Thanksgiving Day, and why America is different...

[Hetta]

You focused on two words out that whole post and pretend to know what it said?

I doubt you read any father than that. Shame. I thought there was a very good argument for helping people become self-reliant in that post, but you apparently boiled it down to a completely erroneous assumption that I don't like the poor, the elderly, etc.

Actually, that's pretty shallow, but I'll let it go. It won't do any good to say "please read the post again" because you still won't get past "safety net." Singular, by the way -- not plural. Examine the significance.

Your patronizing attitude doesn't encourage me to read anything at all that you post. If the churches were taking care of the poor and needy and those cast out, there would be no need for safety nets. However ...

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

Your patronizing attitude doesn't encourage me to read anything at all that you post. If the churches were taking care of the poor and needy and those cast out, there would be no need for safety nets. However ...

Which you would know, had you read my post thoroughly and for clarity, was my point. But the reaction shouldn't be to rush to the government to fill the gap. The reaction should be to awaken the church. It is what we're supposed to do.

 

[Hetta]

Which you would know, had you read my post thoroughly and for clarity, was my point. But the reaction shouldn't be to rush to the government to fill the gap. The reaction should be to awaken the church. It is what we're supposed to do.

Exactly what does it take to awaken the church? It's been around for a long time, no? So how many should die while the church tries to awaken? Ugh, no.

 

[Nithavela]

“If all were to share alike, and all were to do alike, then all were on an equality throughout, and one was as good as another; and so, if it did not actually abolish those very relations which God himself has set among men, it did at least greatly diminish the mutual respect that is so important should be preserved amongst them. Let none argue that this is due to human failing, rather than to this communistic plan of life in itself…"

So, communism is bad because god made people unequal and some more worthy than other.

Well, that settles it, than.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The primary problem with the scheme was that the profits of the colony were not kept by the colony, but went to capitalists who didn't participate in the work.

Am I the only person who noticed that?

No.

But since the thread was only five pages long I figured I'd see if anyone else pointed it out before I did. Well done, colonialism was anything but socialist. OP refuted.

 

[Avid]

The whole point of the settlement was religious freedom and the advancement of the Gospel. There was no freedom from religion or the so called separation of church and state...

This is very true. People do not realize (though they were told,) that communities, and even whole STATES had an accepted "religious denomination." (re: PBS Series, "Colonial House")

Also, attendance at religious services, and a basic knowledge of the tenets of that religious denomination were REQUIRED of all persons living there. The main stipulation was that Rome did not tell these people they were not allowed to do that, and kill them if they dared.

The term "separation of Church and State," was coined from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to some Baptist preachers, and is NOT part of the US CONSTITUTION. Even after the Revolution, the Baptists were not allowed to have separate Churches and services. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them that voiced their concerns about the new Constitution that was being drafted. They asked for assurance that they, TOO, would enjoy religious freedom from State interference. The letter contains the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state," as a promise that ensured their religious freedom as well.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate 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."
​

WOW... So no "Hate Crime" legislation, nor the eventual outcropping of "Thought Crimes" were ever considered lawful in the writing of our US Constitution. All that extra stuff, INCLUDING the thought of "Freedom FROM Religion" were the OPPOSITE of what was intended by the framers. (These are among the reasons why Thomas Jefferson is my favorite of the Presidents, and of the founders of these United States!)
.

 

[Nithavela]

No.

But since the thread was only five pages long I figured I'd see if anyone else pointed it out before I did. Well done, colonialism was anything but socialist. OP refuted.

I'm sure he has a 450 year old quote that will trounce you.

Ah, how refreshing it must be to be sure that opinions gain value when they age.

 

[RDKirk]

Irrelevant. The ability of a society to be free does not depend on its size.

And the First Amendment does not guarantee you don't have to hear someone else's speech, nor witness the practice of their religion. It simply means they can speak, they can practice, and neither the government nor an individual has the right to interfere with the doing thereof.

The concept of separation of Church and state was brought to America by that very group of people. That's why they were called "Separatists" in England.

My point is that they did not intend to impress their religion on anyone outside their group. In fact, as staunch Calvinists, their understanding that attempting to press their religion on someone who was not Elect was useless anyway.

 

[RDKirk]

The term "separation of Church and State," was coined from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to some Baptist preachers, and is NOT part of the US CONSTITUTION.

No, Jefferson did not coin that phrase. That phrase was coined by Roger Williams in his 1644 treatise "The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for the Sake of Conscience."

Roger Williams was a Calvinist pastor in Massachussets--he wasn't on the Mayflower, but he was on the second boat over--also one of those "Separatists" that the English were glad to get rid of.

Williams understood from history (the Thirty Years' War wasn't quite over) that co-mingling the Church with the State only resulted in the adulteration of the Church with non-Christian people and purposes.

Whenever the government makes it mandatory or even socially advantageous to claim Christianity, then it's inevitable that the pews will be packed with a majority of people who are there only because of duress or social advantage--not belief.

Even after the Revolution, the Baptists were not allowed to have separate Churches and services.

Roger Williams also founded the first Baptist church in the USA. He further founded the colony of Rhode Island to have perfect freedom of religion, including explicitly for Muslims and freedom from religion for atheists. Baptists had their own separate churches in Rhode Island. But of course, as Williams wrote, they did not in states that did not practice a separation of church and state.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them that voiced their concerns about the new Constitution that was being drafted. They asked for assurance that they, TOO, would enjoy religious freedom from State interference. The letter contains the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state," as a promise that ensured their religious freedom as well.

Jefferson shrewedly plagarized the words of the the founder of Baptist churches in America, knowing that the Danbury Baptists well knew their own history and the man who made it.

Interestingly, it was still Rhode Island--Williams' state--that single-handedly blocked ratification of the Constitution until after the First Amendment was ratified.

(These are among the reasons why Thomas Jefferson is my favorite of the Presidents, and of the founders of these United States!)
.

In racial matters, however, Jefferson was evil to the core...and knew he was evil. His views of black people and his evil treatment of Sally Hemmings and Benjamin Bannecker are historical record.

 

[Joykins]

The concept of separation of Church and state was brought to America by that very group of people. That's why they were called "Separatists" in England.

I don't know that they saw it as separation of church and state. They saw it as separation of themselves from the Church of England. They felt it was perfectly fine to establish their own official church, compel attendance, etc.

Just take a look at how they treated Quakers...

 

[RDKirk]

I don't know that they saw it as separation of church and state. They saw it as separation of themselves from the Church of England. They felt it was perfectly fine to establish their own official church, compel attendance, etc.

Just take a look at how they treated Quakers...

Again, their initial intention was not to set up a nation with a national government. Their idea was small. But when they did begin to expand along the same ways, Roger Williams took it to the street.

Not that they liked him very much for it--he got kicked out of Massachusetts. They were also annoyed that Williams evangelized the Indians but did not encourage them to join the white congregations--Williams told the Indians essentially, "Jesus is real, but those guys want to take your land."

Roger Williams was also the first American Abolitionist. Jefferson was a poseur. Williams was the real deal.

 

[Avid]

No, Jefferson did not coin that phrase. That phrase was coined by Roger Williams in his 1644 treatise "The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for the Sake of Conscience."...

I stand corrected on that. It was a poor choice of terms to say Jefferson COINED the phrase, but that is why many people THINK it is in the US Constitution.
.

 

[conamer]

I don't know anyone who has argued that the Pilgrims thought up the idea or drafted it.

Personally, I like Thanksgiving. I don't celebrate it the way the Christian Right does and I don't celebrate it the way the Pilgrims did and never will.

But that's what freedom of and from religion means. That means you can have your stories, fables, divine "morality," Trinity, and fire and brimstone and eternal punishment...while I get to have my PlayStation 4.

And you can have your fable that everything came from nothing dispite it never being observed or recreated.

 

[Avid]

I'm sure he has a 450 year old quote that will trounce you.

Ah, how refreshing it must be to be sure that opinions gain value when they age.

The fact that William Bradford was there, and was Governor, has tons more validity than an opinion of someone today. It is not the age of the quote that made it valid, but who it was that said it!
.

 

[Avid]

... His views of black people and his evil treatment of Sally Hemmings and Benjamin Bannecker are historical record.

Have not researched Benjamin Bannecker, but your prejudice is astounding!

Your accusations concerning Sally Hemmings are part of a widespread rumor that is not as cut-and-dry as you'd like to think. It would not surprise me if you'd favor the stories from a disaffected former ally, or from Jefferson's Federalist opponents. Even some of Sally's children had strong opinions like these that are mostly disproved by DNA evidence. One, however, is considered to be Jefferson's, but the DNA evidence is not as conclusive as you'd like, since 25 Jefferson men carried the particular gene that was considered their "smoking gun."

http://www.monticello.org/site/plan...mas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-brief-account

On a Page specific to that subject:

... In September 1802, political journalist James T. Callender, a disaffected former ally of Jefferson, wrote in a Richmond newspaper that Jefferson had for many years "kept, as his concubine, one of his own slaves." "Her name is Sally," Callender continued, adding that Jefferson had "several children" by her.

Although there had been rumors of a sexual relationship between Jefferson and an enslaved woman before 1802, Callender's article spread the story widely. It was taken up by Jefferson's Federalist opponents and was published in many newspapers during the remainder of Jefferson's presidency...

--- etc.---

... a committee commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, after reviewing essentially the same material, reached different conclusions, namely that Sally Hemings was only a minor figure in Thomas Jefferson's life and that it is very unlikely he fathered any of her children. This committee also suggested in its report, issued in April 2001 and revised in 2011, that Jefferson's younger brother Randolph (1755-1815) was more likely the father of at least some of Sally Hemings's children...
​

It is not as conclusive as some would like, but if these accusations are true, it is not as large or agregious as has been stated by many who have attempted to discredit the man for over 200 years.
.

 

[conamer]

The primary problem with the scheme was that the profits of the colony were not kept by the colony, but went to capitalists who didn't participate in the work.

Am I the only person who noticed that?

Horse hockey, the people who do the work keep their money and many became wealthy. They all were capitalists.

 

[conamer]

The concept of separation of Church and state was brought to America by that very group of people. That's why they were called "Separatists" in England.

My point is that they did not intend to impress their religion on anyone outside their group. In fact, as staunch Calvinists, their understanding that attempting to press their religion on someone who was not Elect was useless anyway.

You might want to read the Mayflower Compact.

 

[conamer]

This is very true. People do not realize (though they were told,) that communities, and even whole STATES had an accepted "religious denomination." (re: PBS Series, "Colonial House")

Also, attendance at religious services, and a basic knowledge of the tenets of that religious denomination were REQUIRED of all persons living there. The main stipulation was that Rome did not tell these people they were not allowed to do that, and kill them if they dared.

The term "separation of Church and State," was coined from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to some Baptist preachers, and is NOT part of the US CONSTITUTION. Even after the Revolution, the Baptists were not allowed to have separate Churches and services. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them that voiced their concerns about the new Constitution that was being drafted. They asked for assurance that they, TOO, would enjoy religious freedom from State interference. The letter contains the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state," as a promise that ensured their religious freedom as well.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate 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."
​

WOW... So no "Hate Crime" legislation, nor the eventual outcropping of "Thought Crimes" were ever considered lawful in the writing of our US Constitution. All that extra stuff, INCLUDING the thought of "Freedom FROM Religion" were the OPPOSITE of what was intended by the framers. (These are among the reasons why Thomas Jefferson is my favorite of the Presidents, and of the founders of these United States!)
.

Yes, the church was concerned the government would dictate how the church should worship.

 

[Savior2006]

And you can have your fable that everything came from nothing dispite it never being observed or recreated.

And you can have your fable that atheists in general think that.

 

[conamer]

And you can have your fable that atheists in general think that.

It's a pesky problem with that faith.