From: sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 09:17:55 GMT

In article <C0AzG2.D2u@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger) writes:
>
>>In article <C095nK.82y@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>>>ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <1992Dec30.162502.6756@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>>>
>>>>>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 
>>>
>>>>I'm sitting 10 feet from a machine that can produce 3d images of your
>>>>internal organs, it was designed by secular reasoning.
>>>
>>>And it was designed in a country founded upon a belief in God.  The 
>>>country founded upon atheism and a belief in man no longer exists.
>>>
>
>>If you are speaking of the United States of America,
>
>To be specific, the "country founded upon a belief in God" is the 
>United States of America.
>
>"...the country founded upon atheism and a belief in man" is, ahem, was
>the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
>
>> you need to reread
>>your history, paying particular attention to the thoughts of Thomas
>>Jefferson, who had some hand in the writing of the documents that founded
>>our country.  You also need to take a look at the Bill Of Rights.
>
>
>
>>Ciao!
>>	John S. :^)
>>	teddybur@netcom.com
>>__
>
>Indeed.  I've read Tom and Ben and George, et. al.  My statement stands.
>I've looked at the Bill of Rights.  If Tom, George, Ben, or anyone else
>had wanted to remove the religious foundations from the country, they
>had only to delete the amendment concerning "respect to religion".

  Interesting interpretation. That amendment prohibits the federal
government from meddling in the religious beliefs of its citizens
by preventing it from establishing official religions or religious
practices. Sounds like a pretty weak 'foundation' for a religious
basis. Actually, of course, it prevents the bigots and purists and
zealots from exercising control in their own particular vision of
the 'right' religion and weakening the influential and teaching
authority that serves religion best.

>  
>Furthermore, it seems that these boys believed man was "endowed with
>certain inalienable rights".  Now they tended to be somewhat better
>schooled in English than you, and undoubtedly understood that one 
>cannot be "endowed" unless Someone is doing the endowing.  Finally,
>the numerous references to a Supreme Being that can be found in the public
>and private papers of all of these gentlemen makes it quite clear that
>this belief was the foundation of their conception of this country.

   Which is not at all the same as saying that they thought that religion
ought to be a central factor in civic processes and governmental
organization. In fact, they had all (or their ancestors) left Europe in
general and GB in particular to escape just this sort of stifling and
arbitrary system. Moreover, many of the founding fathers were Diests
who believed in a God who was at the center of creation and hence your
endower but who did not necessarily involve Himself in mans daily affaris
or was responsible for his destiny. They all strongly believed in the
use of power of reason to solve the civic problems of man.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig