Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
I know we're not supposed to "feed the trolls", but Frank, what you just said is what Hugh's post shoots down. He asserts that the intent of the wording of the 1st Amendment was only to protect the varying sects of Christianity from persecution. I don't see how your retort, which distills down to: "you're wrong because the first amendment says 'freedom of religion'" works. When we're discussing the intent of something written, how does quoting the vague language prove anything?
It looks to me that Redfish has a more poignant rebuttal. I like Jefferson, really I do, but he had a lot of half-baked ideas. From his architecture at Monticello to his Presidency (cough embargo cough) to his death as a pauper, there are examples aplenty. I understand where he was coming from with his "Yeoman Farmer" ideal for the American Citizen. He wanted to preserve the "pluck", tenacity, and independent thought of each Citizen as a Yeoman Farmer stereotypically embodies, but the way it was presented to me it seems that he wanted to preserve free-thinking Americans by having all Americans literally be Yeoman Farmers. Pretty impractical. Additionally he's the "go-to guy" for quotes with "weight of authority" for Anarchists, Atheists, and seemingly all who question government and Christianity. He's become a Sophist after death: people use his words to convince people of their cause one day, and then the next a group opposed to the first uses his words in a compelling counter-argument. :banghead:
...I like "Hindoo" more than "Hindu", personally :bwahaha:
That said, I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion Jefferson draws. Simply because "Jesus Christ" was omitted doesn't automatically mean that the Founding Fathers meant to offer up religious freedom to any and all non-Christians. Maybe they decided against the language but kept the intent, as Hugh says? Maybe they left it out to include the Jews, but not Muslims? I think we need more than just the evidence in that quote to go on.
I'm not sure what writings from the Founding Fathers that I should be reading. Musings of our Founding Fathers don't seem to stock the shelves of any library or university near me.
It looks to me that Redfish has a more poignant rebuttal. I like Jefferson, really I do, but he had a lot of half-baked ideas. From his architecture at Monticello to his Presidency (cough embargo cough) to his death as a pauper, there are examples aplenty. I understand where he was coming from with his "Yeoman Farmer" ideal for the American Citizen. He wanted to preserve the "pluck", tenacity, and independent thought of each Citizen as a Yeoman Farmer stereotypically embodies, but the way it was presented to me it seems that he wanted to preserve free-thinking Americans by having all Americans literally be Yeoman Farmers. Pretty impractical. Additionally he's the "go-to guy" for quotes with "weight of authority" for Anarchists, Atheists, and seemingly all who question government and Christianity. He's become a Sophist after death: people use his words to convince people of their cause one day, and then the next a group opposed to the first uses his words in a compelling counter-argument. :banghead:
...I like "Hindoo" more than "Hindu", personally :bwahaha:
That said, I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion Jefferson draws. Simply because "Jesus Christ" was omitted doesn't automatically mean that the Founding Fathers meant to offer up religious freedom to any and all non-Christians. Maybe they decided against the language but kept the intent, as Hugh says? Maybe they left it out to include the Jews, but not Muslims? I think we need more than just the evidence in that quote to go on.
I'm not sure what writings from the Founding Fathers that I should be reading. Musings of our Founding Fathers don't seem to stock the shelves of any library or university near me.