1. clifton harrison wrote:

I live in California, Oakland to be exact, so I understand the fustration. So do other people see a link between the way blacks have/are treated in America with the way LGBT’s are? Or is it just me…

2. Ann wrote:

What you have hear is the bradley effect…you have those who say oh I support gay rights when asked, but when they got in that booth- well u know the rest…..

3. DCI74 wrote:

Clif I can understand the frustration but I am of the group that gets uncomfortable when the stuggle faced by black people is compared to that of the LGBTQ community. I am not saying that their struggle isn’t important or as a way to pass judgement but to me they just aren’t close to similar.

4. Tanya wrote:

Cosign DC ALLLLL day long!!!

The ban on gay marriage passed in Cali, Arizona, and Florida!

A ban on abortion passed in South Dakota!

Obama is President!

I see this country moving in the RIGHT direction!!!

GOD Bless America!

5. Tanya wrote:

GOD Bless the Mormons!!!

Thanks to them for working so hard to make sure GOD’s will be done!!! – Passing Prop 8

6. Tanya wrote:

Oh and, this is America people – a democracy – MAJORITY RULE!!!

The majority of people agree with the ban. It was voted on, and fairly passed!

Contesting it is a waste of time. It would be like anti-Obama people contesting the election.

THE PEOPLE VOTED!!! DEAL WITH IT!

7. David wrote:

This issue is petty. Homosexual couples in California already have the same state privileges as married heterosexuals, so where is the inequality? The LBGT community is fighting for the word “marry.” It’s all semantics. This isn’t the “separate but (un)equal” discrimination that existed before the civil rights movement. Unlike the civil rights movement, there is no disparity between government funding, facilities, or services provided for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Also, homosexual rights movement has been rather nonviolent, unlike the civil rights movement.

I can’t cosign comment #6. Majority rule leads to tyranny of the majority. Under that rationale, whites (the majority) were able to legally mistreat blacks.

8. Clifton Harrison wrote:

Well Tanya, one could argue that special interest groups (mormons, etc.), never mind.

DC, i understand exactly what you are saying. You can’t compare them in the sense of the effect the discrimination has had on blacks with the effects it’s had on the LGBTQ community, but i was more so saying that both groups have been discriminated against (personally and legislatively).

I find it hard when people (minorities especially) argue that the LGBTQ community isn’t being discriminated against, when we went thru a similar type of discrimination ourselves (in the sense of we were not being treated as equal, and afforded the same rights as others).

But just to be clear, i am not comparing or equating slavery and our struggle to the LGBTQ struggle.

9. Clifton Harrison wrote:

David, I believe that the actual “marriage” term is a entirely different debate, (one that i don’t like getting into because it involves peoples religious beliefs).

But in terms of rights, I’m like 99% positive that LGBTQ couples do not have all the same rights and benefits afforded to heterosexual couples.

10. Derwin wrote:

Tanya, Majority rule is not always the final authority. The Constitution also plays a role in the laws of the land. Also, don’t be fooled. Why is it we can vote on certain policies and not on others? It’s all pollitical fodder… If Americans were all given the chance to vote on universal health care, the legalization of marijuana they’d all pass. But we’ll never see that hapen.

11. Clifton Harrison wrote:

“Contesting it is a waste of time. It would be like anti-Obama people contesting the election”

And Tanya, I think we both know that this prop that passed can’t be compared to the election of Obama. But i understand that you are passionate about this topic.

12. Tanya wrote:

Clif,

“Well Tanya, one could argue that special interest groups (mormons, etc.), never mind.”

No, what? Say it! I’m very interested in what you have to say here!

13. Tanya wrote:

“And Tanya, I think we both know that this prop that passed can’t be compared to the election of Obama. But i understand that you are passionate about this topic.”

It can be compared, in the sense that it was given to the people to make a decision. You can’t get made if you were fairly out voted!

Prop 8 wasn’t decided by 1 judge or 12 jurors. It was given to the people to cast their vote!

14. DCI74 wrote:

Ok Clif thanks I see what you’re saying.

15. Tanya wrote:

David,

“Majority rule leads to tyranny of the majority.”

Ok, I see someone to a Poli Sci course!!!

I reject that notion on the basis that a tyrant or tyranny in any regard, can NOT be influenced. But the majority, can!

Tyranny doesn’t allow for opposition and doesn’t give choices. But a democracy does! So in actuality, there can never truly be a tyranny of the majority, b/c in democracy, both sides, all sides, are given equal opportunity to state their cause!

16. Clifton Harrison wrote:

I guess in the sense that people make a decision, but the actual decision process for a prop is entirely different than a presidential election.

You didn’t have representatives of the “yes for prop 8″ and “no for prop 8″ have a statewide debate for everyone to tune in and learn about what a person is deciding on.

But it’s not really any use going back and forth on this issue because your faith is involved, and that prohibits you from budging on this topic.

17. Clifton Harrison wrote:

Well, i shouldn’t say that.

Lets start with the basics. Tanya, do you feel LGBTQ ’s should have the same rights as heterosexual couples?

18. Tanya wrote:

Derwin,

“Why is it we can vote on certain policies and not on others?”

B/c their are too many policies! The general public can’t go voting everyday!

That’s why we elect official (Congressmen and Senators) who share our views, to vote on our behalf! The Congressmen and Senators vote based on what their constituents want (or at least they should!).

But things that are considered of utmost importance or things that the Congressman and Senators can’t agree on (with a majority), they take to the people.

So Prop 8 went to the people, and the people voted!

19. Tanya wrote:

Derwin,

“If Americans were all given the chance to vote on universal health care, the legalization of marijuana they’d all pass.”

Don’t be so sure! I know there are alot of people who light up, but there are a whole lot more who would never support it!

20. Piscean Princess wrote:

To answer the original post & comment, yeah I find this sad & outrageous. And I have always found my people to be strangely unsupportive of granting rights to human beings who are citizens of this country. This was a devastating loss for the GLBT community and the country as a whole. I am hopeful, though that change will come for all people soon, and very soon.

21. David wrote:

Clif, in California, homosexual couples have the same state privileges as heterosexual couples (e.g. taxes, benefits, healthcare, etc.). However, they don’t have the same federal privileges. It would take a constitutional amendment to change that. Marriage has cultural, legal, financial, and religious implications so this discussion can get very complicated. I’ve avoided going in that direction. I’ve kept it strictly in the government and legal realm.

22. Tanya wrote:

Clif,

“I guess in the sense that people make a decision, but the actual decision process for a prop is entirely different than a presidential election.”

Yes, you’re right the process of the decision is entirely different! The process of the decision on referendums are much more fair and direct!

“You didn’t have representatives of the “yes for prop 8″ and “no for prop 8″ have a statewide debate for everyone to tune in and learn about what a person is deciding on.”

I don’t understand what you are saying here. Can you rephrase it?

“But it’s not really any use going back and forth on this issue because your faith is involved, and that prohibits you from budging on this topic.”

That’s true! My faith is not going to allow me to budge here!

23. Clifton Harrison wrote:

I see David, Well I think that’s basically what it stems down to. I feel that LGBTQ’s should have the same rights as I, and anyone else, whether it be state or federal.

Now on the issue of calling their union “marriage”, that debate i don’t like and rarely get into because it deals with religion.

So my basic argument is that whether or not it’s called marriage, or partner union, that’s one thing, but at the very basic, we should still have equal rights for people.

24. Clifton Harrison wrote:

and Tanya,

“You didn’t have representatives of the “yes for prop 8″ and “no for prop 8″ have a statewide debate for everyone to tune in and learn about what a person is deciding on.”

Basically, Obama and McCain had a platform to speak to the nation with the 3 debates, propositions don’t get that same oppurtunity on a state level.

25. Tanya wrote:

Clif,

To answer your #17:

I think all people should be loved and respected and treated with liberty.

No one is stopping gays from living with, engaging with each other!

But the government has to place limits and restrictions, standards and morals on the actions of its people!

That’s why we have laws!

I’m sure pedophiles may feel like they were born attracted to kids, and I’m sure they want the “freedom” to marry a child.

But the country has set a standard and a moral against that!

If we allow gays to get married, we are going to have to allow pedophiles to get married, and we are going to have to allow objectophiles to get married, and we are going to have to let people who engage in beastiality to get married.

We have to draw the line at man-woman marriages or else we open the door to any and everything else!

We have to set a standard, and that standard has to be rooted in GOD!

26. David wrote:

Tanya, basing all decisions solely on majority rule would legitimize discrimination of minorities (racial, religious, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, etc.). Also,you said there can’t be tyranny of the majority in a democracy because in a democracy we have choices? A democracy is more than just having the right to vote and having choices. The right to vote doesn’t mean much if all the candidates want to oppress me. Democracy is also about respecting minorities, civil rights, and liberties.

27. Tanya wrote:

Clif,

“Basically, Obama and McCain had a platform to speak to the nation with the 3 debates, propositions don’t get that same oppurtunity on a state level.”

Yeah they do! Groups, i.e. Mormons, GLBT advocates, make commercials, write articles, have events, give speeches, protest, etc…

You may have missed it, like many people miss the debates and still vote, but there was alot of activity all over Cali and the rest of the country with both sides stating their cause!

28. wow wrote:

Nutcase (Tanya),

You know, in Germany under the Third Reich had they held a nationwide referendum on whether Jews should have been imprisoned and exterminated, the majority of the country would have decided that this was appropriate. The same would have been true had they polled all whites in the slave south on the continued existence of slavery.

Does that make exterminating Jews or the enslavement of Black people any more acceptable?

Human rights should not be subject to popular opinion. Bigots like you are too quick to snatch them away based on puerile prejudices and crackpot beliefs in magic.

Fuck what your god tells you. You are a disgrace.

29. Clifton Harrison wrote:

See Tanya, i’m not talking about marriage, I’m just talking about people having equal rights. I don’t want us to get off topic.

“But the government has to place limits and restrictions, standards and morals on the actions of its people”

But is it fair for those morals to be based on by a specific religion?

It once was a law that prohibited black and white people from getting married. So your argument of “that’s why we have laws” is flawed.

But from my understanding, it seems as though you believe that LGBTQ’s should not have the same rights as heterosexual couples (regardless of what they call the union). Am i correct?

And i understand they had events and debates, but not any that was held during primetime that was broadcasted to everyone in California at the same time. Basically i was just trying to elaborate on my point that the presidential election process cannot be compared to a proposition process.

30. Clifton Harrison wrote:

uh oh…well Tanya, before you go on a rant, just calmly read my message and respond. thanks

31. David wrote:

Clif, we both agree that homosexuals and heterosexuals deserve the same governmental privileges. Here in Cali, the LBGT community has the same privileges; they’re arguing for the word “marriage”. Like you, I don’t want to have that discussion because it starts to get really complicated and contentious. While we’re at it, I’m a Marine and I think that homosexuals should be able to openly serve in the military.

32. Piscean Princess wrote:

Any 2 consenting adults who want to have a union (marriage or otherwise)has ZERO impact on me, unless I am one of those adults. There are really no floodgates to be opened by allowing GLBTs to have the rights of married couples.

33. carisma wrote:

I am glad that the people of California voted the way they. I hate when people compare minority rights as the same as gay rights. It is not the same. People have the right to be gay or straight, but it should never be seen as ok or acceptable by law. It is a personal choice. We don’t choose our race but we choose to be gay or straight.

34. Tanya wrote:

David,

“basing all decisions solely on majority rule would legitimize discrimination of minorities (racial, religious, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, etc.)” – David

Not necessarily!!! To say that is to ignore that fact that people outside of a minority, support minority causes. You don’t have to be black to vote in favor of black issues!

As I said in #15, in a democracy, both sides, all sides, are given equal opportunity to state their cause!

Even if you strongly support “A”, a democracy allows for the opportunity for you to be influenced to change your mind and support “B”.

With tyranny, there is no choice or opportunity to be influenced.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on the tyrannical tendencies of a majority rule!

35. David wrote:

The essence of Prop 8 is semantics. Cali has civil unions. I oppose gay marriage, but I support civil unions. For someone who supports gay marriage, I’d like to ask what makes marriage better than a civil union?

36. Tanya wrote:

Wow,

“You know, in Germany under the Third Reich had they held a nationwide referendum on whether Jews should have been imprisoned and exterminated, the majority of the country would have decided that this was appropriate.”

You have to be the NUT to say something as ridiculous as that!

You must of missed every course or study on Germany and the Holocaust!!!

The majority of Germans hated Hitler. The majority of Germans hid Jews in their homes from the Nazis to protect the Jews (Didn’t you read Ann Frank – that’s one of the greatest examples). Hitler had no support outside of his base. In fact many of the Nazi’s didn’t believe in what they were doing, but were just afraid of Hitler so followed suit.

If the Germans were given the free and safe right to vote on the Holocaust, there is NO DOUBT, they would have voted in favor of the Jews!!!! If there was majority rule in Germany, the majority would have rejected the efforts of the Holocaust.

The only disgrace is that you can use the a curse word and GOD in the same sentence!

May GOD help you!

37. clifton harrison wrote:

fasho David…

38. Tanya wrote:

Clif,

“But is it fair for those morals to be based on by a specific religion?”

That is an excellent question! I guess the answer would be no!

But since pretty much every religion acknowledges that homosexuality is against GOD, I’m not sure if that question is really relevant here.

“It once was a law that prohibited black and white people from getting married. So your argument of “that’s why we have laws” is flawed.”

(Damn Clif, you’ve been stepping your game up!)

That’s a clever argument! I don’t think that law had Biblical roots. But I think you would agree that the majority of our laws are fair and just and in place to protect the people. And that’s why I support a law banning gay marriage.

“But from my understanding, it seems as though you believe that LGBTQ’s should not have the same rights as heterosexual couples (regardless of what they call the union). Am i correct?”

You are correct!

(btw – what does the Q stand for – “LGBTQ’s”???)

39. Derwin wrote:

Tanya,
You wouldn’t vote for me to light one!? Man! That makes me want to smoke even more.

40. Tanya wrote:

Piscean Princess,

I am seriously not being sarcastic here. I would really appreciate your honest response:

“There are really no floodgates to be opened by allowing GLBTs to have the rights of married couples.”

If gays are allowed to get married, don’t you think that a man who is romantically in love with his dog (there are truly people like that out there, that’s beastiality), is going to want the right marry for love also???

Don’t you think objectophiles (people who love toaster-overs and buildings, they ARE out there) are going to want the right to marry for love too???

It’s the most basic principle that all judges are suppose to consider before rendering a decision – If I do this for one, I am going to have to do it for ALL, would that be good?!?!?!

41. Derwin wrote:

Q stands for questioning your sexuality… In my case it can be referred to as the moment just before my partner decides if I hit it or not..

42. Tanya wrote:

“Q stands for questioning your sexuality”

Oh, Ok!

(see that right there speaks volumes of the whole gay legitimacy. but I’m not going there right now!)

43. Tanya wrote:

BTW – Derwin, you are a mess! LOL!

44. Piscean Princess wrote:

Tanya,

None of those circumstances hurts any unwilling human being, including me. I would certainly find marraige to a dog or a toaster bizarre and would likely never participate in such a union. But that does not impact me one bit.

As far as I’m concerned, the laws that we have that you consider morality based, I consider based on personal safety. Murder is against the law….if a murderer moves in next door to me, I have a legitemate reason to be concerned for my wellbeing and that of my family. Same goes for child predators, rapists, etc. Same sex couples are not presenting any danger to me whatsoever. For that matter, neither is the dude who is in love with his dog. Strange, yes. My business, no.

45. Tanya wrote:

PP,

“I would certainly find marraige to a dog or a toaster bizarre…”

And those people may hate you and call you mean and unloving for that. So I hope you can understand and respect my feelings of gay marriage being “bizarre”!

This is not about you, or me. It’s not about whether we are effected by their actions or not. It’s about protecting them.

The government has an obligation to protect people from others AND to protect people from themselves!

It doesn’t effect me if Derwin lights up, but it effects him. There are laws against drugs to protect the drug user!

Homosexuality effects (hurts/destroys) the homosexuals’ soul and body.

There are many laws enacted, simply, to protect people from themselves! And those laws are fully necessary!

46. Miss Martin wrote:

The LGBT community can rest assured that by the margin by which the proposition passed (which was not that large)…its safe to say–”this too shall pass”–all the ‘bible thumpers’ and ‘religious zealots’ will definitely find themselves on the wrong side of history much sooner than later…God does not care who you love as long as you love…

the bible was written by a human…(like whaaaaaaat) God ain’t write that book…nobody knows what God really wants from us…Imma need the hard-nosed christians and LGBT haters to relax a bit with the extraneous amount of bullshit excuses as to why they some bonafide EARLY haters…

SMH….we’ll rise

47. R.oB. wrote:

The fundamental problem here that embarrasses me is that black people are overwhelmingly supporting a law that operated against them in exactly the same way only a few short decades ago. To quote a friend, “You’d think a people once viewed as genetically disadvantaged would know better.” But he forgets that no group that was ever oppressed is not ennobled by that oppression. This is case in point. It is also not a coincidental irony that all of Tanya’s arguments were used to support miscegenation laws, (her mischaracterizations of history notwithstanding).

DC, I am deeply skeptical of the equivalence argument in the opposite sense. Sexism and racism are not the same, yet they are morally equivalent. Heterosexism is as evil as racism is. It has the same means and ends.

Tanya, our laws are based on the Constitution of the United States which conspicuously omits any mention of God. Further, the First Amendment is pretty clear on government and religion. So, slow down on God being the basis of our laws. As for majority rule I will quote James Madison, regarded as the father of the Constitution:

Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents. [emphasis mine]

48. Tanya wrote:

Miss Martin,

“nobody knows what God really wants from us”

“God does not care who you love as long as you love”

I thought you didn’t know what GOD wanted?!?!?! lol

YOU may be uncertain of GOD’s call on us, but they are millions who are not! They know that GOD did write The Holy Bible, and they follow it!

49. R.oB. wrote:

Two point from our President Elect:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

Any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion.

This goes for both sides.

Even those who claim the Bible’s inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages – the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ’s divinity – are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.

The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.

But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation – context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase “under God.” I didn’t. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs – targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers – that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.

50. Piscean Princess wrote:

Tanya,

Finding something bizarre is very different from hate and it is also different from fighting, arguing and voting against it. It really doesn’t matter if I think that marriage to one’s toaster is odd. What matters is it is none of my business and the toaster-marrier is not hurting anyone so WHO CARES?

Your belief about the impact that homosexuality has on the homosexual is your own. If the law that now restricts California marriages to one man & one woman was truly intended to support your belief (that it is in place to protect the LGBT community against itself) then why didn’t they propose outlawing homosexuality in general? They tried that years ago and most (if not all) states have stricken those ridiculous laws from the books. The laws of this country are not supposed to be based the religious beliefs of any religious group. (As RoB so eloquently stated)

51. Miss Martin wrote:

God=Love Tanya…period point blank and all that other non-sense is just that, non-sense…happy worship!

52. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

(Wud up homie! Long time no debate!)

“So, slow down on God being the basis of our laws.”

But it IS!!! The founding fathers were extremely religious men, over 55% of them Episcopalian (as am I).

They may have left the word GOD out of the Constitution (to be “fair” to all – not something I would agree with) but there were very loud about GOD’s will, and there are clear references to biblical principles and divine, “inalienable” rights (who do you think those “inalienable” rights come from???).

I appreciate your attention to James Madison’s thoughts, but that addresses the “tyranny of majority” and I already expressed how I feel regarding that, to David on in this thread.

You quoted and excerpt from James Madison’s letter to Thomas Jefferson; I would like it if you took the time to read Jefferson’s letter to Madison!

Jefferson is really the Father!

53. R.oB. wrote:

Tanya, you said,

The government has an obligation to protect people from others AND to protect people from themselves!

I guess the government should protect poor people from their poverty too right?

54. Tanya wrote:

Absolutely!

55. Tanya wrote:

But the government also has to protect people from the perils of their laziness, as so, not give free handouts to those to abuse and don’t really NEED, free handouts!

56. R.oB. wrote:

Tanya, you have a lot to learn about poverty. If 30% of jobs in this country pay less than $10/hour ($20,800/year), plenty of people need help. Jesus wants us to give to the lazy people, the industrious people, the people who will pay us back, and the ones that won’t. It’s not about them, its about us.

57. Tanya wrote:

Miss Martin,

“God=Love”

Amen!

You are absolutely right!

What I think you are missing about my position is that you can LOVE someone (I do love gays!), and not support their downfalls.

You can LOVE your mother, father, brother, sister, and still OPPOSE their drug habit, and do all that you can to PREVENT them from using drugs, without jeopardizing that LOVE!

58. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

I think you have alot to learn about what CAUSES poverty!

Many people DON”T WORK simply b/c they DON’T WANT TO!

They figure, why get a job and deal with stress when I can sit here and watch TV, AND collect a check!

Do you think Jesus wants us to sustain their flawed perception of life and work, by supporting them???

“By the sweat of thy brow, thy shall be feed”!

You’re right, it is about US. It’s about us being wise in our charity and our willingness to give!

But I’m sure you won’t give a donation to a satanic organization! Just b/c they are in “need”. (Or for any reason)

Jesus does not expect you to support the “evil”! If you get what I’m saying!

59. R.oB. wrote:

Jefferson is considered the major author of the Declaration of independence. But let’s see what ol’ Tommy had to say:

On the Bible:

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

The Jefferson Bible omits all Biblical passages asserting Jesus’ virgin birth, miracles, divinity, and resurrection by the way.

On Christianity:

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

On Jesus’ divinity:

The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter … But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

60. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

Oh brother!

Ok, I KNOW YOU ARE TOOOOOO SMART TO TAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT!!!!

You must be just playing with me!!!

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814″

COMMON LAW, is one of the key words there!

Common law is BRITISH LAW!!!! The Founding Fathers wanted to escape the BRITS and their COMMON LAW!!!!

An Jefferson made is clear that his point in that letter was that the Monarch of Great Britain existed BEFORE Christianity can to be, before it was an organized, identified religion!!!!

I’m to to look for the exact quote now…

61. Tanya wrote:

“But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.” – Jefferson’s letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, from Monticello, February 10, 1814.

That was the sentence that preceded the incomplete thought that you quoted out of context!

What Jefferson was saying is Common Law existed BEFORE the religion of Christianity came to be or was even known, AND SOOOOO – there is no way common law could of been based on Christianity!

62. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

I have to admit, I am not familiar with the quotes you issued regarding Jefferson’s “position” on the Bible or Jesus’ divinity!

But considering how grossly out of context you misinterpreted Jefferson’s statements on the connection of COMMON LAW and Christianity, I have no legitimate reason to consider your other points valid!

I can only believe you took them out of context as well!

(But I will look up those quotes and the writings it came from when I get the time.)

63. R.oB. wrote:

Tanya, stop yelling.

Most of our laws are based on british common law. For sure many states divorce law is. I don’t know where you get your info, but you don’t have to believe me: h t t p ://en wikipedia org/wiki/Common_law

But I could care less about common law, you assert that our laws are from God as in the Christian God because Jefferson was the father of the Constitution. I’ve provided clear evidence that this can’t be the case. His view of the Gospels is proof positive. The Jefferson bible is also. Essentially asserting that the Christian faith is a perversion of Jesus’ true teachins is QED! Case closed.

64. R.oB. wrote:

Just go to Wikiquote.org

65. R.oB. wrote:

I double checked to see if I was taking things out of context. Here’s a fuller quote. You, Tanya, are woefully misinformed. Here is a fuller quote for your info:

For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons, on their settlement in England, and altered, from time to time, by proper legislative authority, from that, to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law, or lex non scripta, and commences that of the statute law, or lex scripta. This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century; but Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian King of the Heptarchy, having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. If it ever, therefore, was adopted into the common law, it must have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Charta. But of the laws of this period, we have a tolerable collection, by Lambard and Wilkins; probably not perfect, but neither very defective; and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it; but none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons, to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians; and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are able to find among them no such act of adoption; we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.

The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of
the United States, Published 1904, pages 90-91.

66. R.oB. wrote:

@ #60

I’m not doing the Scripture missiles. You can quote one-liners all day. Means nothing.

67. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

LOL!!! What am I “woefully misinformed” about?!?!

Your corrected quotation PROVES EXACTLY what I said!

“If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons, to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the ***common law***, because they were ***not yet*** Christians;”

Jefferson is saying Christianity was never apart of ***COMMON LAW*** = British Law! B/c common law came BEFORE Christianity!

(that’s what I said in #60 & #61)

The Founding Fathers liberated/broke away from England b/c they had fundamental problems with COMMON LAW!!!!!

I have stated that OUR laws are Biblically based.

In #47 you said:

“…slow down on God being the basis of *our* laws.”

As to say OUR laws are NOT Biblically based.

Then, you attempt to grant credence to your point by stating in #59:

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814″

You were attempted to disprove my statement that OUR Laws are Biblically based! (At which you failed!)

Do you not understand the difference between OUR laws and COMMON LAW! Do you not understand that the Founding Fathers had problems with COMMON LAW and that’s why they came here and created “OUR” Laws???

COMMON LAW was not based on Christianity b/c Common Law came first. The monarch (government) that set Common Law were NOT Christians!!! (Christianity didn’t exist then!!!)

But OUR laws are biblically based, and our Founding Fathers, the ones who set OUR laws, were ALL Christians!!!!

You obviously took the quote out of context and still don’t understand what it means!!!

Woe to YOU Rob, WOE TO YOU!!!

68. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

There’s no “scripture missiles” in #60. There is no scripture at all in #60!!!

69. Mrs. Rivers wrote:

The sad thing about this proposition is that it was already ruled by the Supreme Court and clearly stated in California Constitution that homosexuals could legally marry in the State of California. It should have NEVER gone back to the voters to challenge the judges’ decision.

To answer your question Marc, although California is very liberal, African Americans are still very conservative in their values. So are the latinos and the asians. I wouldnt solely say that the proposition passed only because black folks voted for it.

This proposition will probably go back to the California Supreme Court where it will be overturned and the original law that they already voted on, will stand. They might change a few words but overall, gays will have their rights again in the State of California.

70. R.oB. wrote:

Whoops, #58 with the Scripture missiles, not #60. Sorry was in a rush to go to Bible study (or so I thought, no one was there ).

I’ll use Wikipedia out of convenience and leave it at that.

Common law legal systems are in widespread use, particularly in those nations which trace their legal heritage to Britain, including the United Kingdom, most of the United States and Canada, and other former colonies of the British Empire.

I know this because my wife is a lawyer AND I have had training a financial services professional. So I’m not going to argue with you. LOUD REFUTATIONS IN ALL CAPS JUST MAKES YOU LOUD AND WRONG.

It is well known that Jefferson was hostile to revelatory religions preferring reason, natural law, and creator God. Again from Wikipedia

From his careful study of the Bible, Jefferson concluded that Jesus never claimed to be God.[62] He therefore regarded much of the New Testament as “so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture”.[64] He described the “roguery of others of His disciples”, [65] and called them a “band of dupes and impostors”, describing Paul as the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus”, and wrote of “palpable interpolations and falsifications”.[65] He also described the Book of Revelation to be “merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams”.[66] While living in the White House, Jefferson began to piece together his own condensed version of the Gospels, omitting the virgin birth of Jesus, miracles attributed to Jesus, divinity and the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, primarily leaving only Jesus’ moral philosophy, of which he approved. This compilation titled The LIFE AND MORALS OF JESUS OF NAZARETH Extracted Textually from the Gospels Greek, Latin, French, and English was published after his death and became known as the Jefferson Bible.[67]

Many of the most prominent Founding Fathers were not Christians as we would call them but Deists or sympathizers of Deist thought. I learned this back in Catholic High School. Wikipedia once again,

In the United States, Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, expressed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Founding Fathers who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson. Their political speeches show distinct deistic influence. Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, John Adams, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen [32] and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout America and Europe). Elihu Palmer (1764-1806) wrote the “Bible” of American deism in his Principles of Nature (1801) and attempted to organize deism by forming the “Deistical Society of New York.”

This was fun. A good history refresher. For the quotes just search Wikipedia for “Thomas Jefferson,” “Founding Fathers,” “Common Law,” and “Deism.”

71. Tanya wrote:

“We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!” – John Adams and John Hancock, April 18, 1775

72. Tanya wrote:

“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

“[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”

–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

73. Tanya wrote:

“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 moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams, October 11, 1798

74. Tanya wrote:

“He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” – Samuel Adams, “American Independence”, August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia

75. Tanya wrote:

“ Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” – Samuel Adams, October 4, 1790

76. R.oB. wrote:

That’s a great quote! Wikipedia has this to say

The Unitarian Universalist Historical Society sheds some light on Adams’s religious beliefs.[60] They quote from his letter to Benjamin Rush, an early promoter of Universalist thought, “I have attended public worship in all countries and with all sects and believe them all much better than no religion, though I have not thought myself obliged to believe all I heard.” The Society also relates how Rush reconciled Adams to his former friend Thomas Jefferson in 1812, after many bitter political battles. This resulted in correspondence between Adams and Jefferson about many topics, including philosophy and religion. In one of these communications, Adams told Jefferson, “The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion.” In another letter, Adams reveals his sincere devotion to God, “My Adoration of the Author of the Universe is too profound and too sincere. The Love of God and his Creation; delight, Joy, Tryumph, Exaltation in my own existence, tho’ but an Atom, a molecule Organique, in the Universe, are my religion.” He continues by revealing his Universalist sympathies, rejection of orthodox Christian dogma, and his personal belief that he was a true Christian for not accepting such dogma, “Howl, Snarl, bite, Ye Calvinistick! Ye Athanasian Divines, if You will. Ye will say, I am no Christian: I say Ye are no Christians: and there the Account is ballanced. Yet I believe all the honest men among you, are Christians in my Sense of the Word.” The Society also demonstrates that Adams rejected orthodox Christian doctrines of the trinity, predestination, yet equated human understanding and the human conscience to “celestial communication” or personal revelation from God. It is also shown that Adams held a strong conviction in life after death or otherwise, as he explained, “you might be ashamed of your Maker.”[60]

Just so you know, I’m NOT NOT NOT doing this to ding you. I’m just checking your facts and reporting Wikipedia information. Please search under “John Adams” to check for yourself so you can be sure.

77. Tanya wrote:

“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?” “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?” – John Quincy Adams, 1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

78. Tanya wrote:

“Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” – Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence, In his letter to James McHenry on November 4, 1800.

This is where Barack Obama pulled much of his thought in that speech you quoted from him in #49. Notice that Obama notes religious commitments/practices as “sublime”, YET, states it “would be a dangerous thing”.

That’s a clever way for him to play both sides of the field!!! (That Obezzy is the man! So smart, sooo slick! I think it’s great! I love him!)

Notice he didn’t say it would be WRONG, just dangerous! Well people do dangerous things all the time, especially if they consider them sublime!!!

79. R.oB. wrote:

in #76 I was referring to #71. AS for the rest, I think only an idiot would claim that Christianity had nothing to do with the mores and principles of many of the Founders. But my history class taught me that many or even most all of the heavyweights, i.e. Hamilton, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Adams (not beer guy Sam but John), were Deists or heavily sympathetic to that worldview and who took a very dim view of the very religion you profess was so dominant. Just because there were more slaves on the plantation doesn’t mean they were running the show.

I’ll concede that there is controversy now, but all the arguments seem to come from revisionists who want to make the Continental Congress a Christian affair and others an atheist one. Yawn. It’s hard to buy either side when the big dogs were Deist in some form or other, save Patrick Henry.

80. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

In response to your #75:

I have NOOO interest in some organization stating they ***THINK*** Adams “rejected orthodox Christian doctrines of the trinity, predestination”!

(LOL You’ve got to be kidding me!!! There are organizations professing that Obama is a Muslim, and use his middle name and father’s religion as “proof”. They take Obama’s previous statements and pictures {you remember that pic is Muslim garb right!} OUT OF CONTEXT, and use it as “proof” that Obama is a Muslim. But TRUTH be told, he is NOT!)

Show me a quote, directly from Adams himself, stating that he rejects Christian doctrines!

You CAN’T! B/c Adams was an extremely religious, GOD fearing Christian!!!

81. R.oB. wrote:

#77 That quote is not inconsistent with thinking that Adams sentiments in #76. Most pointedly, he disses Athanasius, a proponent of Jesus divinity during the Aryan controversy, and Calvin for his Calvinism. Harshly.

82. R.oB. wrote:

Hey Tanya, I was just using Wikipedia as you do for convenience. But whatever the society thinks, his quotes are pretty straightforward. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria in the fourth century, was a proponent of Jesus divinity during the Aryan Controversy. To dis “Athanasian Divines” as Jefferson did by the way, speaks pretty clearly to the rejection a central tenet of orthodox Christianity. But you don’t have to believe me, I found this diary entry on Wikiquote.org:

Major Greene this evening fell into some conversation with me about the Divinity and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. All the argument he advanced was, “that a mere creature or finite being could not make satisfaction to infinite justice for any crimes,” and that “these things are very mysterious.”
Thus mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity.
(13 February 1756)

OUCH! I’ll give you God fearing, no doubt. But Christian? Hmmmm.

83. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

“AS for the rest, I think only an idiot would claim that Christianity had nothing to do with the mores and principles of many of the Founders.”

Your right!!! And that idiot was you!

“…slow down on God being the basis of our laws.” – Rob #47

You were obviously trying to say that GOD/Christianity wasn’t the basis of our laws (although it is). And then you followed with this:

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814″ (Rob #59)

Trying to say that since Christianity wasn’t in COMMON LAW , it’s not in ours. – WRONG! But NOW you know that’s only b/c it didn’t exist at the time.

And please have a talk with your wife. As a lawyer, she will tell you that YES some of our laws are derived from SOME of the Common Laws (not all of them were bad). But as part of your history lesson – Our Founding Fathers took serious issue with Common Law, and that’s why they broke away and created DIFFERENT LAWS!!! Which, as you can tell from the quotes above, those new laws were heavily rooted in GOD and Biblically based!

84. R.oB. wrote:

#81 To paraphrase Obama, “Yes I can!” Read #82.

85. Tanya wrote:

Rob,

Again, as I said in #79:

“Show me a quote, directly from Adams himself, stating that he rejects Christian doctrines!”

Your #81 doesn’t show Adams rejecting Christian doctrines!!! ( You have got to be playing a joke on me here!)

Adams was boldly Christian.

Look at Adam’s quote I mentioned in #76…

Adams reference’s the “Saviour’s Birthday” as the greatest day. (By Saviour, he means Jesus!)

Adams also states that the foundation of the Declaration of Independence was based on the “Redeemer’s mission on earth”. (By Redeemer, he means Jesus!)

Adam also states: “That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?”

It’s all in #76. READ #76

86. R.oB. wrote:

#85

“Your right!!! And that idiot was you!” <– Good comeback. The first refuge of the weak: rudeness. If you can’t be respectful, you merely make yourself look foolish.

We got off on tangents about who was Christian and who wasn’t. Back to the biblical basis for our laws. Where in the Bible can I find the basis for any Article or Amendments, esp. the Bill of Rights? You’ve made this assertion over and over. Let’s see you prove it. Convince me if you’ve got the evidence.

87. R.oB. wrote:

Typo: Article of Amendments to the Constitution

88. R.oB. wrote:

Typo squared: Article OR Amendments to the Consitution

89. Tanya wrote:

BTW –

“Hey Tanya, I was just using Wikipedia as you do for convenience.”

I only reference Wiki for silly things, like what is the definition of decency. (As someone asked once)

But I wouldn’t dear use Wiki for something of this historical importance. (Especially since there are many people out there {most of whom live on Wiki} trying to erase Christianity from our history and our modern day lives.)

I have NOT used Wiki to quote anything here! I’ve referenced historian, scholarly and government sites. For the record!

But use Wiki if you chose!

90. R.oB. wrote:

Name some of those sites where you copied the quotes. I’ll check ‘em out. Always down for a good fact check.

91. Tanya wrote:

In response to your #85:

“Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.”

“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

“On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, ‘I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.’”

“For my own part, I sincerely esteem it ***[the Constitution]*** a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” – Alexander Hamilton, 1787 after the Constitutional Convention

“I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.” – Alexander Hamilton

92. Tanya wrote:

@89 – I’ve given you one of the gov sites on that post were we “discussed” the electoral college.

If you google the quotes I’ve given you, I’m sure you can find (with some effort) the reputable sites noting them.

You’re of the Ivy, you can do the research without my help!

93. R.oB. wrote:

From the Massachusetts historical Society searching in the Adams’ diary. Even read the scanned page. Here is the full entry:

13 FRYDAY.
A pleasant morning. Saw my classmates Gardner, and Wheeler. Wheeler dined, spent the afternoon, and drank Tea with me. Supped at Major Gardiners, and ingag’d to keep School at Bristol, provided Worcester People, at their insuing March meeting, should change this into a moving School, not otherwise. Major Greene this Evening fell into some conversation with me about the Divinity and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ. All the Argument he advanced was, “that a mere creature, or finite Being, could not make Satisfaction to infinite justice, for any Crimes,” and that “these things are very misterious.”
[The following sentence appears in the margin; see page image:] Thus mystery is made a convenient Cover for absurdity.

Calling the salvation through Jesus crucifixion absurd sound boldly Christian to you? Jokes. The sky is green.

94. Tanya wrote:

OMG!!! Rob, my dear, I’m not saying this to be mean, I’m saying this b/c I honestly believe it to be true:

YOU HAVE COMPREHENSION DEFICIENCY!!!

Where, in that quote in #92, does ***Adams*** call the Jesus’ death absurd???????

“***Major Greene*** this Evening fell into some conversation with me about the Divinity and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ. All the Argument ***he*** advanced was, “that a mere creature, or finite Being, could not make Satisfaction to infinite justice, for any Crimes,” and that “these things are very misterious. Thus mystery is made a convenient Cover for absurdity.”

How do you not understand that Adams is JUST telling what Greene said??? Adams is quoting (hence the “”) the argument that Greene gave!!!

Thus means Therefore!!!

Adams is telling us that GREENE’s argument is that Jesus was KILLED and killing is wrong, so to make an “excuse” for Jesus’ murder it is said that Jesus’ death was meant to be, a spiritual ought! And THEREFORE/THUS – mystery is made a convenient Cover for absurdity.

THIS IS NOT Adams belief!!! We have plenty of quotes from Adams professing his bold Christianity and worship of Christ and his miracles.

This is Adams telling us what Greene believes and what Greene told him in a conversation that took place in the evening.

You keep taking things OUT OF CONTEXT Rob. I really wish you would read slow and take the time to understand.

I’m not being mean. I’m just trying to help!

95. Tanya wrote:

I seriously think you may really believe the sky is green!

Comprehension and understanding context is everything!

96. R.oB. wrote:

The numbers are getting confusing. When I put the #XX I was referring to your comment not marking mine.

Hamilton says the he believed the Constitution is based on Christianity. Point conceded on his belief, but that’s not proof of what i’m asking specifically. I’d like to see Biblical precepts directly connected to articles and amendments. Christianity as a whole is too vague. Madison which at least some consider as the Father of the Constitution said that the less we mix religion and government the better. And your Father, Jefferson, was openly hostile. So what of Hamilton’s take? Jefferson’s and Madison’s would seem to tack in the opposite conclusion. I’m just asking for clear, conclusive evidence.

97. R.oB. wrote:

Yoooooooooo Tanya. Watch those quotes! Adams is saying, “Thus mystery is made a convenient Cover for absurdity.” The Massachusetts Historical Society, Wikiquote, and most importantly the actual scanned page of his diary render it that way. You shifted some things for personal convenience.

I agree with you that one of does need to slow down indeed. Here is the link if you don’t believe:

http://www dot masshist dot org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=D1&mode=popuplg&pop=D1_3

http://www dot masshist dot org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=D1&numrecs=1&archive=diary&hi=on&mode=&query=Major%20Greene&queryid=&rec=1&start=1&tag=text#firstmatch

98. R.oB. wrote:

Yoooooooooo Tanya. Watch those quotes! Adams is saying, “Thus mystery is made a convenient Cover for absurdity.” The Massachusetts Historical Society, Wikiquote, and most importantly the actual scanned page of his diary render it that way. You shifted some things for personal convenience.

I agree with you that one of does need to slow down indeed. Here is the link if you don’t believe:

www dot masshist dot org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=D1&mode=popuplg&pop=D1_3

www dot masshist dot org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=D1&numrecs=1&archive=diary&hi=on&mode=&query=Major%20Greene&queryid=&rec=1&start=1&tag=text#firstmatch

99. Tanya wrote:

Rob,

Hamilton, a Founding Father, played a key role in the drafting of the Constitution!

“He was the author of 51 of the 85 Federalist Papers.” “The Federalist Papers are THE primary source for Constitutional interpretation.” (Ask your lawyer wife!)

Not to mention, Hamilton is renowned as America’s first Constitutional lawyers, since he drafted the Constitution he knows what the laws mean and where they came from, right! And you know he said they came from GOD, as you conceded.

100. Tanya wrote:

In addition:

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” – Patrick Henry, May 1765, Speech to the House of Burgesses

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.” – Thomas Jefferson

“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” – Thomas Jefferson

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” – Thomas Jefferson

[Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

101. R.oB. wrote:

You are right that Adams praised Christianity, but I find him to be Slick Willie. The Bible is great for spreading morality. Christianity is the expression of the sublime God. But he also calls salvation through the crucifixion absurd. Further he says in a letter to Jefferson, “I see in every Page, Something to recommend Christianity in its Purity and Something to discredit its Corruptions. … The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my Religion.” That smells of soft Deism to me. So I see Adams trying to play it both ways. Far from bold IMHO.

102. Tanya wrote:

Moreover, as you know, the Constitution states our “inalienable” rights!!!

What are “inalienable” rights??? Who did these “inalienable” rights come from???

That is the question! I think you know the answer!

Quoting the Constitution and then quoting the Bible scriptures it corresponds with is a lot of work! Far from an impossible task, but a lot of work! (Since I don’t know the whole Constitution by heart, nor the whole Bible.)

If you REALLY want a few in depth examples I can put it on my things to do for tomorrow!

But for one quick off the top of the head example:

The Bible says – “do not bear false witness on your neighbor” (which means don’t lie on people)

The Constitution makes perjury a crime.

All this I think (hope) you already know! Like you said, one would have to be an idiot to not see that our laws, our Constitution was biblically based!

103. R.oB. wrote:

Look Hamilton is Federalist Paper dude, no doubt. But he’s not he Father of the Constitution. That was Madison. www loc gov/wiseguide/may05/constitution.html And he was against mixing government and religion. You stretching things problematically, but hey if you believe it do yo thang! I prefer facts and evidence support your assertion before forming a positive opinion.

Your post #100 is great. I would agree that almost all the Fathers believed in God and saw him as the source of liberties. Jefferson’s god was not the Christian Triune God. Patrick Henry’s was definitely Christian. (Jefferson had beef with him about establishing religion in Virginia as a matter of fact.) Adam’s was unknown and inchoate? Christian in it’s “pure” form. What the hell is “pure?” So is that really based on God? I don’t think so. Too many gods running around.

But my question was more on the biblical aspects. Where do you see the connections? My guess is there aren’t. Freedom in general is biblical for sure. But freedom for religion, the press, to bear arms (!), disestablishment? No biblical society ever separated church and state. You’ll have to work at that one is my guess, but it’s late.

104. Tanya wrote:

Rob,

“But he [Adams] also calls salvation through the crucifixion absurd.” – Rob

NO HE DOES NOT!!!

Please, read slowly!

Thus means Therefore. Thus = Therefore.

I KNOW Adams is saying:

“Thus mystery is made a convenient Cover for absurdity.”

Thus means Therefore. Thus = Therefore.

Adams states Greene’s argument and then says:

THEREFORE/Thus mystery is made a convenient Cover for absurdity.

This is Adams surmising GREENE’s argument. NOT stating his opinion!

That is what I stated in #93!

105. R.oB. wrote:

I believe you more if God were not conspicuously absent. No mention of even a Creator. The values are there. But non-biblical societies were against bearing false withness, they valorized the Golden Rule, and murder was a crime. That’s more universal. I want a smoking gun. Not circumstantial evidence.

106. R.oB. wrote:

I’ll believe you are misreading Adams to support your opinion. Greene’s argument is commonly forwarded as proof even today of the divinity of Jesus: that only the Son of God could ransom mankind by his death. A mere man dying would not be sufficient. Adams implies that this argument is weak “All the Argument he advanced.” So you are saying the he is surmising and I am saying he is ridiculing. I’ll accept your argument has merit, but inconclusive. It renders mine inconclusive as well. Take it as you will. I ain’t mad atcha. But mine is perfectly reasonable. Given his Deistic tendencies, I’ll stick with mine. “Purity” indeed. >;-|

107. R.oB. wrote:

Can you find quotes that show belief in miracles, etc. on Adams part, too?

108. R.oB. wrote:

I’m off to bed, Tanya. Had MAD FUN with this. I wish Marc would start a discussion board. It’s so much easier. Take care.

109. Tanya wrote:

Rob,

Your killing me with the Deism!!! LOL (really!)

I’ll address that, and the rest tomorrow!

I had madd fun too!

Sleep well!

110. DCI74 wrote:

Dammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnnnnnnnnnnnn when did you two go to sleep??

111. Piscean Princess wrote:

Mrs. Rivers, I certainly hope that you are correct.

112. R.oB. wrote:

DC, made late. We discrovered Quote Missiles were more fun than Scripture Missiles!

Tanya, I’m stubborn with the Deism because I was taught that in school by a teacher I trust. I’m deeply skeptical of efforts to Christianize the birth of our nation because of the Constantinian tendencies of such efforts. Clarifying history is great but revisionism is not. Most objective history I read speaks of Deism imbuing the process. All of the FF I actually care about were smoking on Enlightenment dubs. Deism is what happens when Reason becomes a religious tenet. I’m not saying that these guys were against Christianity (well maybe Jefferson was) just that they were FAR from born again evangelicals or something like that. Which is what people try to imply when we hear things like the Continental Congress was Christian. I fully concede and accede that Adams would lavish praise on our religion but when the whole of your religion is “reduced” (for lack of a better word) to a set of moral statements as the Jefferson Bible was, I can’t really call that Christian whatever they did on Sunday morning. But that just me, girl. Your take is as good as mine.

113. Peyso wrote:

I dont see why so many heterosexual people care what homosexual people are doing. It is so silly. The fact that Prop 8 did not passed does not mean that there are going to be less homosexuality in our communities. Gay and lesbian couples will stall walk down the block holding hands just like everyone else. This shouldn’t even be a religious question. Why must my religion rule over everyone elses? Why cant I live my life by my own religion and allow others to do what they do as long as it doesnt affect me?

114. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

Just want to let you know that you threw off my schedule for the weekend and hence threw me off for the beginning of the week!!!

I went to bed after 6am and slept the WHOOOOOOOLE damn day! I had sooo much to do on Saturday and got NONE of it done!!! It’s Wed, and I just finished the work that should have got done on Sat. But I see you were able to get up before noon on Saturday! HOW??????

Anyway, back to this…

115. Tanya wrote:

Regarding Deism:

Deism is a pattern of thought, NOT a religion. So you stating that the Founding Fathers were deists as a way to negate their Christianity is flawed.

Very few of the Founding Fathers did make statements that can be considered deistic in nature, but that in no way means they were Deists.

If I say, “I follow a Kosher diet.”, that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m Jewish. Yes, Jews follow a Kosher diet, but so do all types of different people, religious and non-religious. Now, someone may attempt to spin that statement as proof that I’m Jewish, but you know I’m a Christian. AND, you know I’m a Christian from the MAJORITY of the statements that I’ve made.

So although 1 or 2 of the Founding Father’s statements can be linked to Deism, we know, from the MAJORITY of their statements and from their self-proclamations, that they were Christians; bold Christians.

116. Tanya wrote:

I do not mean to disparage the high school you went to, or your teacher, but for you to have been taught that our Founding Fathers were Deists is a great disservice.

I don’t believe that any high school curriculum would teach that. B/c it’s NOT true. If your teacher told you that, he must have been a looney leftist like Ward Churchill with his own agenda. (Not being mean, just making an observation.)

Like every other kid in the US, I’ve learned about the Founding Fathers from elementary school, straight through high school, and NEVER, have any of my teachers EVER said that any of them were Deists.

However, in college, as a Poli Sci major, I took a Political Philosophy course that examined deism as a function of government, and it was mentioned that ONLY ONE Founding Father of the US identified himself as a Deist; and that was Thomas Paine. That’s it, JUST ONE! (but there is a difference between a constructive deist and a critical deist, but I’m not going there!)

Bottomline, ONLY ONE – Thomas Paine was a Deist, BUT HE ALSO IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS A CHRISTIAN. He believed in GOD and Jesus and the Bible, but highly valued free-will and wanted gov’t to respect free-will, since it was GOD given to begin with!

117. Tanya wrote:

In #110 you said Jefferson might have been against Christianity. That is totally UNTRUE!!! Jefferson said he was disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. Read my #98.

Please don’t buy into the spin on the internet. Thomas Jefferson was a Christian. He said so, over and over and over. He was proudly, boldly Christian. As were ALL of our Founding Fathers.

118. Tanya wrote:

In response to your #104:

I don’t think you understand what Greene’s argument is. Allow me:

“Major Greene this Evening fell into some conversation with me about the Divinity and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ. All the Argument he advanced was, “that a mere creature, or finite Being, could not make Satisfaction to infinite justice, for any Crimes,” and that “these things are very misterious. Thus mystery is made a convenient Cover for absurdity.”

Greene’s first statement:

“that a mere creature, or finite Being, could not make Satisfaction to infinite justice, for any Crimes,”

What Greene is saying here is that the Bible is clear that murder is a sin, murder is wrong, BUT, Jesus was Killed, someone MURDERED him.

(Now, as you know Jesus’ death is the focal point of Christianity. Christians view Jesus’ death as a wonderful thing {he died for our salvation, that’s why we call it GOOD Friday}. Christians view Jesus’ death as a holy occurrence, a spiritual ought, that GOD planned.)

So if Jesus’ death was planned, that means his MURDER was planned. Which means that GOD planned/ordered/wanted/approved his children (the Romans and Jews) to break the 10 Commandments; to do what he told us NOT to do – commit murder, to sin. (As I conveyed in #93)

Murder is a crime.

Considering Greene’s logic, which I just broke down, let’s look at his statement again:

“that a mere creature, or finite Being, could not make Satisfaction to infinite justice, for any Crimes,”

In translation – No man or GOD, can, or should, justify any CRIME. A crime is a crime, it is wrong, and NO good should or could ever come from it.

Greene is arguing that Jesus was MURDERED, and murder is a crime and against GOD, so Jesus’ death could NOT have been approved by GOD. And so he says “these things are very misterious”. Greene doesn’t understand or believe that there is something spiritual and divine behind Jesus’ death.

Greene is trying to use logic and reason and technicalities to understand and/or refute the miracles of Christ and the works and word of GOD. (You know, like how the Jesuits do!!!)

But the Bible says, “lean not unto your own understanding”. (”Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding.” – Proverbs 3:5)

We will NEVER be able to rationalize GOD and his Word, and we are NOT suppose to try. (You know, like how Fundamentalist do!!!) Our only charge is to have Faith in him and his Word and obey him and his Word.

So YES murder is wrong, and YES Jesus was MURDERED, and YES it is hard for our human minds to reconcile that GOD would approve MURDER of anyone, in any form; but we are just to believe and have faith in GOD’s will and his way.

So it is Greene who is doubting the divinity of Jesus’ death NOT Adams.

119. Tanya wrote:

In regard to our Laws and our Constitution being Biblically based:

I think I gave you sufficient info to prove that our Founding Fathers were Christians that founded our Constitution and our country on Christian principles, and wanted a government lead by GOD. But you’re still not convinced.

Here’s some more:

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” – Patrick Henry, May 1765, Speech to the House of Burgesses

But you just call these types of powerful words circumstantial evidence. You want a smoking gun!

Here’s your smoking gun:

Article 22 of the Delaware Constitution -

“I, [name], do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.” – Oath for ALL officers of the State (1776)

The inscription on the Liberty Bell -

“Proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof.” – Leviticus 25:10

Still need more proof of Biblical basis…

Here’s the smoking bell from your boy Madison:

“At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22; ‘For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.’”

Isaiah 33:22 -

“For the LORD is our judge” – The Judicial Branch

“the LORD is our lawgiver” – The Legislative Branch

“the LORD is our king” – The Executive Branch

The 3 branches that run our government were founded on Biblical principles, straight from Isaiah!!!

Our Founding Fathers also intended these three branches to be representative of The Holy Trinity – The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit!

Our laws, our government, and our Constitution have a million more biblical references, but I think I’ve already proved my case!!!

All I want is for our laws to continue to be Biblically based; as our illustrious founders intended!

Thus, a ban on gay marriage!

120. R.oB. wrote:

Tanya,

You extrapolated so much into Greene’s statement, it’s so convoluted and frankly unsupported by the Adams’ entry as to find it completely incredible. Adam said Greene was offering an argument for “Divinity and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ.” He is putting forward the basic evangelical “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World” argument for Jesus’ divinity: To wit, no mere man could wash away our sins therefore in order for Jesus’ death to bring us salvation he must be divine. No claptrap about murder. And Adams calls that argument absurd. It completely comports with him claiming his entire religion was contained in the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. Curious his entire religion is a list of moral statements. What, no John 3:16? No, John 1:1? Sorry Tanya, the sky is not green.

As for Deism, it is defined in the Oxford dictionary as “belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.” It pretty much rules out a revelatory religion like Christianity if that’s a philosophy you believe in.

As for Patrick Henry, he was no doubt a über Christian. That’s why Jefferson had beef with him about trying to establish a state religion in Virginia. His believe doesn’t cover Madison, Adams, or Jefferson. All of whom are hostile to mixing government and religion. Fair enough that Madison modeled our three branches on Isaiah. If that’s what you mean by biblically based, I’ll concede that to a point. I dismiss the Trinity out of hand given I’ve seen no evidence of this in anything I’ve read, yet. Further, taking inspiration from the Bible doesn’t mean biblically based to me. It has to be more substantive. It’s like saying that because the Roman Empire had chattel slavery that slavery in America was based on Roman Law. Now, if the Constitution mentioned God and that God was the trinitarian God rather than the indifferent Creator or First Cause of the Deists, color me sold on your assertion! Delaware Constitution and Liberty Bell notwithstanding.

Last point: the Constitution is secular by design because people were making sure that no religion was established. By definition that’s the opposite of what the bible purports. Isaiah 33:22 makes sure. The Jews wanted their nation to be a theocracy which the Constitution stands against. I don’t care if every Father was a fire and brimstone bible thumper.

121. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

I say this with in the most friendly manner possible…

YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!

122. Tanya wrote:

“Adam said Greene was offering an argument for ‘Divinity and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ’.” – Rob

NO HE DIDN’T!!!

Adams did not say that Green was offering an argument FOR the divinity of Christ, Adams says that they had a discussion on the divinity of Christ!

“Major Greene this Evening fell into some conversation with me ***about*** the Divinity and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ.” – Adams

ABOUT not FOR

Rob you seriously have a serious problem comprehending what you read.

Here is Adams diary entry again:

“Major Greene this Evening fell into some conversation with me about the Divinity and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ. All the Argument he advanced was, “that a mere creature, or finite Being, could not make Satisfaction to infinite justice, for any Crimes,” and that “these things are very misterious. Thus mystery is made a convenient Cover for absurdity.”

Greene: “that a mere creature, or finite Being, could not make Satisfaction to infinite justice, for any Crimes,”

CRIMES!!! Crimes is the key word. Adams even capitalized the C in his entry!!! What was the crime that no man (mere creature) or GOD (finite being) could make sufficient to justice??? – MURDER!!!

Greene is arguing that GOD would not cause his people to do what he instructed them not to do – MURDER. Greene is saying GOD does not condone murder, and therefore, would not condone Jesus being murdered. Murder is the Crime that can not be made sufficient to justice! (according to Greene) Greene is saying that Jesus’ death is not divine b/c GOD would not, could not, be in support of murder.

What is the ONLY thing that would make Jesus’ death divine? – If GOD was behind it! Greene is arguing that GOD could not have been behind Jesus’ death b/c Jesus was MURDERED, which is a Crime; it’s against GOD’s commandment.

Then Adams surmises Greene’s argument with:

“Thus mystery is made a convenient Cover for absurdity.”

Adams is NOT calling the divinity of Jesus’ death absurd!!! He’s telling us that the gist of Greene’s argument is that Jesus’ death is absurd.

Please Rob, take Adams diary entry to someone else, and have them explain it to you. They will tell you that I am right. OR you can research what it means and come to understand on your own that I am right!

123. Tanya wrote:

“the Constitution is secular by design because people were making sure that no religion was established.” – Rob

No sir. The Constitution is Biblical by design, as GOD has granted us free-will, as the Bible indicates our free-will, so too the Constitution grants us free-will. The free-will to worship or not, the free-will to choose any religion, or none.

As Patrick Henry said, this nation was founded by Christians on the gospel of Christ, and so, “for this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” – Patrick Henry, May 1765, Speech to the House of Burgesses

124. Tanya wrote:

Rob, you’ve got this whole Deism thing wrong. The ONLY reason why some unscrupulous people call our Founding Fathers deists is b/c they were in support of free-will and giving us, the people, great freedoms.

But just b/c they wanted to make sure that we maintained our free-will, which is from GOD, doesn’t me they didn’t want us governed by Biblical principles.

That’s why George Washington said:

“…reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle…”

125. Tanya wrote:

“Further, taking inspiration from the Bible doesn’t mean biblically based to me. It has to be more substantive. It’s like saying that because the Roman Empire had chattel slavery that slavery in America was based on Roman Law.” – Rob

Do you see how ridiculous you are being here! I gave you quote after quote of our Founding Fathers professing their Christianity and proclaiming their desire to have our country run as “one nation under GOD”. I gave you quote after quote of them saying that the Constitution is based on Christianity. But you said that wasn’t enough; you wanted direct scripture to correlate directly. I give that scripture and you say, “taking inspiration from the Bible doesn’t mean biblically based”. LOL Then what does it mean, Koran based??? Come on!

The you say:

“Now, if the Constitution mentioned God and that God was the trinitarian God rather than the indifferent Creator or First Cause of the Deists, color me sold on your assertion! Delaware Constitution and Liberty Bell notwithstanding.”

Delaware is our FIRST State! The Delaware Constitution states GOD, Jesus Christ, and The Holy Spirit! What more do you want?!?!?! If that doesn’t speak volumes of the Founders intentions and how they wished our government be run, I don’t know what does.

You want something else that mentions GOD:

In the signatory section of the US Constitution is says, “Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our *Lord* one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven”

But let’s just leave it at this:

“Fair enough that Madison modeled our three branches on Isaiah. If that’s what you mean by biblically based, I’ll concede that to a point.” – Rob

126. R.oB. wrote:

Tanya, I say this in as friendly way as possible. You have some real mental problems. Your explanation has real problems. You convince yourself of something and like most fools refuse to understand where others are saying defending your ideas by attacking the character and intelligence of others. The sky is not green. Calling me an idiot will not make it so. Willful blindness does not indicate superior intelligence. Your free will argument is case in point. Hinduism and Bhuddism have the concept of free will as well. That make them Biblically based? Listen, you can believe what you will. But don’t expect to follow willful blindness and calling that stupidity. And your blindness is quite willful, if you can’t see Greene making the most basic argument for Jesus’ divinity and saving action for his death in Adams’ quote, you are indeed blind.

127. Tanya wrote:

R.oB.,

You couldn’t even understand what Thomas Jefferson was saying about Christianity not being apart of common law – b/c Christianity didn’t exist when common law was established!!!

So it was blind of me to think that YOU would be able to understand the conversation between Greene and Adams!

You have serious difficulty comprehending what you read.

Here is what I find most problematic – You refuse to do the research!

If you don’t believe what I say, fine! But don’t just sit there like a dummy arguing about something you obviously have NO IDEA about! GO DO THE RESEARCH!!! If you take the time to investigate Adams diary entry, read the numerous other writings about that famous conversation, you will see that my explanation is EXACTLY what all the scholars for hundreds of years have said!

But really, anyone with a logical mind, could just simply read the entry, and know what it means and who’s saying what! Just as I noted!

128. Tanya wrote:

“Hinduism and Bhuddism have the concept of free will as well. That make them Biblically based?” – Rob

NO Silly Silly!!

Why are you acting so retarded?!?!?

The Constitution, our laws, and our government IS Biblically based b/c SCRIPTURE STRAIGHT FROM THE ***BIBLE*** was used to establish our governance!!!

Not to mention, ALL of our Founding Fathers were CHRISTIANS, who identified themselves as CHRISTIANS, and wrote specifically that it is their great hope and intention for GOD to lead our country, stated specifically that this country was “founded on the GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST”, as Patrick Henry said!

All the quotes are on here, the scripture that created the foundation of our government structure is on here!

But you what to continue to play the fool!!!

You are NOT the sharpest pencil in the box Robert! Open your eyes!

129. R.oB. wrote:

Jefferson wrote in his letter to William Short August 4, 1820 explaining why he wrote he the Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus

“My aim in that was, to justify the character of Jesus against the fictions of his pseudo-followers, which have exposed him to the inference of being an impostor. For if we could believe that he really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods and the charlatanisms which his biographers father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind, that he was an impostor. I give no credit to their falsifications of his actions and doctrines, and to rescue his character, the postulate in my letter asked only what is granted in reading every other historian. … I say, that this free exercise of reason is all I ask for the vindication of the character of Jesus. We find in the writings of his biographers matter of two distinct descriptions. First, a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications. Intermixed with these, again, are sublime ideas of the Supreme Being, aphorisms and precepts of the purest morality and benevolence, sanctioned by a life of humility, innocence and simplicity of manners, neglect of riches, absence of worldly ambition and honors, with an eloquence and persuasiveness which have not been surpassed. These could not be inventions of the groveling authors who relate them. They are far beyond the powers of their feeble minds. They shew that there was a character, the subject of their history, whose splendid conceptions were above all suspicion of being interpolations from their hands. ”

Yes Tanya, Jefferson, your Father of the Constitution was definitely a Christian. His contempt for the Gospel writers, their works, and their claims about Jesus proves it without a doubt! My eyes have been opened through research!

Published in Thomas Jefferson: Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed., New York: Library of America, 1994, pp. 1435–1440.

130. R.oB. wrote:

To further the nail in the coffin on your argument, listen to Jefferson’s opinion of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria in the fourth century who argued that Christ was also God with the Father in the fourth century:

DEAR SIR, — I have received and read with thankfulness and pleasure your denunciation of the abuses of tobacco and wine. Yet, however sound in its principles, I expect it will be but a sermon to the wind. You will find it as difficult to inculcate these sanative precepts on the sensualities of the present day, as to convince an Athanasian that there is but one God. I wish success to both attempts, and am happy to learn from you that the latter, at least, is making progress, and the more rapidly in proportion as our Platonizing Christians make more stir and noise about it. The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.

2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.

3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.

These are the great points on which he endeavored to reform the religion of the Jews. But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.

1. That there are three Gods.

2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor, are nothing.

3. That faith is every thing, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit in its faith.

4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.

5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them; no virtues of the latter save.

Now, which of these is the true and charitable Christian? He who believes and acts on the simple doctrines of Jesus? Or the impious dogmatists, as Athanasius and Calvin? Verily, I say these are the false shepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet. Their blasphemies have driven thinking men into infidelity, who have too hastily rejected the supposed author himself, with the horrors so falsely imputed to him. Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian. I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian.
But much I fear, that when this great truth shall be re-established, its votaries will fall into the fatal error of fabricating formulas of creed and confessions of faith, the engines which so soon destroyed the religion of Jesus, and made of Christendom a mere Aceldama; that they will give up morals for mysteries, and Jesus for Plato. How much wiser are the Quakers, who, agreeing in the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, schismatize about no mysteries, and, keeping within the pale of common sense, suffer no speculative differences of opinion, any more than of feature, to impair the love of their brethren. Be this the wisdom of Unitarians, this the holy mantle which shall cover within its charitable circumference all who believe in one God, and who love their neighbor! I conclude my sermon with sincere assurances of my friendly esteem and respect.

This letter to Benjamin Waterhouse (June 26, 1822) can be found at the University of Virginia website.

131. R.oB. wrote:

And before you run off trying to make truth out of falsehood, Calvin was a Trinitarian and Athanasius asserted that The Son and The Father (and to an undetermined extent The Spirit) were separate but in one God simultaneously over and against those who claimed that only one God, The Father, could exist and that anything else was polytheism and blasphemy.

132. R.oB. wrote:

On a final note, I was distracted by having to change Mr. Stinky Butt’s diaper. Here is another lines from Jefferson’s letter to short.

That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore. But that he might conscientiously believe himself inspired from above, is very possible.

133. R.oB. wrote:

I post all these things to prove that you don’t know everything and that when proven wrong you sink into off-putting condescension and sarcasm as well a shrill contradictions that only serve to besmirch your intelligence rather than that of others. I for my part have the same character flaws, but I try to ameliorate them because I want to love God and be a positive in peoples lives not by my reckoning but theirs.

It seems that when challenged you become hostile and condescending. There is no friendly way to call someone an idiot, Tanya. ALL CAPS is not a proof. Thinking other people are stupid makes you no smarter.

134. Tanya wrote:

(OMG!!! Lord Please Help Him! LORD, PLEASE, Help this poor, poor boy!)

R.oB.,

Don’t you get tired of making yourself look like a fool?????

WE WERE ***NEVER*** TALKING ABOUT JEFFERSON’S BELIEF IN JESUS’ DIVINITY!!!! NEVER!!!

You have to try and change the subject to avoid admitting your wrongs! Stop trying to cover up your stupidity; it only makes it more evident!!!

I have really tired very hard to be kind to your ignorance. But this is just damn ridiculous now.

ROBERT, YOU ARE AN IDIOT! PERIOD!

And I’m not calling you an idiot b/c you have misinterpreted EVERY SINGLE THING on here. I’m not calling you an idiot b/c you have failed to comprehend ALL of the writings of that time. (We all misinterpret and misunderstand something at some point.) I’m calling you an idiot b/c you REFUSE TO ADMIT THAT YOU WERE WRONG!!!!

You said that our Founding Fathers were not Christians – WRONG
You said that our Constitution and laws were not Biblically based – WRONG
You said that it was Adams NOT Greene, who doubted the divinity of Jesus – WRONG

I have proved you WRONG on ALL of this. I gave you quote after quote of our Founding Father’s declaring their Christianity. I showed you the scripture that our Constitution and government was founded. Not to mention, anyone who has read the Constitution and has read the Bible, can easily see that much of the language in the Constitution comes straight from the Bible!!!

But finally, I have told you that it was GREENE who doubted Jesus’ divinity, and NOT Adams (one of our Founders). You argued like an idiot that is was Adams who doubted Jesus’ divinity. You even made up some cockamamie foolishness about Greene saying Jesus was divine. – Jokes!

NOW, You obviously found out that you were WRONG, and it indeed was GREENE who doubted Jesus’ divinity and NOT Adams, so now you try and jump to SOMEONE ELSE!!!

You can’t just admit you were wrong, you have to try and find someone else to misinterpret!!!

Just give up Rob! For your own sake!

You couldn’t even understand what Jefferson was saying about Christianity not being apart of Common Law, and you don’t understand what Jefferson was saying in his “Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus, Compared with Those of Others”.

You have NO IDEA!!! And I’m not going to waste another Saturday and engage in another 100 comments to tell you. B/c you lack reading comprehension and I’ll get no where with you anyway!

But I will sum it up in one cute little sound bite!

“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” – Thomas Jefferson in his letter to Charles Thomson, January 9, 1816.

“***A DISCIPLE OF THE DOCTRINES OF JESUS***”

That should tell someone with common sense all they need to know!

The only coffin you put a nail in was your own. Just quit! You are totally lost in your #130 as well!

135. Tanya wrote:

“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” – Thomas Jefferson

I gave this to you way back in #100!

136. Tanya wrote:

Just to clarify:

I NEVER said Thomas Jefferson was the father of the Constitution.

In #52, I said:

“Jefferson is really the Father!”

What I meant by REAL FATHER, is that Jefferson is the Father of America!

Thomas Jefferson is the defining figure that drafted the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of ***INDEPENDENCE***!!!!

That was the document that established us as free from England and defined us as a NEW country!

If there was no Declaration of Independence, there would be no America, and so, there would be no Constitution.

Jefferson gave birth to the COUNTRY and so he is the REAL FATHER!

Madison and others gave birth to the Constitution, which came AFTER the country!

137. Tanya wrote:

Here’s the bottom-line:

This whole “debate” jumped off b/c you failed to understand that our Constitution was Biblically based.

I’ve over proved that is was! The End!

But here’s why I doubt your intelligence, and your knowledge and understanding of history:

Earlier in this back and forth, you referenced Jefferson’s “beef” with Henry over religion.

“Jefferson’s god was not the Christian Triune God. Patrick Henry’s was definitely Christian. (Jefferson had beef with him about establishing religion in Virginia as a matter of fact.)” – Rob #103

You obviously didn’t understand the debate that Jefferson and Henry had.

As you conceded (#120), Henry was an uber Christian (GOD Bless him!). But guess what, so was Jefferson! Jefferson was an uber Christian who believed in the doctrines of Christ, and called himself a “Real Christian”, and a “Disciple”.

HOWEVER…

Henry’s argument was:

Christianity is the best religion, it is the only religion upon which man can be saved, a government can only be successful if it is rooted in Christianity, AND we have to force all Americans to be Christians.

Jefferson’s argument was:

Yes, Christianity is the best, yes it is the only way man can be saved, yes a government can only be successful under it, BUT we CAN NOT force people to be Christians.

Henry wanted to construct our laws in such a way that it forced people to be Christians.

Jefferson totally disagreed with that. Jefferson reminded Henry that they left England b/c of religious persecution and he believed that freedoms, particularly the freedom of religion, are what would make this country great!

Jefferson pointed out that free-will is from GOD and that it would be *un-Christian*, in many ways, to restrict that GOD given free-will. GOD gave us the free-will to choose our religion or choose no religion at all. GOD gave us free-will to make right and wrong decisions. (“Many are called, but only few are chosen.”) Jefferson pointed out that not everyone would make the right decision (be Christian) but that was the way it was suppose to be!

In the end, as you know, Jefferson won! We are not forced to be Christians here. We have the freedom of religion. But just b/c Jefferson wanted to give people the right to worship as they choose, or not worship at all, does not make him any less of a Christian. In fact, it might just make him more of a Christian than Henry!

IF, you made the sophisticated argument that gays should have that same free-will to marry whomever they choose. If you wanted to argue that Jefferson MIGHT support gay marriage b/c he was such a strong proponent of free-will. WELL THEN, we would have had an intelligent and enlightening discussion on that!

Of course I would disagree with that, and I have a whole long list of very compelling reasons why. But I would still be able to respect and tolerate your OPINON on that!

But no! You make the stupid decision to debate FACTS! So I’m sorry I called you an idiot, but I have a very low tolerance for stupidity! And you have been arguing facts, which is stupid!

It is a fact that ALL of our Founding Fathers were Christians. (I’ll give you the list)
It is a fact that our Constitution and laws are Biblically based.

You can NOT debate facts!

We can argue all day long until we are both blue in the face whether Marc is a good man or a bad man, whether he is a smart man or a dumb man!

But we can not argue whether he is a black man or a white man! It is a fact that Marc is a black man. You can not argue facts!

But that’s what you’ve been doing this whole time. You’ve been arguing that Marc is a white man (this is an analogy of course!). AND YOU WERE WRONG!!!

I’m done here! You have frustrated me so much, and I can’t waste another Saturday responding to dumb comments. I have to get ready for my friends birthday party. So I will not respond to any more of your comments tonight. I’m also leaving on Sunday for Martha’s Vineyard and I’ll be there for a week (on business), so I will not be in the ‘Shop and I will not be reading or responding for the week.

I wish you the best.

GOD Bless you and GOD Bless your family. Be well!

138. Tanya wrote:

When the Founding Fathers filled out a “census” and identified their own religion, they ALL identified themselves as Christians.

The Signers of the Declaration of Independence

Charles Carroll – Catholic
Samuel Huntington – Congregationalist
Roger Sherman – Congregationalist
William Williams – Congregationalist
Oliver Wolcott – Congregationalist
Lyman Hall – Congregationalist
Samuel Adams – Congregationalist
John Hancock – Congregationalist
Josiah Bartlett – Congregationalist
William Whipple – Congregationalist
William Ellery – Congregationalist
John Adams – Congregationalist; Unitarian
Robert Treat Paine – Congregationalist; Unitarian
George Walton – Episcopalian
John Penn – Episcopalian
George Ross – Episcopalian
Thomas Heyward Jr. – Episcopalian
Thomas Lynch Jr. – Episcopalian
Arthur Middleton – Episcopalian
Edward Rutledge – Episcopalian
Francis Lightfoot Lee – Episcopalian
Richard Henry Lee – Episcopalian
George Read – Episcopalian
Caesar Rodney – Episcopalian
Samuel Chase – Episcopalian
William Paca – Episcopalian
Thomas Stone – Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry – Episcopalian
Francis Hopkinson – Episcopalian
Francis Lewis – Episcopalian
Lewis Morris – Episcopalian
William Hooper – Episcopalian
Robert Morris – Episcopalian
John Morton – Episcopalian
Stephen Hopkins – Episcopalian
Carter Braxton – Episcopalian
Benjamin Harrison – Episcopalian
Thomas Nelson Jr. – Episcopalian
George Wythe – Episcopalian
Thomas Jefferson – Episcopalian
Benjamin Franklin – Episcopalian
Button Gwinnett – Episcopalian; Congregationalist
James Wilson – Episcopalian; Presbyterian
Joseph Hewes – Quaker, Episcopalian
George Clymer – Quaker, Episcopalian
Thomas McKean – Presbyterian
Matthew Thornton – Presbyterian
Abraham Clark – Presbyterian
John Hart – Presbyterian
Richard Stockton – Presbyterian
John Witherspoon – Presbyterian
William Floyd – Presbyterian
Philip Livingston – Presbyterian
James Smith – Presbyterian
George Taylor – Presbyterian
Benjamin Rush – Presbyterian

139. Tanya wrote:

The Signers of the Constitution

Daniel Carroll – Catholic
Thomas Fitzsimons – Catholic
Roger Sherman – Congregationalist
Nathaniel Gorham – Congregationalist
John Langdon – Congregationalist
Nicholas Gilman – Congregationalist
Abraham Baldwin – Congregationalist; Episcopalian
William Samuel Johnson – Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Madison Jr. – Episcopalian
George Read – Episcopalian
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer – Episcopalian
David Brearly – Episcopalian
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Sr. – Episcopalian
Robert Morris – Episcopalian
Gouverneur Morris – Episcopalian
John Rutledge – Episcopalian
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney – Episcopalian
Charles Pinckney – Episcopalian
Pierce Butler – Episcopalian
George Washington – Episcopalian
Benjamin Franklin – Episcopalian
William Blount – Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Wilson – Episcopalian; Presbyteran
Rufus King – Episcopalian; Congregationalist
Jacob Broom – Lutheran
William Few – Methodist
Richard Bassett – Methodist
Gunning Bedford Jr. – Presbyterian
James McHenry – Presbyterian
William Livingston – Presbyterian
William Paterson – Presbyterian
Hugh Williamson – Presbyterian
Jared Ingersoll – Presbyterian
Alexander Hamilton – Huguenot; Presbyterian; Episcopalian
Jonathan Dayton – Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Blair – Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Dickinson – Quaker; Episcopalian
George Clymer – Quaker; Episcopalian
Thomas Mifflin – Quaker; Lutheran

As you can see over half of them were Episcopalian as I mentioned in #52.

And ALL of them are Christians!

OK, I’m hitting the club now! After dealing with you, I NEED a few drinks!