Basic Evolution And Basic Nietzsche

[Impenitent]

ff

no, the definitions do not match

if it (the government's/rights base) is secular, then it is worldly
creator/god of nature (the government's/rights base) is not worldly
:. it (the government's/rights base) is not secular

it's a simple modus tollens argument

[fedfem]

So what is it, if not secular?

What is a secular priest?

I still know you are wrong but we can agree to disagree.

[fedfem]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
ff

no, the definitions do not match

if it (the government's/rights base) is secular, then it is worldly
creator/god of nature (the government's/rights base) is not worldly
:. it (the government's/rights base) is not secular

it's a simple modus tollens argument<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Here are some quotes regarding the founding:

In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:


"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

[Impenitent]

it is not secular... rights come from some spiritual creator... it isn't a theocracy but is isn't a secular society either... the united states is a constitutional republic

Secular Priest is Rob Halford's new band...

all you ever wanted to know about secular priests is here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01643a.htm

I still know I am right and yes we can agree to disagree

[Impenitent]

more quotes:
Patrick Henry
March 23, 1775.
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

http://www.townhall.com/documents/phenry.html

[fedfem]

and what does this have to do with our argument?

[Impenitent]

at least one "degree under of the influence of heaven" that Adams tried to deny... in fact most of the signers of the declaration of independence were religious and had some degree of faith in a god... Adams premise that this nation was founded by atheists as an atheist nation via reason alone is wrong...

[fedfem]

Adams never said it was founded by atheists--nice try setting up a strawman.

You get confused between a belief in god and belief in religion. Several of the founding fathers were Deists and some were christian as well.

Patrick Henry was a Christian as were others but that has nothing to do with the Constitution which takes precedence over the federalist papers, speeches, letters etc..., as far as the authority. If the US was meant to be theocratic or religious(which is the opposite of secular) then the christians would have made damned sure Jesus' name was in there or something referring to the scriptures.

[Impenitent]

Adams said it was founded by reason alone, without appeal to the godly or metaphysical... no straw man there... there were plenty of appeals to the metaphysical especially concerning the source of rights... in order for it to be a secular nation, there must be no reference to any non worldly source for anything concerning the nation, when in fact the rights themselves that this government was created to protect are those which come from a non worldly source... it wasn't meant to be religious or theocratic but it was not meant to be athiestic or secularist either... you seem to confuse worldly with non worldly... screw jesus, he has nothing to do with it, nor does any christian church...

the foundation of this government is rights granted by a metaphysical creator, that means it cannot be secular

[fedfem]

the foundation of this government is rights granted by a metaphysical creator, that means it cannot be secular


Where in the Constitution does it say that?

This argument is a waste, since the argument by the Bushy group is that this is a Christian Nation.

Christian nation is the only charge I am concerned with.

What makes you think you know better than the men who founded what they meant and did?

[Impenitent]

you have seen their writings and you know and have admitted their religious leanings as well...

I have never said this was a christian nation

-What makes you think you know better than the men who founded what they meant and did?

I have read their writings and formed logical opinions based upon them

and back at you, what makes you think you know better than the men who founded what they meant and did?

[fedfem]

You were the one who commented on Adams:

Adams premise that this nation was founded by atheists as an atheist nation via reason alone is wrong...

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fedfem,)


Here are some quotes regarding the founding:

In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:


"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

"it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

I stand by my comment...
contrived merely by reason and the senses is an atheist position
merely by reason and the senses allows for no metaphysics (beyond senses) whatsoever... all rights come from the metaphysical "creator"

you never answered the question, what makes you think you know better than the men who founded what they meant and did?

[fedfem]

You are the one spouting some metaphysical creator, not I. What the hell are you arguing here?


I say the US was founded as a Seclular Nation. I have evidence from the writings of the founding fathers. You are presenting the same evidence to knock down a strawman you set up that has nothing to do with the problem today.

I do not disagree that there were christians, diests and who knows what else, it doesn't matter. They all agreed on a Secular Government. Congress would stay out of religion and religion stays out of government. There is no religious test for anyone to hold office.

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fedfem,)
You are the one spouting some metaphysical creator, not I. What the hell are you arguing here?


I say the US was founded as a Seclular Nation. I have evidence from the writings of the founding fathers. You are presenting the same evidence to knock down a strawman you set up that has nothing to do with the problem today.

I do not disagree that there were christians, diests and who knows what else, it doesn't matter. They all agreed on a Secular Government. Congress would stay out of religion and religion stays out of government. There is no religious test for anyone to hold office.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

read the declaration and the other documents, the founders were spouting the metaphysical creator...

I say the US was founded as a constitutional republic to protect the rights given to the citizens by a metaphysical entity. that metaphysical right granting entity insures a degree of spirituality or non-worldlyness at the base of the government which denies the claim that it could be a secular government.

I have evidence from the writings of the founding fathers that says the US is not a secular nation. No, they did not agree on a secular government. while it is correct that they said that government would not establish any religion, it is not possible for religion to stay out of government. religious people vote and hold political office. there is no religious test, true; but there is no athiest/irreligious test either...

[fedfem]

I say the US was founded as a constitutional republic


Exactly! Read the Constitution. A secular document. No mention of any god or creator.

[Impenitent]

nice try to take it out of context

"I say the US was founded as a constitutional republic to protect the rights given to the citizens by a metaphysical entity."

exactly! and read the other documents... the founding is more than the constitution... there are far more laws than the constitution... read the state constitutions... it is not christian but it is not a secular government by any stretch...

what do you think was the purpose of the constitution?