|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Gender and Sexuality |
|
Photos from EC Rally |
Current rating: 0 |
by wayward
Email: badadvice (nospam) gmail.com (unverified!) |
29 Oct 2004
|
|
Photos from Emergency Contraceptive Rally in Champaign, October 28, 2004 |
| | | | | | | | |
|
Here are some photos from the emergency contraceptive rally in Champaign on October 28th. If you want the larger image files, email me at badadvice (at) gmail.com |
See also:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/21223/index.php
|
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
Re: Photos from EC Rally |
by NRA4
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 Oct 2004
|
|
How can it be contraception, if contraception has already "failed" so that conception has occurred? |
|
Re: Photos from EC Rally |
by NRA4
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 Oct 2004
|
According to the Catholic Church,
"Taking a high level of estrogen via ECPs within 72 hours of intercourse once the fertile phase has begun will, in fact, precipitate ovulation. This will make it more likely, rather than less, that fertilization will occur," according to Dr. Klaus. Once an ovum is in the Fallopian tube, the process of fertilization may begin within 15 to 30 minutes after intercourse. Thus some researchers conclude that interfering with the endometrium "could explain the majority of cases where pregnancies are prevented by the morning-after pill" (J. Wilks, A Consumer's Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs at 154 [1997], citing F. Grou and I. Rodrigues, "The morning-after pill: How long after?", 171 Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1529-34 [1994].) Without implantation, which occurs about a week after fertilization, the embryo cannot develop and will die.
Brown University associate professor of medicine, Ralph Miech, M.D., Ph.D., agrees. "This type of pill causes an abortion," he wrote in the Providence Journal on August 3, 1998. "From a pharmacologic perspective, this type of pill should be called an 'abortion-after pill'."
The question must be asked: "How is this contraception?" Women are being falsely led to believe that these pills are contraceptive in nature. But one of their common and intended modes of action is to prevent the development of the embryo, resulting in his or her death."
Is this true? |
|
Re: Photos from EC Rally |
by scott e
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 Oct 2004
|
It's an interesting sociological conditioning that causes people to identify conception and pregnancy as the one and the same, when the biology of it says otherwise. A terminated pregnancy is one wherein a uterine implanted embryo is destroyed. Conception does not equal pregnancy.
If you believe "life" begins at conception, think about the time scale. Does life begin when a sperm attaches to an egg? Probably not. There has not at that point been any exchange of genetic material. What about after the sperm has entered the egg and exchanged material? Probably not there, also. Genetic material is not life, and quite often there are problems with the genetic information such that life could never develop.
In fact, if we understand life to be something biological that has the potential to live, conception falls well short of that. Pregnancy gets much closer. Even many pregnancies arent viable, but that is irrelevant.
EC does not terminate pregnancy. Contraception could not have yet "failed" if pregnancy has not yet occured. EC is contraception. It serves to prevent pregnancy. It is an "emergency" because its the last possible point at which a pregnancy can be prevented if all else fails.
Semantics of gender and politics too often obscure biological fact. EC is a sad case where such takes place, with disasterous consequences for women. |
|
Re: Photos from EC Rally |
by NRA4
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 Oct 2004
|
|
Can you convince the Catholic Church of that Scott? |
|
Re: Photos from EC Rally |
by Scott Edwards
scottisimo (nospam) hotmail.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
29 Oct 2004
|
Maybe, with a high school biology book, but your implication that scientific fact would do little to sway deeply-held convictions is probably true.
This is not ideal in an enlightened society that must make policy based on scientific advancement, but you are probably correct anyhow. |
|
The Church Should Not Be In Charge in Our Nation |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 Oct 2004
|
|
Whether the Catholic Church or any other religious body agrees about EC or not is irrelevant unless you are suggesting the EC is being forced on those who believe in the Church's teachings, which it is not. As we have seen all too often in this country, religious teachings are far too often cited as the reason as the rationale for effectively denying non-believer's their rights. |
|
Re: Photos from EC Rally |
by NRA4
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 Oct 2004
|
>"...religious teachings...effectively denying non-believer's their rights"
I might agree with you on that on some issues, but not on matters of "life and death". IF life as we know it begins at conception, then I don't believe the death of that innocent human life can be compromised on..."religion" or not. |
|
I Know This Is A Cheap Shot, But... |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 Oct 2004
|
And how is letting a religious edict settle a matter of law here in the United States any different than the Taliban regime we overthrew doing the same thing in Afghanistan?
In fact, from what I understand about the constitution that was imposed by the US Embassy, err, I mean _chosen_ by the Afghanis -- at least the ones loyal to Karzai -- religious edicts are STILL the final arbiter of law in Afghanistan, after all the blood spilled. But I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised about that when one brand of fundamentalism replaces another.
The bottom line is my niece's ass is on the line for this country in Afghanistan. I already feel pretty badly about that as a poor career move on her part (BTW, she was a pre-9/11 enlistee, as if that should bring up an issue of anyone's patriotism) but she's a good girl, just like most everyone else's kids who are over there.
All I can say is she is fighting -- if she's fighting for anything on Bush's dime that is NOT a lie -- is so she can decide what the hell she wants to do with her own body without some religious fanatic telling her why she has to do it -- almost invariably -- _HIS_ way.
My own feeling is that it's all a sad waste of America's and many other country's youth. It's sad to say that when Osama -- that rabid fanatic as he is so often described by the Bushies -- can come on TV and sound less extreme, in part at least, than the guy who's running here to be elected President for the first time. And I am not talking about Badnarik or Kerry or Cobb or anyone else, except the great Ayatollah of the Republican Party, Bush II.
Not that I trust either Bush or Osama, but I am tired of the BS and next Tuesday I can only do something about Bush's BS.
Sorry, I am certain that her father feels the same way that I do, as well as her mother, and many others in the family. I'm sure my mom and dad (her grandparents) feel differently, and that's their right, too. This is the United States and you can differ, but stay off our metaphorical flag, too, please.
But don't be pulling some Tim McVeigh/American Taliban shit on us, NRA4, you've got more class than that.
Or...
Perhaps it's time for us on the left to say -- America, love it or leave it -- occasionally, with respect to certain inalienable rights, anyway. |
|
Re: Photos from EC Rally |
by NRA4
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
30 Oct 2004
|
I'm sorry your niece finds herself in that position ML, we can only hope and pray that she stays safe and comes home soon.
I am not certain exactly what "war" has to do with emergeny contraception though. And I'd certainly agree that women can do anything they like "with their body". But depending on when "life" begins, it isn't "her body" we are talking about anymore is it?
And since there is no consensus on the issue in this Country, if we are going to err, should we not seek to err on the side of "life" rather than "death" for an innocent?
I guess for me the whole issue for boils down to one thing...you and I were both "those growing cells" once in our development, and if they had been destroyed, we would not be here to argue about it. Add to that the fact that we really don't know who, among the 40 million plus innocent unborn children we have killed via abortion in this Country, may have been the next Einstein, the person who had the brilliance to cure cancer or aids or whatever else in our lifetime, or was even one of our own brothers or sisters who we never even got the chance to know and love.
"Contracept" all you like, but abortion is most certainly the murder of innocent unborn human life, and no amount of rationalizations of our minds is ever going to be able to change that. |
|
Re: Photos from EC Rally |
by NRA4
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
30 Oct 2004
|
ML,
>"It's sad to say that when Osama -- that rabid fanatic as he is so often described by the Bushies -- can come on TV and sound less extreme..."
This message is going to be way off topic for this article, but I gotta say something about this statement. After you read it, its ok to move it to the hidden file section.
If you believe what the tape tries to state, that it is America's support of Israel that is the cause of violence against the U.S. by Islam extremists, then I believe that you are totally ignoring history. What do you think the people we refer to as Muslims were doing before Mohammed? Maybe you should find out. Also, here is an article that I think really does a good job of explaining the truth about it...
Why the Arab world hates America
Dennis Prager
Why is America hated in the Arab world?
According to leftists and to Arab and Islamic spokesmen, the reasons are: American support for non-democratic regimes in the Arab world -- such as in Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- and because America supports Israel.
Before positing what I believe to be the reasons, let's answer these two arguments.
The argument that America is hated by Arabs because it supports non-democratic regimes in the Arab world would be regarded as hilarious were it not believed by so many gullible people in the West.
The argument presupposes that what the Arabs (and Muslims elsewhere) who hate America want are open and free societies. But there is not a shred of evidence to support this. Is there any movement for pluralism, openness and democracy among those who hate America? Of course not. The Arab governments most opposed to America and which America therefore least influences -- Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Libya -- have less freedom than the corrupt Arab regimes that America does support. As corrupt and repressive as the Egyptian government is, Egypt is free compared to the aforementioned countries.
And if the United States ceased to pour billions of dollars a year into Egypt and the Mubarak dictatorship then fell, what would supplant it? Democracy? Openness? Pluralism? Freedom of speech?
We all know the answer. In every Arab country, a corrupt regime supported by America would be supplanted by a Taliban-type Islamic/fascist regime.
So let's call this argument what it is -- a lie.
Overwhelmingly, the Arabs who hate us don't want a free and open society; they want an Islamic totalitarian one. American influence in the Arab world prevents our haters there from imposing their vicious expression of Islam, not from establishing Jeffersonian democracy.
As for the second argument, yes, our support for Israel's security further inflames the hatred of those Arabs (and Muslims elsewhere) who hate us. But why do they hate Israel? Why are they so obsessed with a tiny state in a part of the Arab and Islamic world that they utterly ignored until Jews made a civilization there?
Because America's and Israel's haters are ethnic and religious haters on a magnitude not seen since the Nazis. They loathe everything Israel (and its American supporter) represents -- freedom, democracy, openness, individual autonomy, freedom of religion, pluralism, women's equality and sexual freedom. They want Israel dead. Gone. Exterminated. They say so publicly, and they say so in polls. Yet, the educated fools and the Israel- and America-haters of the West ignore all this and blame Israel for trying to exist and America for enabling it to do so.
If America abandoned Israel, our Arab and Muslim haters would rejoice, but they would surely not stop hating us. Not one of them. They would only conclude that their terror worked, and that America will give in when the threats are great enough. One proof? Most Muslims living in Europe, which has abandoned Israel, continue to loathe Europe. Europe's abandonment of Israel has only convinced them -- for good reason -- that Europe has lost its moral fiber and is ripe for an Islamic takeover.
Arab and other Muslims who hate America do so:
Because America alone (and the little America in the Middle East, Israel) prevents the expansion of Islamic rule.
Because expansionist totalitarian movements, whether Soviet communism or radical Islam, always hate free societies, and America is the strongest free society.
Because America is not only strong, it is religious (as opposed to Europe, which is weak and irreligious).
Because America is not only Christian; it is Judeo-Christian, the two religions the Islamists need to overcome to expand globally.
The greatest problem confronting America is not that people who loathe freedom loathe us. Indeed, it is to America's enduring credit that it is hated by Islamists. Our great problem is that so many in our country do not understand that those who loathe liberty loathe America. For this reason, the battle for America's future is at home more than it is in Iraq or Afghanistan or in al Qaeda's caves.
We talk a great deal about winning Arabs' and Muslims' minds and hearts. Yet, we have yet to win all Americans' minds and hearts. For confirmation, just visit your local university. |
|
No Such Certainty |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
30 Oct 2004
|
The idea that life begins at conception is one that is relatively modern, i.e. in the last 125 years or so, and is primarily a creative fiction of religious fundamentalism. Prior to the fuller understanding that science provided of how conception, gestation and birth actually worked, popular beliefs and religious authoriities, including the Catholic Church, generally regarded life as beginning with the "quickening," or felt movements, several months into gestation of the fetus. If you are not familiar with the history of both popular and religious ideas about when life began and how abortion came to be temporarily a crime, I can highly recommend "When Abortion Was a Crime" by Leslie Reagan.
As for the idea that the U.S. is a religiously based Christian nation, this is also at odds with both history and the Bill of Rights. Here's a few links that explain this better than I can:
http://www.postfun.com/worbois.html
http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism.htm
http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc550.html
http://www.barefootsworld.net/founding.html
You have the right to practice any religion. The state cannot establish any religion. I have to respect your right to personally hold and practice whatever your religion tells YOU to do, but you also must garnt me equal respect when my views are at variance with yours.
Seizing state power has been the dream of many religious fanatics throughout history. Invariably, this leads to cruelty, denial of freedom, and social disorder. Never has it resulted in establishing any god's rule on Earth. Rather, when it has happened, it has lead to the temporary asendance of a few falsely claiming to be both acting in the name of and interpreting their own god at the expense of the rights of others. Such bogus claims are generally harmless within the religious precincts of a particular religion, however ill-advised they may seem to others.
When this sort of fanatacism takes the form of flying airplanes into buildings full of civilians, killing by bombs and bullets of medical personnel acting lawfully, and the desire to reframe our heritage in the light of a paricular religious interpretation, then those sorts of rationalizations must be resisted.
No one has the right to force anyone to have an abortion. Likewise, no one has the right to prevent any woman from making a decision about her own body. Not you, not the Pope, not any preacher of any religion. You can hold your beliefs but you cannot and must not impose them on anyojne else. Even Jesus said to "Judge not..." and you would be well-advised to leave people to decide for themselves how they meet their own moral standards.
Just as surely as there should be no Afghani Taliban or al-Qaeda (although I question the right of Bush or anyone else to kill innocents when protecting us from them) imposing its religious edicts on anyone else, there is also no reason to tolerate an American Christian fundamentalism that almost exactly parallels Osama's obsessive fanaticism. He may be arguing for burqas and you may be insisting that your views on abortion should be imposed on others, but all I see is variantions on a rather dangerous form of religious fanaticism that undermines our values.
YMMV |
|
Re: Photos from EC Rally |
by NRA4
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
30 Oct 2004
|
That's nice rationalization, but ask any real scientist you know and they will tell you that "life", as we know it, truly begins at conception. And I do agree that no one has the "right" to infringe on someone elses "rights"...as long as we are not talking about a supposed "right" to murder someone else, which is what abortion does.
I don't remember saying that the US was a religious Nation, nor that it was founded as a religious christian one. I do know I have read that of the signers of the Declaration, none were Catholic, and most were of various christian denominations.
"Aside from Jefferson, Franklin, and perhaps a few others, the late scholar M.E. Bradford studied for many years the religious backgrounds of the signers of the Declaration and the Constitution. He found that fifty-two of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration were Trinitarian Christians. Similarly, of the fifty-five signers of the Constitution, fifty to fifty-two were orthodox Christians.
As for the denominational affiliations of the signers of the Constitution, twenty-nine were Anglicans, sixteen to eighteen were Calvinists, two were Methodists, two were Lutherans, two were Roman Catholic, one a lapsed Quaker and sometimes Anglican, and one was an open Deist.
The Deist was Benjamin Franklin, who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to all denominations.
As for Jefferson. The consensus seems to be that he was a Deist, but M. Stanton Evans noted that Jefferson clearly "believed in the creative, sovereign, and superintending God of Scriptures" but also thought that Platonic doctrine had corrupted the original monotheism of the Bible. He was probably a Unitarian rather than a Deist. But Jefferson called himself a Christian, "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
As to James Madison, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, also known as the "Father of the Constitution" and fourth President of the United States. Madison spoke 161 times at the Constitutional Convention, second only to Gouverneur Morris, and was a committed Christian. Madison studied at Princeton under theologian, Reverend John Witherspoon. Madison said that "Religion is the basis and foundation of Government." He wrote in the margins of his personal Bible, "Believers who are in a State of Grace, have need of the word of God for their edification and building up therefore implies a possiblity of falling." His other notes make clear he firmly believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Then to George Washington who said, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."
In 1776, the population of the United States was over 95% christian, about 2% Catholic...which means that at least 97% of the population was "religious" in some way or another.
Some quotes from some of the signers...
After signing the Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams, who was called the firebrand of the American Revolution, affirmed his obedience to God by stating, "We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient. From the rising to the setting of the sun may His kingdom come."
Reverend Doctor John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence, member of the Continental Congress, described as the "man who shaped the man that shaped America" said, "God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable . . . ." Reverend Witherspoon was also responsible for publishing two American editions of the Bible.
Benjamin Franklin, who signed the Declaration and was often identified as a deist in his younger years, delivered his most famous speech on June 28, 1787, at the age of eighty-one. He said, "I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it."
Other notable Christian signers of the Declaration were:
Charles Thompson, who is responsible for the first translation of the Greek Septuagint into English;
Dr. Benjamin Rush, founder of the first Bible Society in America; Francis Hopkinson, who was responsible for the first American hymnbook;
Cesar Rodney, whose home State of Delaware (the first state to ratify the U.S. Constitution) required that officeholders sign a declaration of Christian faith, Thomas Nelson JR, Commander of the Virginia Militia, and Thomas McKean, the man responsible for the first legal commentary on the constitution of the United States.
Pennsylvania’s Chief Justice, a founding father, said to a man sentenced to die for treason, "It behooves you most seriously to reflect upon your conduct, to repent of your evil deeds, to be incessant in prayers to the great and merciful God to forgive you your . . . sins."
John Hancock, president of the Continental Congress, said, "Let us humbly commit our righteous cause to the great Lord of the Universe."
Governor Morris, who wrote the Constitution in 1787, and wrote in 1790 and in 1791, two commentaries on the Constitution said, "Religion is the solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man toward God."
William Paterson, a signer of the Constitution, closed his speeches with Proverbs 29:2: "When the righteous rule, the people rejoice. When the wicked rule, the people groan."
George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights, exclaimed, "My soul I resign into the hands of my Almighty Creator, whose tender mercies are all over His works . . . "
Nathan Hale, called the "Martyr Spy," came from a solid Christian foundation and upbringing. He is best remembered for his last words, prior to laying down his life for God and country at the young age of twenty-one, "I only regret that I have but one life to loose for my country."
Two other founding fathers of our nation that expressed their fervent Christian beliefs were Roger Sherman and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. Alexander Hamilton could also be added to that list.
John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court wrote, "Unto Him who is the Author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved Son."
James Wilson, George Washington’s appointment to the Supreme Court stated, "Christianity is part of the common-law."
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (appointed by President James Madison) called America a "Christian country."
Statesman Daniel Webster warned of political disaster. He stated, "If we and our posterity neglect religious instruction and authority . . . no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us." Webster said on December 22,1820, observing the 200th anniversary of the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, Massachusetts, "Let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers brought hither their high veneration of the Christian religion."
French historian Alex de Tocqueville, author of "Democracy in America" in 1835, wrote, "There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America."
Noah Webster, who literally wrote the English dictionary claimed, "The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all civil Constitutions and laws."
Patrick Henry, a Christian patriot, golden tongued orator of the Revolutionary period, and the only U.S. Governor to be elected and reelected five times said in a celebrated speech before the Revolutionary War, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Henry also said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospels of Jesus Christ."
Have you ever been to DC? A tour should include,
The Supreme Court building portrays Moses holding the Ten Commandments through which the voice of God thunders "Thou shalt not murder."
The Capitol Rotunda contains eight massive oil paintings, each depicting a major event in history. Four of these paintings portray Jesus Christ and the Bible: 1) Columbus landing on the shores of the New World, and holding high the cross of Jesus Christ, 2) a group of Dutch pilgrims gathered around a large, opened Bible, 3) a cross being planted in the soil, commemorating the discovery of the Mississippi River by the Explorer De Soto, and 4) the Christian baptism of the Indian convert Pocahontas.
Statuary Hall contains life size statues of famous citizens that have been given by individual states. Medical missionary Marcus Whitman stands big as life, holding a Bible.
Another statue is of missionary Junipero Serra, who founded the missions of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Montery and San Diego. Illinois sent a statue of Francis Willard, an associate of the evangelist Dwight L. Moody.
Inscribed on the walls of the Library of Congress are quotes honoring the study of art, the wall is etched with "Nature is the art of God." A quote honoring Science says, "The heavens declare the glory of God." An inspiration honoring religion is Micah 6:8, "What doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God."
On a wall in the Jefferson Memorial we read, "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated without His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice sleep forever."
As you climb the steps inside the Washington Monument you will notice stones with inscriptions on them. Some of them are, "Search the Scriptures" – "Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it" – "The memory of the just is blessed" – "Holiness to the Lord" – and the top which says "Praise be to God!"
Inscribed on the north wall of the Lincoln Memorial is the Presidents second inaugural address. Lincoln feared that God would not be satisfied until every drop of blood drawn by the lash is repaid by another drop of blood drawn by the sword.
I have tons of quotes by the founders that refer to God, or Christ, or Christianity. So, I think it will be pretty hard to convince me that most of the people who founded this Nation were God fearing folk. |
|
Re: Photos from EC Rally |
by NRA4
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
30 Oct 2004
|
Ooops, this should have read,
"So, I think it will be pretty hard to convince me that most of the people who founded this Nation were --- NOT --- God fearing folk. |
|
Re: Photos from EC Rally |
by scott e
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
30 Oct 2004
|
ok. this is officially off topic of EC, but some thoughts of the founders and their obvious lack of "God fearing"
John Adams:
"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." --John Adams
Benjamin Franklin
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."--Benjamin Franklin, _Poor_Richard_, 1758
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."--Benjamin Franklin, _Poor_Richard_, 1758
"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity." -- Benjamin Franklin , _Works_ Vol.VII, p.75
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects of Christianity, we shall find few that have not in turns been persecutors and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution on the Roman church, but preactied i on the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice both here (England) and in New England"--Benjamin Franklin, _Poor_Richard_, 1758
"Religion I found to be without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serves principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one another."--Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are serviley crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind faith." -- Thomas Jefferson
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."--Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association on Jan. 1, 1802, _The_Writings_of_Thomas_Jefferson_Memorial_Edition_, edited by Lipscomb and Bergh, 1903-04, 16:281
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."--Thomas Jefferson, _Notes_on_Virginia_, _Jefferson_the_President:_First_Term_1801-1805_, Dumas Malon, Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1970, p. 191
"...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise.. affect their civil capacities."--Thomas Jefferson, _Statute_for_Religious_Freedom_, 1779, _The_Papers_of_Thomas_Jefferson_, edited by Julron P. Boyd, 1950, 2:546
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."--Thomas Jefferson, _Statute_for_Religious_Freedom_, 1779, _The_Papers_of_Thomas_Jefferson_, edited by Julron P. Boyd, 1950, 2:545
"...our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opnions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry"--Thomas Jefferson, _Statute_for_Religious_Freedom_, 1779, _The_Papers_of_Thomas_Jefferson_, edited by Julron P. Boyd, 1950, 2:545
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises."--Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Samuel Miller, 1808
"I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."--Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799, _The_Writings_of_Thomas_Jefferson_Memorial_Edition_, edited by Lipscomb and Bergh, 1903-04, 10:78
"I know it will give great offense to the clergy, but the advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace no forgiveness from them."--Thomas Jefferson to Levi Lincoln, 1802, _The_Writings_of_Thomas_Jefferson_Memorial_Edition_, edited by Lipscomb and Bergh, 10:305
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787, _2000_Years_of_Disbelief_ by James A. Haught
"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus." --Thomas Jefferson, _Six_Historic_Americans_ by John E. Remsberg
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, _Six_Historic_Americans_ by John E. Remsberg
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity [of opinion]. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."--Thomas Jefferson, _Notes_on_the_State_of_Virginia_(1781-85), _Oxford_Dictionary_of_Quotations_
"The proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion is depriving him injuriously of those priviledges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natual right."--Thomas Jefferson, _Statute_for_Religious_Freedom_, 1779, _The_Papers_of_Thomas_Jefferson_, edited by Julron P. Boyd, 1950, 2:546
"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ." -- Thomas Jefferson
"I contemplate with soveriegn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', thus building a wall of separation between church and State."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT. _The_Complete_ Jefferson_ by Saul K. Padover, pp 518-519
"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt in 1813, _The_Writings_of_Thomas_Jefferson_Memorial_Edition_, edited by Lipscomb and Bergh, 14:21
"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution."--Thomas Jefferson, 1776
James Madison
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?" -- James Madison, _A_Memorial_ and_Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of VA, 1795
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -- James Madison,_A_Memorial_ and_Remonstrance, _2000_Years_of_Disbelief_ by James A. Haught
"Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and all of which facilitates the execution of mischievous projects. Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded project."--James Madison, _2000_Years_of_Disbelief_ by James A. Haught
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."--James Madison in a letter to Edward Livingston in 1822
"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will best be guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others."--James Madison, "James Madison on Religious Liberty", edited by Robert S. Alley, ISBN pp 237-238
"The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE."--James Madison
Thomas Paine
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)." -- Thomas Paine
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize [hu]mankind." -- Thomas Paine, _The_Age_of_Reason_
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."--Thomas Paine
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, not by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church."--Thomas Paine, _Excerpts_from_The_Age_of_Reason:_Selected_Writings_of_Thomas_ Paine_, edited by Richard Emery Robers, NY Everybody's Vacation Publishing Co, 1945, p.342
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."--Thomas Paine, _The_Age_of_Reason
"The adulterous connection between church and state."--Thomas Paine, from _The_Age_of_Reason_
"Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law."--Thomas Paine, _The_Rights_of_Man_, 1791, ed P.S. Foner, 1945
"Here it is that the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason or injure our humanity, and with which the Christian religion abounds. Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests."--Thomas Paine, _Of_The_Religion_of_Deism_Compared_With_the_Christian_Religion_
"As priestcraft was always the enemy of knowledge, because priestcraft supports itself by keeping people in delusion and ignorance, it was consistent with its policy to make the acquisition of knowledge a real sin."--Thomas Paine, _Of_The_Religion_of_Deism_Compared_With_the_Christian_Religion_
"The age of ignorance commenced with the Christian system."--Thomas Paine, _2000_Years_of_Disbelief_, James A. Haught
misc.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."--First Amendment to the U.S.A. Constitution
"One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian."--The Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, p. 420 |
|
Re: Photos from EC Rally |
by NRA4
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
31 Oct 2004
|
So you only found quotes from 5 people Scott? Surely you can do better than that. I could easily fill pages and pages here full of quotes pertaining to God and christianity from the people of those times, not to mention quotes by those in State governments as well. And I already stated that "Aside from Jefferson, Franklin, and perhaps a few others...", so, you use their quotes anyway? Again, at least 50 of the 55 signers were in fact, believers.
Your John Adams quote is taken a little out of context. What he was lamenting was that people were making up their own variations that did not agree with the Gospels. While Adams certainly did not agree with Calvinism, he also stated,
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
He, and the other founders, chose God.
Ben Franklin was a critic of pios acting christians, but he said a number of things, like,
"In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle have observed frequent instances of superintending Providence in our favor.... And have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or, do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?
I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing I see of this truth: "that God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his Aid?
We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without his
concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little, partial local interests; our projects will be
confounded; and we shall become a reproach and a byword to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, or conquest.
I therefore beg to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and it's blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business."
ALso, your quote of, "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." isn't a derision of christianity, but a truth. Our minds reason out things based on what WE know or think is the case. But faith, as defined by the Bible, is "the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen". Our minds can hardly "reason" that a man named Jesus died on a Cross and then was raised from the dead...that requires faith to believe.
Thomas Jefferson certainly did not agree with turning the scriptures into organized religion, but in some of his writings he described himself as a believer in God, and most certainly lived according to the ethics of christian precepts.
And Thomas Paine, well...
Most of Paine’s backers and critics enthusiastically cry “No!” To hear it from them, Paine was at once, a Deist, a Theosophist, a Secular Humanist, an Infidel, an Atheist, a Positive Atheist, a Free Mason, BUT NEVER A CHRISTIAN.
“Just look at ‘The Age of Reason,’” they say, “Look at all the Bible bashing essays Paine wrote in Europe!”
They’re right; after Paine left the United States, he picked up a black pen that seemed to have little more than the capacity to wander and scribble in the dark, void of any fixed or distant point of light, or of any memory that any such light ever existed.
The longer he and his piceous pen wandered, the easier it became for the disillusioned man to deny his past, curse his former country and friends, and spit on the Bible.
However, viewing a man and his work in slices is not always the most charitable, nor the most honest way of looking at a man, especially when those who do the slicing, discard the pieces they don’t like.
In honesty, one cannot deny that Thomas Paine became an opponent of the Bible and of Christianity. But neither can one in honesty deny that when liberty hung in the balance in the United States, nearly every essay that flowed from Thomas Paine’s pen applied the gospel of Christ to the cause of liberty.
So let’s, for a moment hear the better side of Thomas Paine (via a Q & A session) from his American essays, or those essays which few ‘educated’ men have the guts and candor to quote (or if they do quote them, they do so, minus each essays Christian context); even though these were the only valuable words the man ever spoke, and the only words his fellow founders ever praised.
Q. Mr. Paine, why is slavery wrong?
A. “[S]ince the time of reformation came, under Gospel light. All distinctions of nations and privileges of one above others, are ceased; Christians are taught to account all men their neighbours; and love their neighbours as themselves; and do to all men as they would be done by; to do good to all men; and Man-stealing is ranked with enormous crimes. Is the barbarous enslaving our inoffensive neighbours, and treating them like wild beasts subdued by force, reconcilable with the Divine precepts! Is this doing to them as we would desire they should do to us? If they could carry off and enslave some thousands of us, would we think it just?” (1)
Q. And are there other reasons slavery is wrong?
A. “[I can think of two more: 1. Many] evils [attend] the practice, selling husbands away from wives, children from parents, and from each other, in violation of sacred and natural ties; and opening up the way for adulteries, incests, and many shocking consequences, for all which the guilty masters must answer to the final Judge.” (2)
2. “The past treatment of Africans must naturally fill them with abhorrence of Christians; lead them to think our religion would make them more inhuman savages if they embraced it; thus, the gain of that trade has been pursued in opposition of the Redeemer’s cause, and the happiness of man.” (3)
Q. Who’s religion and what cause are they opposing?
“[I said,] our religion … [and] the Redeemer’s cause.” (4)
Q. Sorry, just checking. There are those who say Thomas Paine never believed in Christ, nor in the commandments of God. Shall we proceed?
A. [Yes.]
Q. What ought Americans do to rectify this assault on both Africans and Christianity?
A. “[W]hen the Almighty shall have blest us, and made us a people dependent only upon Him, then let the first gratitude be shown by an act of continental legislation, which shall stop the importation of negroes for sale, soften the hard fate of those already here, and in time procure their freedom.” (5)
Q. Yes, we’ve done that. What else?
A. “Are we not … bound in duty to Him (God) and to them (the Africans) to repair these injuries, as far as possible, by taking some proper measures to instruct, not only the slaves here, but the Africans in their own countries? Primitive Christians labored always to spread their divine religion; and this is equally our duty while there is a heathen nation.” (6)
Q. We should be missionaries for Christ?
A. [Indeed.]
Q. You continue to use Christian and Biblical persuasion to call slavery wrong, and yet, some will say, “the practice was permitted to the Jews.” (7) This is a tough question. Was slavery permissible under the Law of Moses?
A. “[That claim] is, in a great measure, false; they [the Children of Israel] had no permission to catch and enslave people who never injured them.” (8)
Q. Oh, I see, bondsmen under the Law of Moses were not slaves, as we understand that term, but criminals working off their time, serving those whom they violated, rather than doing so in a prison cell. Is that right?
A. [That is right.]
Q. Alright then; I understand you. But let me expand upon this line of questioning, if I a may?
A. [You may.]
Q. You pointed out in your essay, “African Slavery in America,” there are those who “[allege] the Sacred Scriptures … to appear contrary to the plain dictates of natural light, and the Conscience, in a matter of Common Justice and Humanity, which they [the Scriptures] cannot be.” (9) Those are your words; are they not?
A. [They are.]
Q. So what is your opinion, then, of the sort of man or woman who would intentionally twist the sacred record to justify slavery and many other gross sins and crimes, on the one hand, or to use these same words to discredit the Bible and Christianity, on the other?
A. “[One] would have thought none but infidel cavilers.” (10)
Q. What ought Christians and freedom loving Americans think and do about those within their ranks who encourage or practice such things and do so in the name of Christianity and the Bible?
A. “[They] should be called Devils, rather than Christians. (11)… [E]very society should bear testimony against [them], and account obstinate persisters [as] bad men, enemies to their country, and exclude them from their fellowship.”
Q. Thank you for clarifying that Christianity, like all other groups, certainly cannot be held accountable, nor discounted as to its validity, simply because ignorant, sinful, and ambitious men use the cloak of being a Christian to justify the unseemly.
A. [You’re welcome.]
Q. Thus far you have spoken about the moral issues, the Christian issues that persuaded you to speak out publicly against slavery and its attendant evils. What would you say to those today who believe that the laws of a nation should never come under the influence of the great moral principles of religion, that men ought to be forbidden to speak of such things in public halls, and that the morality of public servants is of no concern; that only efficiency matters?
A. “[I would think them madmen and lunatics. T]he domestic tranquility of a nation, depends greatly on the chastity of what might properly be called NATIONAL MANNERS”. (12) “[And] as nothing but Heaven is impregnable to vice, … this will point out the necessity of government [in the first place], to supply the defect of moral virtue.” (13)
Q. I see, you are in agreement with Washington “that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government,” that “religion and morality are indispensable supports” of “political prosperity.” Would you also agree with him “[that] the pure and benign light of Revelation … [is at] the Foundation of our Empire”? (14)
A. “[Indeed, but I shall take his point further. P]olitical as well as spiritual freedom is the gift of God through Christ.” (15)
Q. Mr. Paine. Your “Age of Reason” fans won’t like that quote. They’ll accuse me of producing it out of thin air?
A. [Yeah, oh well. No comment.]
Q. But wait a minute. I’m not through with this topic. If political freedom comes from Christ, as you say, what then, in your opinion, is the most important end of government?
A. “[A]bove all things, the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience.” (16)
Q. Do you mean to say, protecting religious freedom is more important than, let’s say, protecting property?
A. “[I do. T]here is a point to view this matter in of superior consequence to the defence of property; and that point is liberty in all its meanings. In the barbarous ages of the world, men in general had no liberty. The strong governed the weak at will; ‘till the coming of Christ there was no such thing as political freedom in any known part of the earth.” (17)
Q. You feel strongly about this, don’t you?
A. “[Yes.] First. Because till spiritual freedom was made manifest, political liberty did not exist, [as I just stated]. Secondly. Because in proportion that spiritual freedom has been manifested, political liberty has increased. Thirdly, whenever the visible church has been oppressed, political freedom has suffered with it. … [Thus,] as the union between spiritual freedom and political liberty seems nearly inseparable, it is our duty to defend both. And defense in the first instance is best.” (18)
Q. Your points are well taken. Till the coming of Christ there was no such thing as political freedom. Your words need repeating today, in Congress, in the courts, in the classroom. Can we talk about miracles now?
A. Let’s.
Q. Mr. Paine, this commentator receives much ridicule for bringing to light God’s hand in establishing this nation, whether through His miraculous intervention in the War for Independence on the side of the Americans, or His inspiring the mind’s of the Founders in the establishment of our constitution. It has been said that you, and the other Founders, did not believe in miracles, and that Christian men ought to stop injecting their private agenda into their writing. Would you please comment on that.
A. [Yes, oh well, there they go again. Who ever said that about American Founder Thomas Paine, is wrong. I do believe in miracles. I, in fact, wrote and testified of the occurrence of miracles in the Bible and in America during this period.]
Q. You did? Tell me more.
A. “[Yes, I did. But let me preface my remarks with a request that the reader remember that any comments I made during the Founding Era on miracles that appear to be against a belief in miracles, ought to be kept in their intended context, that is, I was concerned, as was General Washington, about Americans who refused to take up arms to defend family and country, under the delusion that God alone would fight our battles. I felt this a false manifestation of Christianity, and the sort of response one expects of cowards, not Christians. I wrote to the Quakers:] ‘Could the peaceable principle of the Quakers be universally established, arms and the art of war would be wholly extirpated. But we live not in a world of angels. The reign of Satan is not ended; neither are we to expect to be defended by miracles. The pillar of the cloud existed only in the wilderness. In the nonage of the Israelites. It protected them in their retreat from Pharoah, while they were destitute of the natural means of defense, for they brought no arms from Egypt; but it neither fought their battles nor shielded them from danger afterwards.’” (19)
“[It was to say, as I wrote later,] ‘throw not the burden of the day upon Providence, but ‘show your faith by your works,’ that God may bless you.’ (20) [You see, God brings about His miracles, by common and natural means, most often when humans meet Him half way.]” (21)
Q. Nevertheless, were there miracles that occurred during the American Revolution?
A. [Yes. In “The American Crisis,” I wrote of General Washington’s miraculous retreat from the Delaware and the forces of General Howe. Howe was checked by the Almighty, which God may, in his wisdom, choose to do on special occasions—for] if we believe the power of hell to be limited, we must likewise believe that their agents are under some providential control.” (22)
A2. “[But let affirm, this was my faith before I witnessed such miracles. God gave me to foresee in a dream, (which I published in May of 1775), the role He would play in the coming War for Independence, to bring us victory, and to raise up the United States as a city on a hill. I quote from the interpretation He gave me:] ‘America will rise with new glories from the conflict, and her fame be established in every corner of the globe; while it will be remembered to her eternal honour, that she has not sought the quarrel, but has been driven into it. He who guides the natural tempest will regulate the political one, and bring good out of evil. In our petition to Britain we asked but for peace; but the prayer was rejected. The cause is now before a higher court, the court of Providence, before whom the arrogance of kings, the infidelity of ministers, the general corruption of government, and all the cobweb artifice of courts, will fall confounded and ashamed.’” (23)
Q. Let me see if I have this right, it is your conviction that God intervened on the side of the Americans by putting restraints upon the Brit’s satanically inspired cause?
A. “[As I remarked to a Tory I accidentally fell in company with,] that ‘it appeared clear to me, by the late providential turn of affairs, that God Almighty was visibly on our side,’ [to which] he replied, ‘We care nothing for that, you may have Him, and welcome; if we have but enough of the devil on our side, we shall do.’ However carelessly this might be spoken, matters not, ‘tis still the insensible principle that directs your conduct and will at last most assuredly deceive you and ruin you’, (24) said I to him.”
“[Now, I have more to say on this subject. I wish to reveal a matter of common belief among us American Christians.] There are such things as national sins, and though the punishment of individuals may be reserved to another world, national punishment can only be inflicted in this world. Britain, as a nation is, in my belief, the greatest and most ungrateful offender against God on the face of the whole earth. Blessed with all the commerce she could wish for, and furnished, by a vast extension of dominion, with the means of civilizing both the eastern and western world, she has made no other use of both than proudly to idolize her own ‘thunder,’ and rip up the bowels of whole countries for what she could get. Like Alexander, she has made war her sport, and inflicted misery for prodigality's sake. The blood of India is not yet repaid, nor the wretchedness of Africa yet requited. Of late she has enlarged her list of national cruelties by her butcherly destruction of the Caribbs of St. Vincent's, and returning an answer by the sword to the meek prayer for "Peace, liberty and safety." These are serious things, and whatever a foolish tyrant, a debauched court, a trafficking legislature, or a blinded people may think, the national account with heaven must some day or other be settled: all countries have sooner or later been called to their reckoning; the proudest empires have sunk when the balance was struck; and Britain, like an individual penitent, must undergo her day of sorrow, and the sooner it happens to her the better. As I wish it over, I wish it to come, but withal wish that it may be as light as possible.” (25)
Q. Oh, I see. As it is with individuals, so it is with governments, as it is in private, so it is in public—morality matters—and God will either bless or withhold blessings from the individual or nation which pursues good or evil. May we now speak of America and her destiny?
A. [Yes, we may.]
Q. I believe, as do millions of other Americans, that God set this country apart for a special purpose. Could you please comment?
A. “[Indeed, I will.] The Reformation was preceded by the discovery of America: As if the Almighty graciously meant to open up a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.” (26)
Q. Columbus’ discovery was part of a Divine plan?
A. [Yes.]
Q. And in that plan America was to be a sanctuary for the world’s persecuted?
A. “[Yes.] The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind.” (27)
Q. And is America’s Independence, part of that divine plan as well?
A. “[I believe it so.] Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and America is a strong and natural proof that the authority of the one over the other, was never the design of heaven … and the manner in which it was peopled, encreases the force of it.” (28) “[And let me add a little prophecy. T]he Almighty will finally separate America from Great Britain. Call it independence, or what you will, if it is the cause of God and humanity it will go on.” (29)
Q. What about other nations, will they ever subvert our independence?
A. “Our independence with God’s blessing we will maintain against all the world.” (30)
Q. Mr. Paine, you have given us much to consider regarding the injustice of the British cause, the justice of the America cause, and why God was on our side from the start;—and yet, the question some Christians will ask is this: Was this a just war, and while you are at it, do you believe in the Christian Just War Doctrine?
A. “My own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? What signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? If we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other. Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man. I conceive likewise a horrid idea in receiving mercy from a being, who at the last day shall be shrieking to the rocks and mountains to cover him, and fleeing with terror from the orphan, the widow, and the slain of America.” (31)
Q. Mr. Paine, before closing, I need to readdress a matter of great concern, more bluntly than earlier. Is that okay?
A. [Fire away.]
Q. There are individuals today who take courage in attacking Christianity and the Bible, some of them for political reason, some of them for religious reasons, and they hold you up as their hero. Could you please clarify how you felt about this matter before the French Revolution, that is, back in the days when your soaring language inspired a nation to rise up as true men and true Christians, to shake off the chains which held them bound, and to liberate themselves in a moral, brave and valiant fashion, such as the world has never seen before or since?
A. “[I will. I wrote to the Quakers: ‘I am] one of those few who never dishonors religion either by ridiculing or caviling at any denomination whatsoever. To God and not to men are all men accountable on the score of religion.’” (32)
A2. “[And then to all of America, I wrote, and I write again:] ‘Suspicion is the companion of mean souls, and the bane of all good society. For myself, I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field for our Christian kindness. Were we all of one way of thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for probation; and on this liberal principle, I look on the various denominations among us, to be like children of the same family, differing only, in what is called, their Christian names.’” (33)
Q. Thank you Mr. Paine. Regarding a similar matter, in our day men seem to quote only your sayings about reason and about conscience, and more specifically, about a reason and conscience void of revelation and the Divine influence of Christ. Could you please repeat for our audience what you said shone in the conscience of man and checked him in his sins?
A. “[I said, or truly, Barclay said it first, ‘it is the] light of Christ which shineth in the conscience, and which neither can nor will flatter thee, nor suffer thee to be at ease in thy sins.’” (34)
Q. Say on, concerning this light of Christ, this component of the conscience moderns would have us know nothing about.
A. “The Almighty hath implanted in us these unextinguishable feelings for good and wise purposes. They are the guardians of his image in our hearts. They distinguish us from the herd of common animals. The social compact would dissolve, and justice be extirpated from the earth, or have only a casual existence were we callous to the touches of affection. The robber and the murderer would often escape unpunished, did not injuries which our tempers sustain, provoke us into justice.” (35)
Q. Mr. Paine, as an extension to this matter of conscience, or the light of Christ implanted in every human breast, you once stated, “There are injuries which nature cannot forgive; she would cease to be nature if she did.” (36) Were you referring to your belief that there are some sins, so grossly against nature that every man’s conscience bears testimony that they are wrong, and that even nature itself cries out against them, and exacts punishment?
A. [Yes, you kept it in the context I put it in. I suppose you have a purpose in mind.]
Q. Well, yes. There’s a place for that statement in the American debate today; which leads me to yet another question. What are your views on marriage?
A. “God made us all in pairs; each has his mate somewhere or other; and ‘t is our duty to find each other out, since no creature was ever intended to be miserable.” (37)
Q. “Men are that they might have joy,” is how I would say that. We are almost done, now. One more question.
A. [All right.]
Q. In your “Age of Reason” days, you denounced riddles and mysteries. You asserted that “everything” in the gospel ought to be plain. Your earlier writings bear quite a different testimony, however. Could you please inform our readers how the Christian Thomas Paine approached mysteries and riddles?
A. “[I would be glad to.] There are certain circumstances, which, at the time of their happening, are a kind of riddles, and as every riddle is to be followed by its answer, so those kind of circumstances will be followed by their events, and those events are always the true solution. A considerable space of time may lapse between, and unless we continue our observations from the one to the other, the harmony of them will pass away unnoticed: but the misfortune is, that partly from the pressing necessity of some instant things, and partly from the impatience of our own tempers, we are frequently in such a hurry to make out the meaning of everything as fast as it happens, that we thereby never truly understand it; and not only start new difficulties to ourselves by so doing, but, as it were, embarrass Providence in her good designs.” (38)
[Hmmm. I see your point.]
Q. I hope your latter day followers see it as well! Well, we must now conclude our interview; and it is time for me to thank you. You, Mr. 1770’s Thomas Paine—American Patriot, American Founder—don’t sound anything like the Secular Humanist, or the Deist, or the Theosophist, or the Infidel, or the Atheist, or the Free Mason, they say you are or were—nor can I in a spirit of honesty say that you sound like anything else but a Christian—a devout Christian, I would think—one who matched his faith with his works, and his private thoughts with his public words, for which every American, if not every citizen of the world, owes you and the God who inspired you, a debt.
A. [Why yes. I will be the first to admit it after reviewing the record; and those who claim otherwise are, as you have said, ‘liars and scoundrels,’ and as I have written, ‘infidels and cavilers.’ Thank you for setting the record straight.]
Meridian Columnist Steve Farrell is associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College and the author of “Dark Rose,” an inspirational novel about faith and family reviewers are calling “a modern classic.” Read the reviews or order Dark Rose now.
Footnotes
1. Van der Weyde, William M. editor. “The Life and Works of Thomas Paine,” Patriots Edition, Volume II, New Rochelle, New York, Thomas Paine National Historical Association, 1925, “African Slavery In America,” p. 6-7.
2. Ibid, p. 7-8.
3. Ibid, p. 10
4. Ibid
5. Ibid, “A Serious Thought,” p. 2.
6. Ibid, “African Slavery in America,” p. 10.
7. Ibid, p. 6.
8. Ibid, p. 6.
9. Ibid, p. 5-6.
10. Ibid, p. 5.
11. Ibid, p. 6.
12. Ibid, “Common Sense,” p. 169.
13. Ibid, p. 100.
14. The Papers of George Washington, Washington to John Hancock, June 11, 1783.
15. Van der Weyde, William M. editor. “The Life and Works of Thomas Paine,” Patriots Edition, Volume II, New Rochelle, New York, Thomas Paine National Historical Association, 1925, “Thoughts on Defensive War,” p. 82.
16. Ibid, “Common Sense,” p. 146.
17. Ibid, “Thoughts on Defensive War,” p. 81-82.
18. Ibid, p. 83.
19. Ibid, p. 79.
20. Ibid, “The American Crisis,” p. 272-273.
21. Ibid, “Epistle to Quakers,” p. 189.
22. Ibid, “The American Crisis,” p. 268.
23. Ibid, “The Dream Interpreted,” p. 71.
24. Ibid, “The American Crisis,” p. 293-294.
25. Ibid, p. 294-295.
26. Ibid, “Common Sense,” p. 131.
27. Ibid, p. 95.
28. Ibid, p. 131.
29. Ibid, “A Serious Thought,” p. 2.
30. Ibid, “Common Sense,” p. 307.
31. Ibid, “The American Crisis,” p. 274-275.
32. Ibid, “Epistle to Quakers,” p. 183.
33. Ibid, “Common Sense,” p. 163.
34. Ibid, “Epistle to Quakers,” p. 187.
35. Ibid, “Common Sense,” p. 150.
36. Ibid, p. 149.
37. Ibid, “Reflections on Unhappy Marriages,” p. 78.
38. Ibid, “The American Crisis,” p. 311. |
|
Score: [some] Christians, 0; Ambiguity, 1 |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
31 Oct 2004
|
Nice try, NRA4, but you've convinced no one here about anything except the fact that there was a wide range of opinion among this nation's founders (or at least the men among them) on the subject of god and his place in a secular nation. I can tell you don't know much about history, because you are trying to overlay late 20th Century fundamentalism onto an entirely different context from the history of late 18th Century intellectualism. It just isn't so.
Furthermore, yours is just one interpretation among a diverse range of Chriatian opinion. There are lots of Christians who disagree with your take on the place of religion in U.S. society. Again, under the Constitution, you have the right to hold your opinion, however far it might be from reality, but you have no right to impose it on anyone else under the color of law. That isn't a matter of religious teaching -- it's the law. |
|
Re: Photos from EC Rally |
by NRA4
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
31 Oct 2004
|
I do not claim to be able to "convince" anyone of anything. People's minds are normally made up, and any evidence presented that doesn't agree with what they "want" to believe will be ignored. That's fine, but if you recall, I never moved the discussion to "religious nation" in the first place...you did.
The fact that our forefathers were God fearing(read respecting) men, whose ethics were deeply rooted in christian ethic is a no brainer. No one but a mind numbed atheist could possibly look at the historical documents and think otherwise.
As for trading one "fundamentalism" for another...how many planes have christians flown into buildings? How many thousands of innocent people have christians slaughtered? I know your mind will fall back on the "crusades", but do you really have any idea what the crusades were all about? They were supposed to be about driving back the fundamentalist Islamic takeover that was happening in Europe at the time. Islam is still at work, we are just blind to it these days until they murder a few thousand people, then we pay attention for a few days.
So what does the fact that our Nation's founders, and its laws, were originally rooted in christianity have to do with life here today for us? Good question. When you find out, let me know. But you seem to imply that it is "evil religion" only that opposes abortion. That is not the case. Lot's of people who are not religious have a good sense of morals and are able to determine right from wrong. If human life as we know it begins at conception...as virtually all scientists will attest to...then abortion can logically be nothing other than murder, regardless of what "stage" of development it occurs at. Because at whatever stage abortion does occur, you and I were there once.
Again, doesn't it bother you in the least that one or two of the 40 million babies killed in their mothers wombs MIGHT have been the people who grew up to cure some of the major ills of mankind? It bothers me... |
|
Where Religion Came In |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
31 Oct 2004
|
I beg to disagree, NRA4. You're the one that brought religion into the conversation.
Just to reiterate, I have no issue with what anybody chooses to believe. The sticking point for me is that it is usually a belief that is then combined with religion that leads to problems. The kind of fundamentalist zeal that religion brings to the equation leads people to often not simply to believe, but to insist that you should believe and act like they do.
Some resist the urge to engage violence to further their beliefs; some do not. Some will stick to simply expressing their opinion. Some choose a middle ground where they don't violently disagree with you, but they insist that you are somehow akin to the devil incarnate for disagreeing with them.
The element of suicide makes no real difference to me in the use of anything, whether it is a formal weapons system or merely a diabolically creative adapation of something else, to harm innocent people. Even actual intentions mean little in cases where it is clear that civilians are at risk. Thus I see little practical difference in the intellectual authorship of violence between al-Qaeda, which has killed a few thousand civilians, and the Bush Administration, which has probably killed about 100,000 innocents in Iraq alone. To me, that is moral equivalency.
And it remains a far more pressing problem, one that is even amenable to a political solution as early as this week, than what a woman decides to do to remain in control of her own fertility. |
|
Re: Photos from EC Rally |
by NRA4
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Nov 2004
|
ML,
Not "religion" per say, but religion as it affects this Nation then. I merely asked if what Scott wanted to believe would pass the Catholic test on abortion, you are who took the conversation into a "religious nation" area.
I agree...leave "religion" out of it completely, and you are left with a secular arguement that has already been answered...any scientist will tell you that life as we know it begins at conception and ends at physical death...period. So, abortion is the kiling of innocent human life, thus, murder. Murder is immoral and illegal, so you are clearly supporting an immoral and illegal activity. But, once somone's heart is hardened, and they have set their mind on a course, no amount of truth will sway them because they will always "hear what they want to hear" and they will ignore all the rest. It's just plain old human nature. |
|
Re: Photos from EC Rally |
by Scott Edwards
scottisimo (nospam) hotmail.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
01 Nov 2004
|
any scientist will not tell you that life begins at conception. life is self-sustaining. a blastocyst is not self-sustaining. I am prejudiced in this discussion because i was a bilogy undergrad, and am biased by scientific fact.
which is irrelevant. EC DOES NOT TERMINATE PREGNANCY. It prevents it at the last biologically possible point pregnancy can be prevented. |
|
Re: Photos from EC Rally |
by NRA4
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Nov 2004
|
That's balderdash Scott. You are arguing "degrees" of development, not when the life begins. I guess also then that you would have no problem shoving the scissors into the back of the head of a partially born baby to make way for the tube to suck his or her brains out, since at that exact instant the child is not "self sustaining"...spare me the ignorance of your particular form of rationalization.
>"EC DOES NOT TERMINATE PREGNANCY"
That's actually where my original question was aimed. Can you prove and guarentee that what you say is true. And the fact is, the answer to that question brings us to a Clinton moment...it all depends on whatthe meaning of 'is" is. Actually, it is what the meaning of "pregnancy" is. Is a woman "pregnant" when the embryo is implanted or when the new human life growing within her "begins".
It really does amaze me at what lengths of rationalization some people are willing to entertain in their minds in order to "stand for" the death of innocent unborn human life. What is it about our culture that we are in such great need of a way to kill little unborn babies.
History will look back on us and be amazed to what strides human kind gained in the last 50 years or so, and will also be appalled that even through all this, we waged a war on the most innocent among us, our very own unborn children.
Can you spell "evil"...probably not. |
|
Re: Photos from EC Rally |
by scott
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Nov 2004
|
E-V-I-L: (n); a state of nature wherein human reason, choice, and liberty are sacrificed at the alter of passion.
my definition, at least. |
|
Re: Photos from EC Rally |
by NRA4
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Nov 2004
|
|
I guess we will just have to agree, to disagree, and move on. |
|
Remember Hiroshima? |
by Get Real NRA
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Nov 2004
|
Sorry, gotta respond to this particularly asinine comment by NRA:
"how many planes have christians flown into buildings? How many thousands of innocent people have christians slaughtered? I know your mind will fall back on the "crusades..."
One doesn't have to go back to the Crusades for fux sake - how about yesterday or today in Iraq? or the first Gulf war, or Korea, or Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc etc etc ad nauseum. Just a few examples of wars either started by or perpetuated by the US - that supposedly Christian nation - in which countless *innocent* people died (ie were murdered). Do those deaths somehow NOT COUNT?
Sorry, killing is wrong no matter who does it. All religions have tenets against it, and all ignore these tenets when convenient to do so.
To make the claim that any particular religion holds some kind of moral higher ground above any other is COMPLETELY LUDICROUS, unless by "higher ground" one is referring to planes being flown not into buildings, but high above them so that they can drop bombs.
WARS are often about RELIGION.
"God" save us from both. |
|
