to maintain its populations so the Muslims will implement Sharia law without any opposition. Since Europe wants to go secular, then kiss God's blessings goodbye which includes civil liberties.

And there it is; the jealous sectarianism that wants its own laws in place to the exclusion of other sectarians and other religions. This is the mentality of the centuries of sectarian atrocities that led to the pragmatism of secular common law. But secular law to a sectarian is simply another competing religion to be demolished. We’re not having any of that, Henry. Close your church doors, and have your vicious sectarian stiletto fights within your own walls. Leave everyone else out of it.

Dave Lovell said:

Henry said: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology3.iii.v.viii.html#iii.v.viii-Page_343 Proof that this is a Christian and Protestant Nation. The proposition that the United States of America are a Christian and Protestant nation, is not so much the assertion of a principle as the statement of a fact. That fact is not simply that the great majority of the people are Christians and Protestants, but that the organic life, the institutions, laws, and official action of the government, whether that action be legislative, judicial, or executive, is, and of right should be, and in fact must be, in accordance with the principles of Protestant Christianity.

So Henry, your message appears to be "Once a Protestant Nation, always a Protestant Nation". Like a stuck record in the same groove for ever and ever. No scope for improvement in the light of increased knowledge and understanding, permanently stuck in the past rather than building on it. The irony of course is that were it not for people in sixteenth century Europe challenging what you might call the "Romanist" orthodoxy, there would be no "Protestant Nations" to preserve anyway.

I think totalitarian dictators tend to kill people, Henry.

I think religious fanatics tend to kill people, too.

I want neither in control where I live. So far, they aren't. They're not going to be.

Spare me the crocodile tears over the abortion rate. The data on that is in, Henry. The way to reduce it is to provide objective education to all, especially the young, about sex, sexuality and contraception, and to make effective contraceptives freely and easily available to them. The main obstacle preventing that is the fanatical opposition of religious bigots like you. The redneck right is addicted to ignorance and punishment. You all get off on it.

You really are a piece of work, Henry.

Henry said: What do you think about the millions of lives lost under Communist China and the old Soviet Union? Or even the 50+ million innocent unborn babies aborted in the US since Roe v Wade? Are these the results of secular government at its best?

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry said: What do you think about the millions of lives lost under Communist China and the old Soviet Union? Or even the 50+ million innocent unborn babies aborted in the US since Roe v Wade? Are these the results of secular government at its best?

Obviously reminding you of sectarian atrocities makes you uncomfortable enough to change the subject, Henry. Isn’t it funny how sectarianism, rather than being the cure for all the ills in the world, is simply another nasty excuse for perpetuating them? How about that? Morality doesn't originate in your holy book. Do you object to sex education, Henry? Do you squirm when talking about penises and vaginas? How about keeping screaming, demanding dictators in check with contraception.

Henry said: You made mountains out of grains of sand when you brought up the Salem witch trials, etc., but you made grains of sand out of mountains when I brought up the millions of people killed by anti Christian governments. According to the Founding Fathers, morality does originate from the Bible.

Henry said: How about giving up the baby to couples who actually want the baby? The problem with sex education isn't penises and vaginas--it's not being told to do it only when married, not as kids, still in school. Kids are told to not smoke, not eat junk food, or drink and drive , or do drugs, but aren't told to wait until marriage. And that's not mentioning the dozens of STDS now rampant.

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry said: How about giving up the baby to couples who actually want the baby? The problem with sex education isn't penises and vaginas--it's not being told to do it only when married, not as kids, still in school. Kids are told to not smoke, not eat junk food, or drink and drive , or do drugs, but aren't told to wait until marriage. And that's not mentioning the dozens of STDS now rampant.

So your solution to a seven billion and growing human population, strained planetary energy and food resources, and the human influence on climate is to tell everyone “Just don’t do it?” How realistic do you think that is?

Henry said: [quoting large tracts without even reading them...] Protestant Christianity has been, is, and must be the law of the land, Whatever Protestant Christianity forbids, the law of the land (within its sphere, i.e., within the sphere in which civil authority may appropriately act) forbids.

Henry said: How about giving up the baby to couples who actually want the baby? The problem with sex education isn't penises and vaginas--it's not being told to do it only when married, not as kids, still in school. Kids are told to not smoke, not eat junk food, or drink and drive , or do drugs, but aren't told to wait until marriage. And that's not mentioning the dozens of STDS now rampant.

Scott F,

Delightful points. Game, set and match to you.

A plain and literal reading of the U.S. Constitution FORBIDS enforcement of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd of the ten commandments.

What were those founding fathers thinking?:)

Scott F said:

Henry said: [quoting large tracts without even reading them...] Protestant Christianity has been, is, and must be the law of the land, Whatever Protestant Christianity forbids, the law of the land (within its sphere, i.e., within the sphere in which civil authority may appropriately act) forbids.

How can you possibly believe this to be true, Henry? What are the very first two, the highest laws of Protestant Christianity? "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and "You shall not make for yourself an idol." Protestant Christianity forbids worshiping other gods and forbids idolatry. Yet, the law of the land not only does not forbid those things, it guarantees that you may worship any god or idol that you want to, or none at all. It's called freedom of religion. What is the third law of Protestant Christianity? "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain". Protestant Christianity forbids profanity. Yet, the law of the land not only does not forbid profanity, it guarantees that everyone is allow to be as profane as they want to be. It's called freedom of speech. If the Constitution was inspired by the Bible, how come the Constitution not only violates, but diametrically opposes, the first three highest laws of the Bible's God?

Henry said:

Scott F said:

Henry said: [quoting large tracts without even reading them...] Protestant Christianity has been, is, and must be the law of the land, Whatever Protestant Christianity forbids, the law of the land (within its sphere, i.e., within the sphere in which civil authority may appropriately act) forbids.

How can you possibly believe this to be true, Henry? What are the very first two, the highest laws of Protestant Christianity? "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and "You shall not make for yourself an idol." Protestant Christianity forbids worshiping other gods and forbids idolatry. Yet, the law of the land not only does not forbid those things, it guarantees that you may worship any god or idol that you want to, or none at all. It's called freedom of religion. What is the third law of Protestant Christianity? "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain". Protestant Christianity forbids profanity. Yet, the law of the land not only does not forbid profanity, it guarantees that everyone is allow to be as profane as they want to be. It's called freedom of speech. If the Constitution was inspired by the Bible, how come the Constitution not only violates, but diametrically opposes, the first three highest laws of the Bible's God?

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." - Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, October 11, 1798 Read more: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/john-adams-quotations-1.html#ixzz1ko4CLJiV The Constitution was meant to preserve Christianity. Since 1947, the US Supreme Court went against earlier court rulings which did forbid profanity. For most, if not all, of our lives, we lived under a different America than the one the Founding Fathers had given us.

rob said: Henry, Thank you for separating morality and religion in your statement below. You are correct. Morality is not inherently connected with religion. However, religion has inspired and caused Milena of immoral acts. The founding fathers new this. This is why a plain and literal reading of the U.S. Constitution FORBIDS enforcement of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd of the ten commandments.

It is often quite evident that ID/creationists don’t really pay attention in biology classes. If they had, they would have learned about the powerful drives to reproduce that are a part of all living organisms. Sex drives are not indicators of some kind of “depraved sinful nature.”

All living organisms multiply until they hit the limits of growth; and this is what is behind much of evolution. Darwin recognized this from reading Malthus.

However, we now have an interesting development in the evolution of rationally conscious humans. This may be the first species in the history of the planet that has the potential to make a rational choice about outrunning its environmental resources.

That raises some very interesting questions about whether or not they should make such a rational choice, or just “let Nature run its course.”

Issues of marriage have been tied up with ownership and inheritance. But in an overcrowded world, most people will not have anything but genes to pass on. Most people will not own anything in the way of land; they will rent or will be in some kind of feudal relationship with rich landowners.

So we cannot use marriage as an excuse for denying the sex drive. And there is no rationale for prohibiting contraception or making it illegal for people to have sex when contraception is technologically available and cheap.

Henry’s sectarian dogma is out of touch with the realities of biological reproductive drives and with the current state of the human population and land ownership.

If sectarian religion continues to constrain the rational alternatives that are now available to humans, it will simply be evolutionary business as usual.

We could choose to go through the “rigors” of large population decimation, when resources run out, and let natural selection decide what comes out the other end. Or we could make the choice to live within our means by mitigating the population explosion using contraception.

But the choice has an interesting Catch-22 aspect to it. How do we really know if rational limits to growth would actually do a better job than the way natural selection has always worked? What if limiting growth produces a population that doesn’t have sufficient numbers to withstand a devastating hit by some kind of disease or some kind of asteroid?

Scott F said:

Henry said: How about giving up the baby to couples who actually want the baby? The problem with sex education isn't penises and vaginas--it's not being told to do it only when married, not as kids, still in school. Kids are told to not smoke, not eat junk food, or drink and drive , or do drugs, but aren't told to wait until marriage. And that's not mentioning the dozens of STDS now rampant.

Henry, did you notice that we tell kids to not smoke, not eat junk food, and not drink, yet they do it any way? Where do you think adults who smoke and drink come from? They were once kids who smoke and drank. Simply telling kids not to do something does not magically prevent them from doing those things. The only thing proven to work to prevent those things is a liberal secular education. Why do you think abstinence-only sex education will reduce pregnancies? It doesn't. We have actual hard data that shows that when teens are taught abstinence-only sex education, the teen pregnancy rate, STD rate, and abortion rate actually increase to even higher rates than among teens with no sex education at all. And (as someone pointed out on another thread) how does being married magically stop STD transmission. How does being married magically stop unwanted pregnancies? Or, perhaps you are saying that every pregnancy in every marriage is intentional?

Henry said: Scott, you win. Let's do it the sex education way--teach them to be safe smokers, safe drunk drivers, safe drug users. They'll do them anyways.

Henry said:

Scott F said:

Henry said: How about giving up the baby to couples who actually want the baby? The problem with sex education isn't penises and vaginas--it's not being told to do it only when married, not as kids, still in school. Kids are told to not smoke, not eat junk food, or drink and drive , or do drugs, but aren't told to wait until marriage. And that's not mentioning the dozens of STDS now rampant.

Henry, did you notice that we tell kids to not smoke, not eat junk food, and not drink, yet they do it any way? Where do you think adults who smoke and drink come from? They were once kids who smoke and drank. Simply telling kids not to do something does not magically prevent them from doing those things. The only thing proven to work to prevent those things is a liberal secular education. Why do you think abstinence-only sex education will reduce pregnancies? It doesn't. We have actual hard data that shows that when teens are taught abstinence-only sex education, the teen pregnancy rate, STD rate, and abortion rate actually increase to even higher rates than among teens with no sex education at all. And (as someone pointed out on another thread) how does being married magically stop STD transmission. How does being married magically stop unwanted pregnancies? Or, perhaps you are saying that every pregnancy in every marriage is intentional?

Scott, you win. Let's do it the sex education way--teach them to be safe smokers, safe drunk drivers, safe drug users. They'll do them anyways.

How about keeping screaming, demanding dictators in check with contraception.

This would be a great ad for Focus on the Family. "Is your kid a tyrant? Focus on the Family has the resources to help you be a great parent"

The United States was not constituted to embody, preserve or promote Christianity, Henry's form, any form.

It was constituted for the reasons it says it was: "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

There is no mention of Christianity, religion or God in it at all. Nothing. Nada. Read it yourself. It doesn't say anything about it.

The individual thoughts of those who signed the Declaration, or helped write the Constitution, or were there when it happened, is not what founded the United States. What founded the United States was their mutual production: the Constitution. It embodied above all things a willingness to respect one another's rights; rights that Henry wants desperately to destroy. The Founding Fathers would have looked at him and seen their enemy. And being the men they were, they'd have eaten Henry for breakfast.

Those are plain facts. But facts simply don't exist for Henry if they conflict with his religion. Reality is what his religion says it is. We look at him and the others - Byers, FL, Biggy - and we see a pre-modern mind at work. Authority trumps reality, in the minds of the relgious right. There is no room for anything else but authority.

That's why Henry is desperately ferreting through diary entries and personal letters and whatnot. They're authorities, then - so long as they say what he wants. But the actual Constitution of the United States is not an authority, to him, because it doesn't.

The Constitution does not promote Henry's religion - in fact it expressly prohibits government to promote any religion. It does not require a religious qualification for any enactment or office of the State - in fact it expressly forbids it. As Rob says, it does not enforce the top three of the Ten Commandments - in fact, it expressly forbids their enforcement. So it flies in the face of Henry's religion.

So the Constitution - the actual Constitution, the document that exists, the body of ideas it patently enunciates - lacks authority, to Henry. But authority is everything to Henry. So the Constitution is nothing. What it says is irrelevant; an historical curiosity, if Henry were curious about anything, but of no actual importance.

Except that it impedes the enforcement of his creed. The Constitution denies its authority. So the Constitution has to go. It has to be amended, altered, subverted. Destroyed.

Which is what he's about, here, and no doubt elsewhere.

Well, he'll fail.

Henry thinks that Jefferson, Adams, et al., intended for the United States to be constituted as a Christian nation, but simply forgot to make a single mention of God, Jesus, or Christianity anywhere in their document. Wow, that's some oversight; it's a good thing we have Henry here to read the minds of people who died two centuries ago, so we can know what they really meant.

That's right folks, all we need to accept Henry's Christian nation proposition is to assume that the people who wrote the Constitution forgot to include the most important part. OK Henry, whatever.

Ben said: Henry thinks that Jefferson, Adams, et al., intended for the United States to be constituted as a Christian nation, but simply forgot to make a single mention of God, Jesus, or Christianity anywhere in their document. Wow, that's some oversight; it's a good thing we have Henry here to read the minds of people who died two centuries ago, so we can know what they really meant. That's right folks, all we need to accept Henry's Christian nation proposition is to assume that the people who wrote the Constitution forgot to include the most important part. OK Henry, whatever.

Henry said: Scott, you win. Let's do it the sex education way--teach them to be safe smokers, safe drunk drivers, safe drug users. They'll do them anyways.

Henry said: The Constitution was meant to preserve Christianity. Since 1947, the US Supreme Court went against earlier court rulings which did forbid profanity. For most, if not all, of our lives, we lived under a different America than the one the Founding Fathers had given us.

Protestant Christianity has been, is, and must be the law of the land, Whatever Protestant Christianity forbids, the law of the land (within its sphere, i.e., within the sphere in which civil authority may appropriately act) forbids.

Henry quoted ben Franklin at length: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin ... do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance. 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....

Scott F said: Why do you think abstinence-only sex education will reduce pregnancies? It doesn't. We have actual hard data that shows that when teens are taught abstinence-only sex education, the teen pregnancy rate, STD rate, and abortion rate actually increase to even higher rates than among teens with no sex education at all.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Scott F said: Why do you think abstinence-only sex education will reduce pregnancies? It doesn't. We have actual hard data that shows that when teens are taught abstinence-only sex education, the teen pregnancy rate, STD rate, and abortion rate actually increase to even higher rates than among teens with no sex education at all.

Scott, can you point us to some of that research, please?

The American Acadamy of Pediatrics also recommends against abstinence only sex education.

This study showed that abstinence mandate was far less effective at preventing STDs than a comprehensive sex education program. I will stop there, but there are others.

Dave Luckett said: The United States was not constituted to embody, preserve or promote Christianity, Henry's form, any form. It was constituted for the reasons it says it was: "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". There is no mention of Christianity, religion or God in it at all. Nothing. Nada. Read it yourself. It doesn't say anything about it. The individual thoughts of those who signed the Declaration, or helped write the Constitution, or were there when it happened, is not what founded the United States. What founded the United States was their mutual production: the Constitution. It embodied above all things a willingness to respect one another's rights; rights that Henry wants desperately to destroy. The Founding Fathers would have looked at him and seen their enemy. And being the men they were, they'd have eaten Henry for breakfast. Those are plain facts. But facts simply don't exist for Henry if they conflict with his religion. Reality is what his religion says it is. We look at him and the others - Byers, FL, Biggy - and we see a pre-modern mind at work. Authority trumps reality, in the minds of the relgious right. There is no room for anything else but authority. That's why Henry is desperately ferreting through diary entries and personal letters and whatnot. They're authorities, then - so long as they say what he wants. But the actual Constitution of the United States is not an authority, to him, because it doesn't. The Constitution does not promote Henry's religion - in fact it expressly prohibits government to promote any religion. It does not require a religious qualification for any enactment or office of the State - in fact it expressly forbids it. As Rob says, it does not enforce the top three of the Ten Commandments - in fact, it expressly forbids their enforcement. So it flies in the face of Henry's religion. So the Constitution - the actual Constitution, the document that exists, the body of ideas it patently enunciates - lacks authority, to Henry. But authority is everything to Henry. So the Constitution is nothing. What it says is irrelevant; an historical curiosity, if Henry were curious about anything, but of no actual importance. Except that it impedes the enforcement of his creed. The Constitution denies its authority. So the Constitution has to go. It has to be amended, altered, subverted. Destroyed. Which is what he's about, here, and no doubt elsewhere. Well, he'll fail.

Dave Luckett said: Christianity is not the basis of the Common Law of England. The guiding principles behind it are not found in any specifically Christian teaching. The Common Law arises, as its name implies, not from any revelation to any person, nor from any apostolic or prophetic authority, nor from Scripture, but from the mutual wish of ordinary people to do justice and right among themselves. The jury system, the ballot box, the subjection of government to the will of the people, all exist not because of the will of God, nor from any idea that the will of the people is the will of God, but solely because they are the will of the people. Common Law is not some changeless iron contract. It is a continuing search for fair dealing. It is intensely human, not divine; pragmatic, not idealised; practical, not theoretical; compromising, not rigid. It is not, it never was, God's Law. Nobody ever pretended it was, until fanatics started trying to rewrite history and wreck science. The United States arose not out of a leader or a demagogue or a prophet - nor from a Holy Book. The Constitution was not handed down from on high. Rather, it is the expression of the mutually accepted principles of mutual respect for their rights, decency, fairness, justice and freedom that the people of the United States agreed on, through their representatives. It was hammered out, clause by clause, word by word, not from Scripture, but by committees and caucuses, argument and council, compromise and debate, from human ideas that a century before its writing would have been considered novel, radical, peculiar - even ridiculous. Paul wrote in Romans 13 that governors wielded power that they derived from God. That was always the position of the Christian church. The Constitution of the United States denies that, flat and plain. The just powers of the governors derive from the free consent of the governed, and from nowhere else. What else is the founding principle of the United States? What else did you fight for? Why else are you a nation? Biggy is peddling another untruth. He thinks it's true, but he's addled. It is not true. But he's worse than addled. He's malignant. What he and those of his mind would do if they could peddle their falsehoods to enough people is horrifying.

j. biggs said: This study showed that abstinence mandate was far less effective at preventing STDs than a comprehensive sex education program. I will stop there, but there are others.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/05/more-evidence-of-the-effectiveness-of-abstinence-education-programs

Henry fits exactly the profile of EVERY creationist troll that shows up here; they are nothing but mindless, copy/paste robots.

Henry said: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/05/more-evidence-of-the-effectiveness-of-abstinence-education-programs

mplavcan said: You slurp up that bullshit like a pig eating slop, and then barf it back at us and pretend it is something more than a pile of stinking barf. My daughter and son went through those programs. They were a joke, and the kids knew it.

Mike Elzinga said:

mplavcan said: You slurp up that bullshit like a pig eating slop, and then barf it back at us and pretend it is something more than a pile of stinking barf. My daughter and son went through those programs. They were a joke, and the kids knew it.

Henry and his sectarian handlers – like Ken Ham - complain about young people leaving their churches, but they don’t have a clue about why. But these young people often confide in secular people like us and tell us what they cannot tell their parents and preachers. These sects are not just a joke, they are actually psychologically destructive. I have known parents in these kinds of sects who have actually forbidden their “rebellious” smart kids from attending top secular universities in the nation and tried to force them to go to places like Bob Jones “university.” I have told young people like this that they were doing the right thing by leaving their “churches.” Fortunately they did and have been far better off for having done so.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Scott, can you point us to some of that research, please?

Scott F said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: Scott, can you point us to some of that research, please?

I wish. I recall reading about, but I don't recall where. I'll see if I can find it. Knowing what I read and listen to, it would have been just the popular press, not any first hand research.

mplavcan said: I saw a preacher here in Arkansas give a talk (anti-evolution) in which he claimed that the Enlightenment was the greatest disaster to hit humanity, and emplored people not to send their kids to either public school or a University so as to retain them in the fold.

(T)he act against cursing and swearing, and breach of the Lord's day; the act forbidding incestuous marriages, perjury by taking a false oath upon the book, fornication and adultery, et peccatum illud horribile non nominandum inter christianos --for all these are founded on Christianity.

Henry said:

j. biggs said: This study showed that abstinence mandate was far less effective at preventing STDs than a comprehensive sex education program. I will stop there, but there are others.

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/social-issues/abstinence-education/talking-points.aspx

Henry said: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/05/more-evidence-of-the-effectiveness-of-abstinence-education-programs

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry said: What do you think about the millions of lives lost under Communist China and the old Soviet Union? Or even the 50+ million innocent unborn babies aborted in the US since Roe v Wade? Are these the results of secular government at its best?

Obviously reminding you of sectarian atrocities makes you uncomfortable enough to change the subject, Henry. Isn’t it funny how sectarianism, rather than being the cure for all the ills in the world, is simply another nasty excuse for perpetuating them? How about that? Morality doesn't originate in your holy book. Do you object to sex education, Henry? Do you squirm when talking about penises and vaginas?

How about keeping screaming, demanding dictators in check with contraception.

Dave Luckett said: So, I stand corrected. There were, in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, judges on the bench of various State courts who were ignorant and prejudiced enough to think that the Common Law was founded on Christianity, or that the right of free speech did not include the right to deny and trenchantly criticise Christianity. Well, so it took longer than I thought to pull ourselves out of the mire. But we're out of it now, pretty much. The court that delivered itself of anything like that "judgement" (yes, I know those are scare quotes) today would find itself stood down in a heartbeat. And damn right, too. I see, reading the full text of the decision in 11 Serg. & Rawle 394 Pa. 1824 that the learned judge not only took it upon himself to condemn and punish the words that particular defendent is said to have uttered, but said he would likewise condemn and punish any debating society that even considered the question of God or the truth or supremacy of Christianity. Debates like that shouldn't oughta be allowed, sez hizzoner. Well, there you go. Bigots and idiots are found on the bench, or were in 1824. Who'da thought it? You know what the Common Law is, Henry? No, of course you don't. You couldn't care less what it is. But I'll tell you anyway: listen. The Common Law is what all the courts say it is, over time. Over time, Henry. It changes. I said it isn't a changeless iron contract, and to that Henry copies and pastes what some damn fool in a robe said in 1824. I must admit that judgement - if you can use that word to describe so blatant a display of triumphant bigotry - shook me. I had no idea that any judge in the United States, even in 1824, could summon the gall to fly in the face of the Constitution like that, but there you go. But having flown in the face of the Constitution, the judge then flies in the face of fact:

(T)he act against cursing and swearing, and breach of the Lord's day; the act forbidding incestuous marriages, perjury by taking a false oath upon the book, fornication and adultery, et peccatum illud horribile non nominandum inter christianos --for all these are founded on Christianity.

The "acts against" in that list that are founded on Christianity are now all dead letters. Nobody is prosecuted for cursing, swearing, working on the Lord's day (whichever one the various sects says it is), fornication, adultery, or any sexual act unless not attended by informed mature consent. Incest is still unlawful, for sound biological reasons, but the judge's opinion that this prohibition is founded on Christianity is, like most of his words, an expression of bigoted ignorance. We do better now. Henry desperately wants us to do much worse. Ain't going to happen. There aren't enough bigots like Henry any more. But watch out. If they manage to subvert and destroy enough science in the public schools, they'll turn the public schools into bigot factories. Vigilance. Price of liberty, y'know. Henry, bless him, is proving a good source of reasons to be vigilant. Do you suppose that's why he was put here?

Correction: began, not became

No, it doesn't, Henry. It proves that there were idiots and bigots on the bench in 1824. That's all it proves. The men who wrote the first amendment to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would have given that judge the backs of their hands.

And I see, reading it again, that this "judgement" amounts only to a recital of the judge's opinion. The defendent got off.

Henry said: That confirms the United States became as a Christian nation, but was hijacked by secularists.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

Henry said: That confirms the United States became as a Christian nation, but was hijacked by secularists.

Am sorry to disappoint you, Henry, but our Founding Fathers were inspired by the French - and especially - Scottish Enlightenments, and though many were nominally "Christian", by today's standards they would be viewed as secular humanists (In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Conservative Republican trained in evolutionary biology who comments here frequently.).

Henry said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

Henry said: That confirms the United States became as a Christian nation, but was hijacked by secularists.

Am sorry to disappoint you, Henry, but our Founding Fathers were inspired by the French - and especially - Scottish Enlightenments, and though many were nominally "Christian", by today's standards they would be viewed as secular humanists (In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Conservative Republican trained in evolutionary biology who comments here frequently.).

That makes 2 conservative Republicans. From what I've read, the Founding Fathers rejected the French enlightenment, but embraced Blackstone, Grotius, Puffendorf, Locke, and Montesquieu.

Folks, I think this thread has sunk beneath the waves. Thanks for playing.