http://www.msnbc.com/news/954934.asp?0cl=cR&cp1=1

discuss...

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 26, 2003

Answers

Yet another in a long line, sad to say.

The US constitution bans the establishment of a state religion (although many would argue that "Protestant" is the defacto state religion if there is one. Unfortunately, the courts have interpreted this to mean that there should be no mention of anything remotely referring to God, yet often permitting other religions to put up monuments, meet at school (Wicca for example), and require children to learn of the "religion of the moment", which in most cases means Islam in school classes. Either learn of every religion in school or none. Christianity in many cases is specifically singled out--one teacher lost her job over wearing a Crucifix on a chain to school, but you see kids wear crosses every day as fashion accessories....The teacher was in trouble for "forcing her beliefs on children".....Nonsense.

Even if you take God out of the Ten Commandments, they make good sense for getting along with others, and for that reason alone, should be allowed to stay.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 26, 2003.

Uh, why aren't the "Ten Commandments" posted at the steps of the church buildings? I have yet to see such a thing. It seems that it should start at the church facade before it can be done on the secular buildings. But, if such a thing should become the norm-- posting on secular buildings--we are gonna start seeing other religions posting their stuff too. We aren't gonna like those posting, now are we?

How about Luther's 95 Thesis or The 12 Step Program for example?

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 26, 2003.

What really needs to be emphasized is that official banning of God-based religious expression constitutes official preferential recognition and propagation of atheistic religion, specifically the religion of secular humanism. Some prefer to refer to humanism as a "philosophy", in which case it represents an "alternative" to religion, or more properly a substitute for religion, rather than an actual religion. But in either case, removal of theistic references from a child's education guarantees that all references he/she encounters - historical, sociological, scientific, ethical, moral - will be atheistic references. The principle doctrines of the religion of secular humanism are:

1. There is no God. 2. There is no afterlife. 3. Absolute authority does not exist. 4. Objective truth does not exist, at least in relation to moral questions. 5. The morality of an act depends only upon its effects. 6. Humans and humans alone are the masters of their own destiny.

There is no such thing as a religious vacuum. If God is banished from the educational process, that doesn't mean that our children are no longer exposed to religious and moral concepts at school. In fact, such an action by the state constitutes imposition of an atheistic state religion upon all school children, and it is inevitable that they will be taught the above religious beliefs, under the guise of "separation of church and state".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 26, 2003.

Worse yet...

I see/ignore tons of billboards. They mean nothing to me anymore. I wouldn't like the same thing happening with the "Ten Commandments" having society trivializing or ignoring anything sacred. If we see it in a secular place, it is then thought of as being secular. I truly believe that sacred things belong in sacred places. The church is a sacred place, the White House is a secular place. The people are the ones who are the faithful.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 26, 2003.

At the risk of getting myself reprimanded or fired, I include religious singing in my classes. One of these days, I'm gonna get myself in a heap of trouble. But, that's just the way things are in public schools.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 26, 2003.

This is one thing I cannot understand. I understand that the early immigrants to the American continent were people in England who were fed up by some religious facts, and as far as I understand they were either protestants who opposed many christian rules, or people who were sickened by the limits on immorality. Now, that is in the past. As of now, the goverment says everywhere that "in God we trust". If that is half true, which God are they referring to? Is it God who gave us the ten commandments, which every christian sect acknowledges, and is the basis of our life? Or is it some other God who was "created" just for the sake of show? If as they say we trust in God, why would we make laws for the purpose of throwing away his laws? In that case, the part about "in God we trust" should be deleted. Otherwise we are saying that we trust in God, he gave us the commandments, but we don't need his commandments in this country even though we say we trust in him, because according to us, freedom is everything, even freedom from his laws. It is a relief to see many people who have not fell into this trap and holding on to their faith, including the justice who put up the monument. Perhaps this is all because of our deep guilt in ourself. We wouldn't allow the church of satan to go around legally if we were true by saying "in God we trust", we wouldn't allow obecenities and nudity in movies, we wouldn't allow racism to happen, and the list goes on. So, simply the part "in God we trust" is the worst lie ever, and it just makes me hate politics more than ever. So, why don't they take away the phrase "in God we trust", or explain which God they are talking about? Is it about God, or some other God, or a man made God to make ourselves comfortable? And why wouldn't anyone protest against that, which just contradicts everything? All I can see is loopholes everywhere to make sure we can do whatever against God, in his name. If anyone of whatever authority commands me or threatens me to take away God's law or turn him down or my faith, I would never do that.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), August 29, 2003.

Oh Paul, you hit a Grand Slam Home Run! You are so completely right!

Rod, just to put a few things in focus for you, our legal system is based on Judeo Christian principles. Did you realize that? Our legal system has its very roots in the laws of God founded first in the Mosaic law. It is perfectly right, acceptable and prudent, therefore, to have not only the 10 Commandments displayed on the courthouse lawn, but to also have scriptures engraved on the walls and ceilings of our governmental buildings -- AS THEY ARE!!

Here's a shocker . . . NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THE PHRASE "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" FOUND!! In fact, here's the closest thing you can find, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." In other words, Congress shall not pass any laws establishing one religion as the "state" religion. And it has never even come close to doing such a thing.

The Order that this lunatic Court passed down to this Alabama judge cited NO LEGAL PRECEDENT on which it based its order. What we have in this country is judicial tyranny perpetrated upon the citizens of these United States by a lunatic fringe of radical leftist ANTI- CHRIST dictators known as Supreme Court Judges!

Love,

Gail

P.S. There is an old saying, "Nature abhors a void." If the radicals have their way and scorch our legal system of any reference to God Almighty, the secular god of humanism, materialism and hedonism will take His place! Woe is us if we let this happen!!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), August 30, 2003.

The imposition of athehism by the government apparently enjoys all the Constitutional protection it wants! Don't tell me there's no official State-sponsored religion!

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), August 30, 2003.

Hi Gail.

Yes, I agree with what you've said. But, our government doesn't believe what you've said. The censored monument is evidence of that.

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 31, 2003.

It takes Christians to make changes. It takes guts to stand up a face school boards and city councils in order to put God back in schools. It takes strong tenacity to put God in the public mind and curriculum. It takes an overthrow of those in power who are not willing to make those changes. Will it ever happen? Why can we go to Iraq and "correct" that society, but when it comes to our faith we are pretty much stifled to do what is right?

I am pretty much fed up with the public school solutions for curricula, discipline, and counseling. Public schools are broken because they subscribe to these man-made modern day quick fix solutions/theories. Those solutions are merely a fractional extract from God's teachings; they are watered down teachings taken out of context. If......IF God's teachings would be truly and wholly established in our public schools, things would change dramatically for the better, of course.

But, it isn't gonna happen. People are too weak or just plain _______.

Listen to the ring of this:
"Public School 451" vs. "Public School of St. Jerome"
"Public School: Thomas Jefferson Middle School" vs. "Christian Elementary Public School"

ro

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 31, 2003.

BTW, I mention Thomas Jefferson. He did a great job of waterying down the Holy Bible and converting it into a more "humanistic" document. Hee, hee, what "common sense" this Jefferson has!

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 31, 2003.

Here are a few more thoughts on public school names:

Martin Luthern Reform School
Iscariot School of Corrections
Noah's School of Architecture
Moses Language Arts Magnet School
John the Baptist Primary School: Pre-K and Kinder Campus.
Adam and Eve Horticulture Research and Science College.

Just a little humor...

rod..

..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 31, 2003.

Perhaps you would care to consider some of the words of Thomas Jefferson on this issue:

I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents (letter to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808).

Let me add two thoughts of my own: 1) To command all citizens to have no other God is not acceptible in these United States, and that is the first of the 10 Commandments. Some of the other commandments (and they actually vary among denominations) apply more universally to human decency, and therefore require no religious enforcement in our legal system. The may be applied civilly without religious prejudice. 2) The point has been raised by some "believers" that prohibiting "god" from the classroom, public buildings, et al forces atheism onto the populace. Not so. The absence of a topic does not negate the topic - it merely removes the topic from a particular forum. Atheism is not discussed or taught, either. NO spiritual philosophy is given priority. If your child comes home talking about the wonders of Kali someday, you can thank the religious right. The only way to get Christianity into the curriculum is to be inclusive - and that means including other religious philosphies beyond different flavors of Christianity.

-- Teletha (telethadear@yahoo.com), September 01, 2003.

The founding fathers of the United States of America were not intellectual light weights. Nor did they think that reason was so weak as to be unable to come to the objective knowledge of the truth.

In their life times they confronted a majority of human beings who did not accept their beliefs, yet declared their independence anyway. They realized that many if not most human beings lived under monarchy, yet decided to found a Republic and called it an "experiment in self-rule".

Theirs was not the philosophy that man can not know objective truth or that the mind is incapable of discerning what is right and wrong and that we're all supposed to be relativistic strangers who can't tell each other what should or should not be done in public or private! (It's important to keep history in mind here. The modern day philosophers who doubted man's ability to know universally valid, "objective" truth were born and taught during the late 1700's - too late to have "taught" much less to have "informed" the Founding Father's generation of thinkers, with one or two exceptions.)

The writers and framers of the Constitution believed in absolute truth. If not ask yourself why they would risk "their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" in defense of freedom against the world's great super-powerful monarchy by declaring a Revolution?

In the declaration of independence and in the constitution and federalist papers they were setting down clear, rational principles (know-able, while not known or accepted by all men) which established clear guidelines about what man is and therefore what man is owed (in justice because of rights) and what man owes (in duty) to his fellow man.

And they did all this within a framework of belief in a supreme being called God who created a reasonable, orderly world (which therefore could be explored and known systematically, rationally and scientifically) and established the ultimate foundation for right and wrong which could be either accepted and built upon with civil law, or rejected and hence become a system which men would have an innate right to rebel against!

So the only way you can take the relativistic argument which claims "we shouldn't make the first commandment applicable to all" is to stubbornly refuse to accept the rational argument that there can only be one God, and that this one God is providential and concerned with how Men treat one another.

Look at it this way: in our constitution we hold that all men have inalienable rights - even though plenty of people, maybe even the majority of people on earth and in the history of the human race, have NOT believed in inalienable human rights!

We also believe - in the constitution - that the authority of government is derived from the will of the people...yet again, this is a belief which is based on an argument from reason, but has been rejected by not only people in the 1700's but also by people in the 21st century! Yet it is accepted as law of the land here.

As a people we believe that there is one human race - even though many people throughout time and as recently as 1945 believe that there were real ontological differences between some ethnic groups (Arians and non-Arians), which would allow those with power to kill or dominate those without power. And as a nation we were perfectly willing to crush those who disagreed with us on this fundamental position!

Thus to say that we can't claim that there is one God and that we can't enforce at least this belief as the primary truth upon which all else is based (especially the legitimacy of the state and oaths and law) is a bogus claim not based on dispassionate reason but on passionate emotion. It's a claim not made on the basis of reason.

The atheists and polytheists and pantheists can not and have not mustered more than arguments which question the position that there can only be one supreme being called God.

The existence of God can been proven rationally, just as the existence of one single human family, and the possession of inalienable rights which inhere in individuals of the species Homo sapiens, can also be proven rationally.

You may choose to disbelieve that people have rights and that we are all members of one human race (thus have equal rights before the law), and that above humanity there exists a single, benevolent God, but this choice is not an informed one, a rational one.

Looked at another way, what could a relativist say to those who claim that every American has a right to actively subvert the United States Government, deny his fellow man of life and liberty and infect as many other people with as many pathogens as are possible?

Do people have a right under the United States Constitution to NOT obey the law of the land? Does Law really only mean "the application of political and police power", and NOT an ordinance with moral authority?

So while you may believe in no God or a multiplicity of gods, the state and the res publicae (the people) can know and thus can establish as soundly as we can establish the heliocentric theory, that a God exists. And this belief also is linked to all the rest of the rights and other intangibles protected by the system of law written by our founders... thus while people MAY have a right to be ignorant, they don't have a right to foist their ignorance on the rest of the polity, especially when such ignorance (*agnosticism) would lead men to conclude that there is no rational, universal applicability of law beyond political and police force. THAT was the heresy which led to the American revolution in the first place.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 02, 2003.

Fancy writing, Joe. I think that the men who died in the Revolutionary War did so because, for them, it was some idea of freedom or just plain owning a plot of land to live on. Survival.

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2003.

America was established with Protestant ideals.

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2003.

Uh, the reason they fought, not died, was for freedom.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2003.

Wrong. If you ever took the trouble to actual read what the founding fathers wrote: Washington, Madison, et al, you'd have seen that they already HAD land and "survival". Most were rich farmers or businessmen. They didn't need "freedom" in the sense of slaves yearning to be free. Their rebellion was a principled one to the concept of monarchy and foreign control which was unresponsive to the will of the governed. They all wrote in 1773 and 1774 about how their first option was to "work within the system", to redress wrongs according to the law of Britain. But when law did not suffice and all their ambassadors to the crown were rebuffed...they declared their independence.

Of the many who signed the Declaration of Independence, about half really did loose their lives and lands. None lost their sacred honor.

You do a disservice to the country by not knowing the words and deeds of these great men sir. I urge you to read them.

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), September 03, 2003.

"Nor did they think that reason was so weak as to be unable to come to the objective knowledge of the truth."

Nobody does, really. Nobody denies the objective knowledge of the truth. Philosophers may deny the objective knowledge of the truth, but they're really just lying. They are lying to others and to themselves.

This can be proven... just go up and sock them in the gut.

Or, ruin some of they're stuff, they'll take you to court and make a convenient us of arguments to prove their case against you, and obtain something called justice, a concept which they'll make a convenient acknowledgement of until they get home. When they get their stuff back in order using objective truths, they'll revert back to lying that there's no objective truth.

Or take away their food. Nah, they believe in objective truth... they're just lying to get out of something.

So if the founding fathers admit that there is such a thing as objective truth, this doesn't seem such a milestone to me. Nor is their recognition of a Supreme Being. Freemasonry holds this much in common with them. Come to think of it, the founding fathers' concept of a Supreme Being is much like Freemasonry's. In fact, they're exactly the same. Oh yeah, silly me... the founding fathers, most of them, were Freemasons. Holy smoke! I forgot about the French Revolution and the Rights of Man, and how this too was instigated by Freemasonry, and how the French help us in all of this, and how Martin Luther was instrumental in the formation of the forces that divide church and state.

It's all coming back to me...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 03, 2003.

Free masonry does not believe in a providential (i.e. active) God who intervenies in the lives of men with miracles...yet ALL the founding Fathers (with the exception of one or two) believed in and wrote their witness of miracles - miracles during the war in which by all accounts the Continentals and Washington should have been annihilated.

Have you never read the accounts of the Battle of Monmouth, the escape from Long Island, Lafayette's escape from the south? Time and again Washington himself had horses shot out from underneath him, bullet holes in his clothes... there are loads of eye witness accounts of remarkable "happenstances" which saved the day time and again...and there are all those accounts from men of that generation who refered to God's providence, to His protection and grace... none of which is free masonry.

Don't let yourself fall hook line and sinker to the cheap post facto marketing strategy of the masons who engage in wishful thinking when they co-op this or that figure such as Washington. He was once a lodge member...not frequently. He was much more involved in the Episcopal Church where he was a warden.

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), September 03, 2003.

Joe, you make the forefathers out to be holy people set out to bring the new world to the belief in God. I don't believe this to be the real intentions of those forefathers. I believe that they used that concept to justify their imperialistic actions. Remember, these people were Protestants and, bye golly, they are gonna make things their way and not conform to any established God given Church.

Even their Bible was peculiar, as it reflected their independent thinking and worship.

rod p.s. I still like your fancy writing, even if you try to intimidate.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2003.

Gee thanks Rod. I'm NOT trying to intimidate. I'm trying to TEACH.

If you "think" you know what motivated the founders, then by all means, enlighten us. I don't opine. I've read their own words for what motivated them and why.

Sure, they were Protestants. But Protestants of 1770's would be considered hide-bound far-right wackos today. Divorce and remarriage was beyond the pale (to use a Dublin expression), to say nothing of all the other horrors of our age.

Washington forebade the Continentals from swearing in 1776 precisely because he thought it ill advised for soldiers who depended so totally on Divine protection to take God's name in vain! THAT isn't some free-masonry gibberish! AND it totally coincides with a Catholic view of things.

As for their particular type of Christianity...the Rebels aligned themselves with Catholic Spain and Catholic France! Lafayette was Catholic! So was Von Seuben and Polaski and the founder of the American Navy... that whole generation of men were decidedly less anti-Catholic than their decendents.

Nativism and the know-nothings came on the scene in the 1830's - a full 40 years after the time of of the Revolution...

So I urge you not to just feel your way through this. Read some of their books and works for yourself. I'm sure they're only a couple of clicks away.

You might want to check out the Federalist papers, Madison's diaries and Washington's speeches and letters.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 03, 2003.

Allow me to post a long cut and paste from a site I found after 30 seconds of web-searching... I urge those of you who think the Founding Fathers were agnostics or atheists or people who disdained revealed religion (i.e. Old and New Testament) to reconsider based on their actual words - NOT what you may have read in some second-hand and second-rate Public school history book!

American Patriot of the Month

James Madison

Fourth President of the United States

Father of our Constitution

by Tom Stiles

James Madison was an unlikely hero. He was a very small man physically (said to weigh less than 100 pounds as an adult). Being a frail and sickly child, he developed a love for reading.

He was born the last of 12 children to James and Nelly Madison, on March 16, 1751. He spent his childhood on the plantation that would later become his own, Montpelier in Orange County, Virginia. His wealthy parents hired tutors to teach James until age 18, when he went to the College of New Jersey (now Princeton).

While he was a student, the University experienced a revival. Some believe that he took part of its spirit. Rev. John Witherspoon, one of the colonies finest theologians and legal scholars, was one of Madison’s primary teachers. Madison studied very hard, finishing the regular course in two years, in 1771. He spent the next six months studying Hebrew, philosophy, religion, and other subjects. He seriously considered entering the ministry, but concluded that God had other plans for his life. He soon turned his attention to politics.

He was elected to the Virginia Committee of Safety in 1774. During the crumbling British colonial government, this Committee served as a governing body for Virginia. He helped write the Virginia State Constitution that voters adopted in 1776. For the next forty years, he served in various political offices.

Voters elected Madison to the Continental Congress in 1780. Although he was one of the youngest members at 29 years of age, he distinguished himself as a very capable leader. At the end of his term, he returned to Virginia, planning to continue his studies. For three successive terms, voters elected him to the Virginia Assembly. While there, he drafted the Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom.

In 1787, he represented Virginia at the Constitutional Convention. Madison came to the Convention better prepared than any one else. He had a plan for the new government, the Virginia Plan. Even though he was only 36 years old, he took a leading part in the Convention. Being well read in political history and knowing the weakness of the old government’s Articles of Confederation, he proved vital in drafting the new Constitution.

Madison served as a member of the Virginia convention that was called to decide whether the state should ratify the new Constitution. He joined two New Yorkers, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, in writing The Federalist, a series of public letters to newspapers. Scholars still consider these letters the most authoritative explanation of the American constitutional system. Thanks to these efforts, all thirteen states adopted the Constitution. Because of his leadership in the Constitutional Convention and writings (particularly the Federalist Papers), historians call him the Father of America’s Constitution.

In the new government, Madison served in a variety of offices. Voters elected him to the first House of Representatives in 1788. He opposed Alexander Hamilton’s policies and helped Thomas Jefferson form the Democratic-Republican party in 1792.

He married a young widow, Dolley Payne Todd, in 1794. She was an excellent wife and political partner, who helped advance his career. In 1801, when voters elected Thomas Jefferson as President, he served as Jefferson’s Secretary of State. During this time of service, he helped arrange the Louisiana Purchase.

In 1808, voters elected him to be President of the United States. He served two terms as President (1809 to 1817). During his Presidency, America fought the War of 1812, against the British and their Indian allies. Invading British troops forced Madison to flee the Washington DC, White House. His wife, Dolley, became a hero when she abandoned her own possessions to rescue Gilbert Stuart’s portrait of George Washington and other precious items from the Presidential mansion. American forces drove the British forces back. American troops experienced several other victories, including The Battle of New Orleans, in 1814.

The War of 1812 was America’s Second Revolutionary War. It helped establish America as a world power, and instilled a spirit of nationalism in the American people. Frances Scott Key wrote The Star Spangled Banner, as he watched the bombardment of Fort McHenry in Baltimore Harbor. It became America’s national anthem.

Completing his two terms as President, Madison retired to his Virginia plantation at Montpelier. He helped Thomas Jefferson found the University of Virginia. Later he became the rector of the University (1826). He died on June 28, 1836, the last of the Founding Fathers. His widow returned to Washington, where she lived until her death in 1849.

James Madison, a dedicated man of God, did what he could for his country. Note carefully what he said about America’s Constitution.

“We’ve staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us . . . to Govern ourselves according to the commandments of God. The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded.”

Other Quotes from James Madison

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

—Speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 03, 2003.

Nice! Your viewpoint is clear and so are your notes. Here is a thought. Many non-Mexicans became Catholic in order to own land in Mexico before that part of Mexico became Texas. The issue was not Catholicism; it was land aquisition. Are you absolutely sure this didn't happen to America? Sure the political types would construct such ideals, but what about the actual settlers that followed (as you've mentioned)? Ideals are one thing; pragmatism is another.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2003.

Oh I see...you are one of those people who don't believe in principles or ideals... the type of cynics who think EVERYTHING is a pragmatic trick, a ploy for fools... dressed up in "fancy language".

Well, sure, since Americans are human too I'm sure the historical record will show that lots of people in the colonies were just waiting to see who'd win so they could prosper. A good portion of the colonialists didn't care either way: King or Congress, so long as they had a job and were reasonably wealthy.

In today's world I don't doubt that many Democrats would jettison "democracy" if some nanny-state promised them complete sexual libertainism, complete socialized health care and guaranteed jobs, on condition that they had no say about political matters.

But the existence of stupid people is not an "aha!" proof of the non- existence of principled people!

Most historians note that only about 1/3rd of the population in the colonies was "for" independence at any given time. Most of the people were indecisive until later in the conflict when widespread British and German mercenary invasions tipped people decisively towards the Congress and Continentals. The fire-brands that started the war risked their real lives on the battlefield.

Many of those principled men that signed their names on the Declaration of Independence (including the sole Catholic Carol who also put down his address: "of Carolton") did really get killed. So how "pragmatic" is it to sign your name to a document declaring war on the world's superpower?

Fact is, you can't judge the moral motives of the Founders by pointing out that others besides them MAY have been inspired by cupidity and nothing more.

Sure, SOME men of all times and places have been led by "pragmatic" rather than "principled" motives. The ramp up to the war in Iraq showcased plenty of so-called "pragmatists" who wanted peace-at-all- costs and those of us who argued on principle for war so that true justice could be established.

Similarly there are those who argue "pragmatically" for legalized prostitution - because it'd be easy, and those of us who argue against it on principle that it is wrong and would be a disaster - even though so-called "escort" services already exist.

If future historians look back on these days centuries from now could they - in your opinion - lump both me and my opponents in the same boat by sneering "they were all motivated by pragmatic reasons"?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 03, 2003.

Yes, Joe, I can understand your point. I don't trust historians because they can write history the way they wish. Let me put it another way.

Idealists make the wars; Pragmatists fight the wars. Sure, Washington must have been both. The government is generally established for the elite, so history is true for them. Perhaps there was a time of purity and truth in America's government, as you imply, but it didn't last long. Like all things man-made it dissolves. Rarely does a government exist because of society's obedience to God. It is govern with pragmatic intensions: economy, industry, agriculture, oppression.

Somebody inevitably gets oppressed. The longer a government develops the bigger the oppression. Those early British immigrants/colonialists are a fine example of that oppression. Their move across the pond was the solution to that oppression--a very pragmatic move, in my opinion. And, who became the oppressor in America? Who suffered under the new government during early America? Who was eventually killed off or exploited during this new government of the people for the people? Idealism is nice for the history books, yes.

ro

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2003.

Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States in 1834 and then wrote his masterpiece "Democracy in America". Have you ever read it? As a foreigner (France) he owed nothing to the Americans. In fact, he wrote it in French for the French. In this work he analysed both the "pragmatic" as well as the principles. They work in concert. Principles are the "where and why", Prudence determines the "how" - what you refer to as "pragmatic" is too vague a word because it runs the spectrum of motivations from what is prudent to what is convenient.

But principles have to be applied in real time - necessitating prudence. The skeptic and cynic never sees the motives or goals, because he is fixated in the minute nuts and bolts of how it is achieved. Thus in the case of a woman giving birth he'd focus on the pain, the blood, the mucus, the doctors or midwives "doing things"... and probably go off in a huff about how unchaste and uncouth and unsanitary and painful the whole experience is... without ever stopping to ask if these yucky nuts and bolts were means to the end of delivering a new infant into the world!

Thus you see only "oppression" - as though the Indians lived in halcyon peace with nature and one another for eons prior to the "invasion" of totally evil white men. Not true. They fought wars among themselves.

So did SOME civilians commit injustices to them? Yes. Did the US Government commit injustices to them? Yes. But not during the life- times of the people we are talking about! In the 1770's "the West" was Ohio! Jefferson and Madison campaigned for treaties and respect towards the Indians to the west... these men had principles and lived by them - you can't take that from them by sneering about what other, lesser men did out of greed.

People are responsible for their own actions. If I tell you not to steal from your neighbor, based on the principle of subsidieratity and brotherly love, yet you go ahead and steal from him anyway...whose fault is it? Mine or yours?

As for oppression... that is a human (universal, international) problem caused by sin. But some systems are more oppressive than others - because their founding principles are more oppressive and wrong than others!

Communism killed and oppressed more human beings in the 20th century than all the "wars of religion" in Europe COMBINED. 100 million (and counting). That system which claimed to be "pragmatic" (Das Captial), was applying certain principles of political power and expediency which are diametrically opposed to the principles that the American Founding Fathers stood for, wrote about, and tried to implement here.

YET WE and our country is trashed by so-called "intellectuals" for being oppressive while the whole of Communism gets a pass.

In our system, created by the founders on principles and prudence, there are built in forms of redressing wrongs civilly, and of overturning oppression peacefully. In virtually every other form of government such crimes and misdemeanors can only be corrected by coups and revolutions. THAT has to mean something to you!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 04, 2003.

Well said, Joe. But, your arguement only proves what I've been trying to say. Sure, the ideal government established by the early Americans was pure and true, but like everything ideal, it only works on paper.

Actually, I blocked all of the mechanics of delivery and concentrated on my wife's labor. I had no choice, but to trust the medical assistance during both of my children's birthdays.

I wasn't making an issue of whether the people in power were white, black, orange, or green. The people in power benefit most by the laws they constitute. It is a law of nature. And, yes, there is a danger of stagnation if pragmatism is not balanced with prudence and idealism. American history does show evidence of stagnation. But, that's a whole other thread. So, rod is a pragmatic anti-establishment kind of guy who only sees oppression around every corner? Hmm? Ok, I'll buy that. Hey even the Native Americans lived with some type of oppressive government, yes? rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 04, 2003.

If it "only works on paper" why has the American system of government lasted longer than all other "systems"? We're still the oldest continuous form of government around - all other "regimes" have fallen. The empires and kingdoms, the monarchies and republics of 1789 were gone by 1989...

My point: if your principles are good enough and sound enough, and there are enough decent people who truly strive to conform their lives to these ideals... then pragmatism can - and has - been held at bay. Not forever, but more or less. In our case, "more" than anywhere else.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 04, 2003.

Uh, China has been around for sometime now. They've had to make changes and I'm sure that America will make drastic changes in order to survive. I can't keep the following thought from my mind. The Garden of Eden went into a bit of a problem when Adam and Eve decided to set up their own "government". What message can we understand from that? Man cannot construct a government without some kind of downfall. Some people have gone as far as describing America as the "Promise Land"/"Land of Milk and Honey". Well, sure!

Of course, I would rather live under American rule than any other. I think that we all have a fighting chance of maintaining some sense of freedom. But, for everything in life, there is a price for freedom. And, with that freedom, there is oppression to some degree. The middle-class Americans pay the price of just about everything, because they are capable. You and I pay for the food that we eat, some don't. Who is oppressed in America? The burden always loads down on the middle-class American.

We have this government, because it is the only one we have. We fight our "civil wars" a different way now. The only utopian government that I know of is the one I hope to live in when this earthly life passes on--Heaven. rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 04, 2003.

I think that Joe and I could establish the most perfect government, but in so doing, we would have created the very thing that would destroy us. Idealism has the tendency to become destructive, as history shows evidence of this. All things eventually become corrupted by men. Even the Bible speaks of the great apostacy. My understanding is that we should work with our government until it no longer works; we then make the attempts to fix it. We should know that any government is man-made with man-made ideals and motives, obviously. We really shouldn't put too much faith in government. Our government isn't going to protect our faith. How can they when they protect our "enemy"? They are either with us, or against us, not both.

rod..<

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 06, 2003.

Hi Rod! For an America “you go alright”! ;) Nice work and very true, I guess Im a cynic but all politicians are corrupt, as politics by its very nature is corrupt to me. Its refreshing to hear a sound, rational voice on political matters rather than the usual patriotic emotional allegiance to political authority and positions. Thank you Sir!

I loved Pauls brilliant and amusing spin on the separation of state and church but I cannot agree with it along the lines of “ The absence of a topic does not negate the topic” as already well pointed out by Teletha above. I don’t think Pauls line of reasoning stands up well to closer examination.

I cannot speak personally of America and have found this thread very interesting. My experience in reading and discussing issues with American Catholics is that many Protestant ethics, morals and ideals are engraved so strongly in the American psyche that they override Church teachings or more likely perspectives. Many American Catholics they often end up sounding like puritan Baptist/Evangelical preachers, or even worse Joseph McCarthy, * shudders violently*. I think that the split in the Church in America bewteen Liberal and Conservative is so absolute that it allows for no neutrals or rationality in the discussion of many issues. The dualism of the “us and them” is increased, and hatred mistrust pushes the extremes further apart from each other and from Christ. The only other place I consider such a division to be worse is in Latin America, where radicals tend to be shot rather than merely execrated.

Hi Joe !

Firstly do you believe that because current the generation of AMericans did not commit crimes or injustices against indigenous peoples personally that there is no collective responsibility to address these grievances? I wasn’t quite sure if you were implying this or not?

>“The existence of God can been proven rationally, just as the existence of one single human family, and the possession of inalienable rights which inhere in individuals of the species Homo sapiens, can also be proven rationally. “

Joe I don’t believe the existence of God can be proven rationally, I believe that an act of faith is needed. Further I must say I don’t think scientific truths can be proven either. I don’t believe anything can ever be proven only disproven!. What makes a conjecture scientific is that it is open to be tested and perhaps refuted. Theories which are not open to this conjecture are not scientific statements . I believe a very strong rational argument can be made for the existence of god, far stronger IMO than the non existence of God. Please outline how the existence of God can be proven rationally, as Ive yet to read such proofs but would obviously very much like too!

>“You do a disservice to the country by not knowing the words and deeds of these great men sir. I urge you to read them.”

Are these quotes accurate? Are these the great men you refer to?

“The United States is in no sense founded upon Christian docrtrine" G. Washington

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature" . Thomas Jefferson

"It does me not injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or not god. Neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Thomas Jefferson

"The bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion" A. Lincoln

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any other church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." Thomas Paine

>If it "only works on paper" why has the American system of government lasted longer than all other "systems"? We're still the oldest continuous form of government around - all other "regimes" have fallen. The empires and kingdoms, the monarchies and republics of 1789 were gone by 1989...

???????? Joe I always thought that even my own little country's system of Govt, a constitutional monarchy predates 1789? I happily stand to be corrected of course not being a political guru. If I really wanted to stretch it I could make a case the UK system of Govt dates back to 1215 and Magna Carta however the very latest date would be surely 1688 when the UK succeed in establishing a constitutional monarchy with Parliament as the nation's supreme law-making body. That body remains today and is used still by many Commonwealth countries around the world including New Zealand. (Im a republican myself though and greatly admire the American system, although I think you would agree the Supreme Court seems to have a little too much power these days). The oldest I recall from my POLS 101 days was Iceland who I think have a functional parliament dating from 930 AD although I don’t think it was continuous .

Finally I do think there are many systems of morality developed by philosophers that do not need God, I think they’re a poor substitute for Gods laws but they certainly exist and are workable. To argue that a non believer relativist can have no system without God to stop others claiming “that every American has a right to actively subvert the United States Government, deny his fellow man of life and liberty and infect as many other people with as many pathogens as are possible” is a bit hard not to question. Is that what youre saying?

God Bless Kiwi

-- trying to stay away but failing miserably (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 06, 2003.

Very interesting intellectual debate, but almost completely beside the point. It's actually quite simple. In this day, in this country, no matter if I believe in a particular religion or not, and regardless of what men long dead may have believed, I do not have the right to use civil structures to force my religious beliefs, symbols, practices, et al onto other citizens. My religious freedom guarantees me the right to a private and personal relationship with God, to be worked out between us. The Constitution does not allow me or anyone else to use civil resources of any kind, including public property, to promote my relationship with God publicly. I am free to do so on my own, but not free to use property shared with other citizens.

Why is that so hard to comprehend? Or to honor? I respect God and my fellow man enough that I wouldn't dream of attempting to use public property as a crowbar to jam my religious beliefs down anyone's throat. When I truly live my faith, my example draws others, and no coersion is needed. Nor is the appearance of "offical" acceptance required.

-- Teletha Jones (Telethadear@yahoo.com), September 09, 2003.

Hi Teletha.

Your words make much sense, except for a tiny thing.

If you respect God, than why would you allow your government to allow God's enemy to exist in the form of atheistic laws and judgements? "We the people..." if by allowing atheism to be free in our government, "We the people..." are saying that we limit our faith in God, yes?

"In God We Trust" has abosolutely no meaning in our government, if we do not live by those words and belief. Or, should that read as,

"In God I Trust, The Rest of You Are On Your Own, Baby."

rod..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 09, 2003.

China and Iraq as geographical chunks of inhabited land have been around for thousands of years...that is not my point. Their governmental regimes have all changed. China's last change was 1949 when Mao took over (unless you count his "Cultural Revolution" as another change). Iraq's regime underwent many changes in the last 200 years, including British rule. New Zealand is an independent nation is it not (still commonwealth, I take it?) still, that's a regime change. Canada too is independent of the Crown... thus my point is still true.

As for America being "utopia" - that's not my assertion nor my belief. The founding fathers called it an "experiment" in self-rule, so they didn't believe it was perfect either. The ammendment system to the Constitution and frequent elections also pointed to their belief that things could be improved upon.

America is a construct of men who are fallen - ergo, yes, fallen men commit sin and form systems of sin such as slavery or the persecution of the indians. (As the Catholic Alexis de Tocqueville so eloquently attested to in 1834.) My ancestors fought for the Union against slavery and rebellion. So did we pay the price for slavery? I think so. Has America paid the price for mistreatment of indians...well, as much as any government has for indigenous peoples displaced...yes. This doesn't mean they live in the lap of luxury but then, being friends with American Indians, I know that's not what they even expect.

The quotes are highly suspect, except for Thomas Paine. He WAS anti- Christian. I suggest you check their sources. Perhaps a search engine will help. Type them in in "" and then type in Lincoln or Washington and see what pops up. Strangely, all come from "Pagan" or atheist websites. I tried a search here:

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/search/index.html for Washington's words but didn't find anything of the sort quoted. I suspect the quotes are either out of context or fabrications. Urban myths.

As for the mind's natural capacity to know truth and know the existence of God... Kiwi, it has been declared by the Catholic Church (Pius XII) that the human mind can come to know the existence of God. It is taught in the book of Wisdom and in the letter of Paul to the Romans. The human mind, insofar as it is spiritual can come to know the real existence of being and of ipsum esse subsistens "which we call God" (to quote the Summa).

This doesn't mean all men everywhere do come to know the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is knowable as existence, but not as Trinity or Father. For that you need Revelation.

Thus Catholics know God exists by reason, but worship Him as Father, Son and Holy Spirit because of the revelation of the prophets and of Jesus Christ. Faith builds on Reason.

As for "Science" and the theories of knowledge...the moment you claim the mind can not know truth with certainty, is the moment you contradict yourself. Especially as you seem perfectly capable of knowing that I exist and generally understand what I write. So peace with the modern philosophers of knowledge, but the phenomenologists have proven them wrong. You are right that THEORIES still need proof - but some things have been proven, such as that the Earth orbits the sun (not in perfect circles, and not proven as Galileo tried to prove it). That's no longer a theory.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 09, 2003.

Hi Rod.

Well, I guess I have more faith in God than that. I don't consider those who worship differently, or even not at all, to be His enemies. Just His other children, who have their own relationship, as He deems fit for them. Just as I would not dream of telling you how to speak with your children, I do not feel myself up to reprimanding the Almighty for lenience with some of his other kids. They're His, not mine.

"In God we trust", by the way, never appeared on currency until 1864, and "under God" was not in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954.

But you knew that, I'm sure.

-- Teletha Jones (Telethadear@yahoo.com), September 10, 2003.

Hi Teletha.

There is very little that I know. So, I have a few questions for you.

Would you want to be part of that "other" group of "children" that you believe God wants? I don't mean the lost; I mean the evil others. I don't mean the others who worship slightly different. I mean the others who deny God and make the attempt to take our faith from our public domain. I mean the others who hide God from our public schools. Those others have made it a law to stand in silence every morning at the start of school. They have not made it clear as to what our children are supposed to do in that moment of silence- -stare into space? Those others have provided an empty void for that "moment of silence" routine. Those others are not protecting our faith, now are they? They are masking our God with an empty void, as to make the inference that our children have no freedom to pray, because I am not allowed to lead them in prayer. Oh, what the hey, they ARE taking away our freedom of religion.

I have worried about having other religions taking a more dominant role in public schools if Christianity is allowed to roam our halls. But, this is America and the majority rule is still Christian, yes? There may be a problem when equal time becomes an issue for prayer. Protestants and Catholics may have to iron those issues out if prayer becomes common place in our schools. That's another bridge to cross.

But, is it really fair to say that religious worship is being crammed down someone's throat? I don't really know. I've seen church goers attend church ritually. I'm left thinking that the Gospels have sunk into their lives. Wrong. People accept or reject of their own free will. But, those "others" are deciding what our children may accept or reject--moment of silence. It is easier to reject a prayer that is heard, than to accept a prayer that is not heard. For those children who come from believers, school prayer is vital.

Could there be a basic theology taught in public schools? This too has worried me. I know that for many, "ecumenism" is a bad word. The only theology that seems common in public schools pops its head during Christmas. This is the only time that Nativity scenes are "O.K.". Forget easter, rabbits and painted eggs are sickening.

Well....Teletha, I can see your point. I used to think the same way. But, I don't understand things the way I used to , anymore.

rod..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 10, 2003.

Hi, Rod.

I see your point, but disagree. I don't think that alllowing people to fill in the blank (the moment of silence) is the same as stopping them from praying. To me, allowing time for prayer, thought, contemplating the laundry list or whatever, is a fair way of allowing me to commune with God, while not demanding that others follow suit.

In some religious circles, that is not enough. Fairness is not the goal, but rather conversion. Christ never coerced His followers - He drew them by example. If we are to follow that example, we must not coerce. What a hollow victory to bully others onto such a beautiful path.

Will there still be evil? Of course. Are there evil doers? Undoubtedly. Should I act against them? Yes. If I have to debate whether or not someone or something is evil, there is almost certainly a clearer battle to be fought elsewhere. The point of not instituting specific religious practices in public institutions is to allow for all citizens of this country to truly belong to the USA, regardless of their very personal differences. To me, religion is about as personal as we can get. For the government to impose itself into my relationship with God is unthinkable to me. Likewise, I have no place standing between anyone else and God.

This will be my final post here. I am not seeking to convert - just to get some people to examine their own hearts a bit more deeply. So, here's my final thought to all:

Two years ago today, nobody cared what God they were praying to, or how they were praying. They just prayed. Nobody cared whether the firement climbing the stairs in WTC 1 and 2 were Catholic - or Christian at all. Each one who climbed those stairs to try to save lives acted out their faith in the most perfect and sacred way possible - and none of us has any idea what prayers they said - or even if they said nothing at all. Some may have gone into what they believed was the void - content in knowing that they fufilled their desire to lead a good life. You may wish to argue that, but what would be the point? To prove that you're closer to God than someone who willingly gave their life to save others?

In my view, God's big enough to forgive you that vanity, if you (anyone - not Rod specifically)really need it.

may we all be blessed - as God sees fit for each of us, Teletha

-- Teletha Jones (Telethadear@yahoo.com), September 11, 2003.

Hi Teletha.

I do respect your views.

Here is a fact that you have stated:

"Christ never coerced His followers - He drew them by example."

Yes, I agree. All individuals who have faith in Christ should follow by example. But, I also have this agonizing thought/belief of what will happen if we choose not to follow Christ.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 11, 2003.

Joe peace be with you, hope you and your new baby is bringing you many blessings and much joy. Here we go again....

“New Zealand is an independent nation is it not (still commonwealth, I take it?) still, that's a regime change. Canada too is independent of the Crown... thus my point is still true. “

Membership to the British Commonwealth has nothing to do with the system of government, it is open to all former colonies/states/ territories of Britain regardless of government type New Zealand Australia and Canada are independent states and they are all constitutional monarchies. This means that the Head of State is the King or Queen of England (in theory at least).

While this is essentially just decorative and ceremonial the Queens representative in each nation (The Governor General) must sign all laws, opens parliament and performs other duties expected of a head of State. In NZ and Aussie (unsure about Canada) the GG under certain rare conditions abolish governments and remove Prime Minster’s from office.

Now you confuse my point, the basic regime of government used by these nations is identical to that of the Britian. A constitutional monarchy since 1688 That date predates your 1789 by my method of looking at history. Of course they’ve had tweaks to the scope and power of the Monarch since then in the UK but essentially it remains the same system- AN elected Parliament ultimately ABOVE the Monarch. Also Monaco has been a principality for over 700 years hasn’t it?

“Has America paid the price for mistreatment of indians..”.

You cant put a price any attempt to is little more than a token gesture.

“well, as much as any government has for indigenous peoples displaced...yes.”

Absurd nonsense because 1.indigenous peoples plights are not universal but unique to individual countries 2. You couldn’t possibly know what every goivernment has done for displaced indigenous peoples

“This doesn't mean they live in the lap of luxury but then, being friends/B> with American Indians, I know that's not what they even expect. “

I doubt they want to live in the lap of luxury either but that doesn’t tell us anything about whether they have been properly compensated. Also it’s a poor relative of the truth re a non catholic saying “That doesn’t mean Catholics today read the Bible, being friends with Catholics I know that’s not what they even expect”.

“The quotes are highly suspect, except for Thomas Paine. He WAS anti- Christian. I suggest you check their sources”.

Ill check them out Ive got a friend who is a bit of an expert on constitutional matters

“As for the mind's natural capacity to know truth and know the existence of God... Kiwi, it has been declared by the Catholic Church (Pius XII) that the human mind can come to know the existence of God. It is taught in the book of Wisdom and in the letter of Paul to the Romans. The human mind, insofar as it is spiritual can come to know the real existence of being and of ipsum esse subsistens "which we call God" (to quote the Summa). This doesn't mean all men everywhere do come to know the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is knowable as existence, but not as Trinity or Father. For that you need Revelation.

Thus Catholics know God exists by reason, but worship Him as Father, Son and Holy Spirit because of the revelation of the prophets and of Jesus Christ. Faith builds on Reason.”

I believe we can personally know God (obviously), I just don’t think we can prove God exists to everyone. People can know God through reason or faith or both but to me it’s a non-refutable statement of little value re some humans “ know" that "Unicorns exist" and some “know” that "Unicorns do not exist".

“As for "Science" and the theories of knowledge...the moment you claim the mind can not know truth with certainty, is the moment you contradict yourself.”

I disagree I believe as I have stated that for scientific truths are never absolutley verrified. Id turn that around and say the moment you claim the mind can know “man made truths” with any certainty is the moment you contradict yourself. I believe in demarcation between metaphysical truths and scientific truths.

“Especially as you seem perfectly capable of knowing that I exist and generally understand what I write”.

With no coherent alternative, believing you exist is rational. I BELIEVE you exist but I don’t KNOW that you exist! But I accept your existence to be probably true because it is empirically presupposed, by all my previous experiences. On the basis of this faith, I judge such information to be true. The progress of human knowledge rests on this collaboration, the mutual "affecting" of knowing and believing.

“peace with the modern philosophers of knowledge, but the phenomenologists have proven them wrong.”

The strongest criticisms (and many exist as positive logic is certainly not flavour of the month)of what Ive read on Poppers work are not from phenomenology. Most of phenomenologists criticisms are pure philosophical word games from what Ive read. A little intellectual honesty would go along way and phenomenologists are the worst of the lot. Utter BS , too vauge to give rise to much more than a lot of hot air. If people don’t believe me try reading it, dreadful nonsense. These people have no idea of why a stone even falls to the ground yet they talk with such assurance about scientific method. There is nothing wrong with such incompetence but when its also accompanied by boredom and self righteousness. Its not for me that’s for sure.

“You are right that THEORIES still need proof - but some things have been proven, such as that the Earth orbits the sun (not in perfect circles, and not proven as Galileo tried to prove it). That's no longer a theory.”

Of course theories need proof. Again to me absolute verification of the scientific is a chimera. Science is a conjecture., your “proven theory” is a mere approximation to what seems to be true, its not true. Re: our solar system: while Einstein acknowledged his theory of the truth was a better approximation of the truth than say Newton, and using unified filed theory(demands for a true theory) he declared it fell short of being declared PROVEN. Of course it is possible that the earth orbits the sun as the result of (incredibly improbable) accidents. It is impossible to rule this out.

Ive been studying Karl Popper and falsification for the last few months, he lived taught in NZ for a large part of his life. Most philosophy is garbage to me but I love reading his stuff because of the similarities I find with his position to Church teachings (I find many but mostly in regard to the limited nature of our knoweldge). I however acknowledge Im really just a beginner and for all my posturing Id like to understand all this a lot clearer, as I accept I may have been getting everything all messed up in my mind, Ill get there. I know it’s a little off track and indulgent but what the heck this is MY thread! Joe you need to understand the value of intellectual modesty IMHO SOcrates "I know that I do not know”. There is a place for dogmatism in science, but most generally agree only an extremely limited one. The truth is we must be constantly critical of everything in life, ourselves included.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 11, 2003.

thats what I get for being so bold. whoops

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 11, 2003.

Hi Kiwi.

I've read your post. It sounds like you may be bordering on agnostic thinking. Somethings cannot be proven, at least not yet. I tend to believe that somethings can be proven only until they are proven, I suppose. It can become very confusing, to me, when we believe something exists, but we question whether it is only our belief that exists and not the actual thing that exists. If I believe that I exist, I may have to question if it is only my belief that exists and not I who exists, because the proof that we need can only be understood by our belief of it. Ok, I'm getting confused now.

Which brings me to the idea of "reality", if I believe something to be real, it is real. It may not be real to anyone else, but it is real to me. It will continue to be real until more evidence proves that is isn't real. Protestants believe that their faith in God is real and Catholics do too. Until the evidence shows the truth, one's faith will cease to be real, once those truths are accepted and believed. There are many "realities", but only one truth.

If something is tangible, is it real? I wonder about all of those molecules, atoms, and particles that are eventually observed as being nothing, yet we are made of those "nothings". It is amazing. We are nothing, but our spirit is everything.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 11, 2003.