From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:47:58 GMT

sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

>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.

I'd beg to differ.  It's a religious basis so strong that no one who
professes a religion has any fear of persecution in this country. 
It don't get any stronger than that.

> 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.

Bull.  It was not meant to prevent religious authority(ies) from 
exercising control - indeed, if it were, then laws like the one
in Maryland (I belive it's Maryland) which require the Governor to
profess a belief in Christ, would have been stripped from the books
back when George et.al. were in office, since that's when it came
into effect.  The law was meant to do precisely what it says it is
meant to do - prevent anyone from imposing strictures on religion.
How anyone can look at that law and claim that the people who made
it were atheists is mind-boggling. 

>>  
>>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.

True, they were Deists.  But they also felt that religion ought to be a
central factor in civic processes and governmental organization.  The 
two concepts intertwined.  The idea was that while God held himself out
of everyday life, no man should forget the duty owed to God, nor the
gifts that came from God (those endowments such as the gift of Reason
which placed men above animals), nor the final Judgement to which all
men were heir.  Thus, Ben recommended that every session of the Convention
begin with a prayer, so that men's reason could be guided by Divine
Providence, and all present agreed that this was both good and proper.

To say that they strongly believed in the use of the power of reason to
solve the civic problems of man is correct, but not correct enough.  They
also strongly believed that no man should ever forget the Being who
endowed all mankind with this gift.

>-- 
>Jeff Sicherman
>up the net without a .sig

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Organization: Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA