From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Pl
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:30:02 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep8.181642.18961@technology.com> richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
>So what? I have friends who are Christians, but that doesn't make me one. My
>understanding of Deism is that it holds God created the world, but does not
>take an active part in it. Hence believing in miracles was out for Deists.
>This is contrary to what many believers I know think. I think the main point
>is this: although many of the founders believed in God, they choose to
>keep government independent of this belief. Hence our constitution makes no
>mention of scriptures, Jesus, or specific holy persons. So the motto
>"In God We Trust" applies equally to Christians, Jews, and those who follow
>the teachings of Mohammed.

You didn't read the quote correctly, it would seem.  The person who
INVENTED Deism was a Christian Zealot.  Not that Locke was the friend
of the Christian Zealot and Locke invented Deism.  But rather that
Deism is borne out of a Christian Zealot's beliefs.  Note that many
things which were held to be "commonly understood" didn't make it into
the Constitution.  AND many things which are in the Constitution are
now interpreted completely differently.  So, not being in there, or
being in there, really doesn't indicate what the framers intended.

By the way, if you believe that God created Man with a free-will, which
he exercises without coercion (and thus is a free-will ...) what you've
described as "Deism" is pretty damned close to what I believe as a
Christian.

I suspect that "Deism" has been perverted as a religious doctrine
because belief in a Hairy Thunderer version of God is more comfortable
to people who refuse to accept sole responsibility for themselves and
their neighbors than a "Prime Mover" version.  If we, and we alone, are
responsible for creating "miracles", God's desire that WE "feed his
sheep" becomes far more obvious when those "sheep" die from OUR neglect.
I don't view "manna from Heaven" as the solution to starving in Somalia,
nor do I view "hammers from Heaven" as the solution to homeless people.
Instead, I contribute food to my church, and time to homeless famlies.
I don't prostrate myself before God and pray that He send a divine
tractor to Somalia or a blessed hammer to East Austin.  This is hardly
the view one would have if God were supposed to interfere in daily life
on this planet.

In fact, if the belief that "miracles" aren't performed by God is part
of Deism, I'd say that I must be part Deist since I believe that many
"miracles" were NOT performed "miraculously".  Certainly the "Fishes and
Loaves" miracle can be adequately explained by people who had brought
food being led to share with total strangers.  Other "groups" are
likewise "re-defined" by people who are afraid of their beliefs, such as
Freemasons.  I recall many people telling me you can't be a Freemason and
a Christian.  Based on what I've read about Freemasonry, it shouldn't be
too hard to be both, and the more I read about Deism the more attractive
it sounds.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard