| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Celtic Radio Community > Philosophy & Science > Deism/Deists |
| Posted by: Camac 15-Mar-2010, 03:35 PM |
| I answered a posting by Patch and stated that if Americans were indeed returning to the beliefs of their Founders that would be good especially if they followed men like, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Paine and others. You see they were Deists. They belived that a Supreme Being created the Universe but after doing so washed his hands and said now get on with it and don't bother me. They doubted the Divinity of Christ and were extremly skeptical about miracles and Heavenly intervention. They believed that the Natural World could be best understood through Knowlege and Reason not through Faith and organized Religion. I am not a Deist but a Pantheist, I belive that The Universe is the Creator and The Creator is the Universe" (look up to the starry sky and behold the Face of that Creator) One of our fellow posters suggested that I might have broached a subject worth debate. If so let the words flow. Camac. |
| Posted by: oldraven 15-Mar-2010, 04:27 PM |
| I don't presume to know any of the answers to the great questions. Only a truly self-deluded person would, in my opinion. I can make guesses, and say my maybe's, but that's as far as my preaching will go. (for instance, I believe that if Jesus was anything more than a regular man, he was only sent here to give us a message. That message has nothing to do with a virgin mother) I also believe strongly that religious beliefs are best kept to one's self, because typically, sharing has nothing to do with those conversations. 10 times out of 9, it ends up being an attempt to either tell the person opposite them that they are wrong, or someone trying to vindicate their decision not to follow someone else's faith. In other words, they're sharing their anti-faith. It's just trouble. I spent most of my life in the church, so this stance doesn't come easy. |
| Posted by: Patch 15-Mar-2010, 07:15 PM |
| Most who signed on to populate this country did so because they felt they were experiencing religious oppression in England. They were considered radicals in England and when they experienced freedom here they wanted more. What happened is nothing but human nature and had the King not under estimated us we might have lost. As it was, we set up a world model for self rule. Having read all of the documents of our founding fathers including the Federalist Papers, I find it quite evident that all of the founding fathers harbored Christian beliefs. Those who went on to serve in govt. held a reserved position on the subject in their public lives due to the first amendment. They had made religious freedom a part of the govt. contract with the people and it would have been hypocritical to then press for a specific religion. Those who did not serve in government and those having left government service were quite open about their Christian beliefs. As for our founders being thought to be traitors by the King, any nation that gains it's freedom from another is thought by the oppressing nation to be traitorous. All things are relative of course. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: oldraven 15-Mar-2010, 07:50 PM |
Well, there are other options to gaining your independence than revolution.  Like forming a government that allows you to self-govern, whilst continuing to recognise the authority of your Monarch, and your dedication to support them in return for their support. Then you just wait for the Empire to dissolve, but hold on to your mutuality for the sake of preserving your culture.But that's just one opinion. |
| Posted by: Patch 15-Mar-2010, 08:23 PM |
| That there were a number of options, true but in view of our relationship with England at the time we chose what we felt to be the best one as it allowed us to form a government completely to our liking. For us it worked out quite well. For England, initially not so good but not all that bad today. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: oldraven 15-Mar-2010, 10:26 PM |
| By no means was it the wrong choice. Simply a different one. It could have gone a lot worse. Just ask the King of France. Oh, wait.... |
| Posted by: mcnberry 16-Mar-2010, 02:06 AM |
| Gentlemen, I found this link, which I think is quite interesting. http://www.deism.com/principlesofnature.htm |
| Posted by: Camac 16-Mar-2010, 07:00 AM |
| oldraven; We chose the more benign route to independence through the formation of Responsible Government. We had 3 failed rebellions along the way and for a while the War of 1812 was a near thing. The zing I made about traitors was just that a small zap the main point was that certain of the American Founding Fathers were in essence extremely wary of Organized Religion. Jefferson himself advocated and gained the "separation of Church and State". These were educated well read men (for the day) living in an age of Enlightenment and great changes who had birthed a Nation and now had to guide it's growth. In public life they would adhere to the norms of the day and reference God and Christian beliefs but in private they held on to their personal belief. They acknowledge and believed in a Supreme Being but also observed the Natural World around them which when viewed logically conflicted with the Religious view. Their view that God created the Universe then went on about his/hers business is far more palatable, at least to me, than the stand that Religion takes. Camac. |
| Posted by: oldraven 16-Mar-2010, 06:01 PM |
| Of those three rebellions, how many stretched beyond the borders of Quebec or the postage stamp province? |
| Posted by: Camac 17-Mar-2010, 06:00 AM |
| oldraven; There was the Upper Canada Rebellion here in Ontario led by MacKenzie and the Lower Canada Rebellion led by Papineau both of theses were in 1837 and of course the Riel Rebellion of 1885 in what became Manitoba. Camac. |
| Posted by: oldraven 17-Mar-2010, 12:46 PM |
| Leave it to Ontario. And they were the ones who crashed Howe's party when the idea of a unified Canada, under the crown, was being formed. Did you know that Halifax was originally meant to be the Capitol? MacDonald couldn't have that, though. |
| Posted by: Camac 17-Mar-2010, 03:31 PM |
| oldraven; MY Friend, this is getting way off topic this is suppose to be about Deism.Not Cdn Revolutions. Camac. |
| Posted by: oldraven 17-Mar-2010, 04:39 PM |
| I pride myself in my ability to go off topic on a mere handful of words. But you're right. |
| Posted by: ridgeback77 17-Mar-2010, 05:38 PM |
| Here's to getting back on topic. I find myself my inline with the Deists beliefs, with one exception. There are over 20 religions in the world that have one thing in common and that is the principle of the "Golden Rule". That is about the only "Word of God" that I put any faith in. |
| Posted by: Camac 17-Mar-2010, 07:25 PM |
| ridgeback77; I also find myself inline with some of the teachings of Deism but on further investigation and lots of reading about it I find myself disalutioned and disappointed in that they are an Organized Religion. I have no use for such. To me organizing as they have distorts the teachings as I do not want or need someone telling me what and why I should believe in a certain philosophy or religion. Camac |
| Posted by: oldraven 17-Mar-2010, 07:28 PM |
| Camac, I don't mean to prod, but how do you get religious 'teachings', as you say, without organisation? If someone is preaching and another is receiving, you have an organised set of beliefs. |
| Posted by: Camac 17-Mar-2010, 07:36 PM |
| oldraven; What I meant by organized was that they are like any other Religion in that they have a Headquarters, and solicit membership and donations. In this modern era of the web one can disseminate their beliefs and teachings without turning into a church. From what I read in the beginning of this movement it was all done by correspondence amougst like minded idividuals not from a pulpit. Camac. |
| Posted by: ridgeback77 17-Mar-2010, 07:56 PM |
| I wouldn't call Deism an organized religion , as I can find no Deist church or hierarchy, nor can I find a sacred text used by Deists universally throughout the world. There are plenty of Deism sites out there that serve as a repository of information, not seeking money or members. How do you define a set of beliefs than communicating them to others who ask? |
| Posted by: oldraven 18-Mar-2010, 12:10 AM |
| In my opinion, your religion is organised when you have a group of people who agree to a predetermined set of beliefs. Pretty much when you have a teacher and students. |
| Posted by: Camac 18-Mar-2010, 07:11 AM |
| oldraven; I agree with you to a point but there is a great difference between a loose gathering of like thinkers than between a group with a hierarchical system as most religions have. I am not a Deist, nor Christian, or for that fact any mainstream religion but I agree with certain aspects of them. I firmly beleive that one does not need and organization of priests, minister, imans, rabbis or churches, temples, mosques, or synagoues telling me what to believe or whose teachings I should follow. Camac. |
| Posted by: oldraven 18-Mar-2010, 07:20 AM |
| I definitely agree with that. I consider myself a Christian, because I believe the world would be a much better place if people adhered to the principles and basic message Jesus taught, but not because of unimportant and improbable things (to me) like immaculate conception or defeating the grave. I follow his teachings, so I can technically call myself Christian, though 99.99% of Christians would call me a blasphemer, including my own family. |
| Posted by: Camac 18-Mar-2010, 07:45 AM |
| oldraven; I was raised an RC and I had an aunt who was convinced I was the spawn of the devil because I questioned the teaching of the church. When I walked away from the church at 17 I was called a blasphemer and heritic by her. She really took her religion seriously. All great religions have some good points to them. It's man's interpretation and corruption of those teachings that messes everything up. After reading some of the articles on Deism I was annoyed not because they debunked som of the myths of religion but that they ridiculed those who followed them. No need for that. Make fun of someonr and that only makes them more adamant in their opposition to you. Camac. |
| Posted by: oldraven 18-Mar-2010, 08:47 AM |
| I felt the same way after trying to read one of Angela's books on Wicca. The introduction pretty much ended up being about not being Christian, and contained plain slander about the faith. What exactly does that have to do with Wicca? I don't have much respect for a believer that follows a belief system as an opposition to a popular faith. |
| Posted by: Camac 18-Mar-2010, 09:00 AM |
| oldraven I could care less what people choose to worship. If you want to go out in the backyard and worship a fence post that's your business. No one has the right to mock you for it. One of the concepts of Deism I like is that God made the Universe and all in it then said OK I did my part now get on with it and don't bother me. I have always felt that if there is a god he was far to busy to be involved in the daily happenings on an small rock out on the edge of a small galaxy.One just has to look at the night sky or the photos from Hubble to realize this guy/girl has a lot more on his plate than us. Camac. |
| Posted by: oldraven 18-Mar-2010, 10:03 AM |
| I'm talking about the person who wrote that forward, and the author who decided it was suitable for their book. Not my wife or any other practising Pagans (Unless they too are doing so just to thumb their nose at popular faith). |
| Posted by: Antwn 18-Mar-2010, 12:59 PM |
| The question I have is not so much a religious debate but a significance debate. There are those who harp on endlessly about America being created by Christians upon Christian principles. I'm wondering why - not why its true or false, but why its important. Irrespective of the founder's personal religious beliefs, they designed a decidedly secular form of government without religious influence realizing that in that context religious freedom would be secure. They ensured this by including it in the bill of rights. God references on the money, the pledge of allegiance etc came about in the 1950s. So, of what importance is the endless reiteration of America being created on Christian principles, even if true? Well, there's the obvious sense of entitlement by Christians since such statements justify Christianity's preeminent influence in political life which also implies subordinate status of other religious perspectives including non-religious perspectives - otherwise who cares? Why this is problematic is that the founders decided to leave religion in the realm of personal conviction separate from governmental institutions and that religious freedom can only be supported if government does not embrace, sanction or adopt any specific religion. To me this is the more important issue. While everyone argues whether or not the founders were Christian or Deist no one argues why that discussion is even important or what whatever answer people agreed upon would mean in the end. What is the significance of the personal religion(s) of those who created a secular government formulated on Enlightenment philosophies and English/Roman law? |
| Posted by: Camac 18-Mar-2010, 01:08 PM |
| oldraven; Believe me I am not mocking your wife or any other person who has a belief. I might not agree with that belief but each and everyone of us has free will to choose what we see as right. Deism says that understanding of the Natural World around us come through Logic and reasoning. Personally I like that.Let me or anyone else for that matter make up his or hers mind. No one has the right to hammer their beliefs into the minds of others. After all who is to say whose right and whose wrong. I don't know if there is a god in any form,won't find out until I'm dead I suspect and by them I may find out that I was all wrong or I was right. The revelation will have no impact as I can't come back and tell anyone. If I'm wrong who knows I might meet you in Hell or if I'm right we'll have a drink on it. Camac |
| Posted by: oldraven 19-Mar-2010, 10:07 AM |
| No worries, Camac. I was clarifying that I was talking about that book, not generalising about Pagans, just in case someone took what I said out of context. |
| Posted by: Camac 19-Mar-2010, 10:43 AM |
| Antwn; Does it not become significant when as to speak "the Camel has gotten it's nose under the tent", This insidious creeping of Christianity into government is not just unique in ths US. it happens here. We have a flap going on over Foreign Aid. The Cdn. Gov. said that they would not include money in Foreign aid that was for Maternal Health if it was used for Contraception or Abortion this is based on the religious beliefs of our PM. Their argument was that by providing clean water and proper nutrition they can save the lives of 500,000 women and 9 million babies a year. Talk about stupidity. If the women living in abject poverty had access to contraception or other methods of birth control then they wouldn't be having all these unwanted children that are going to die. The spread of Aids in Africa would be drastically slowed along with other sexually transmitted diseases. It is the encroachment of someones Religious beliefs into Government. As you know the French first colonized Canada and they were Catholic. Up until the late 50's early 60's the RC Church controlled that Province now it is the most secular section of our Country. Religion has absolutely no place in the Government or Public Institutions in Quebec (Methinks they shot the Camel) and this is the way it should be. I read something earlier this week about the Texas School Board and buying books. It seems some influenctial member has or is advocating the removal of references to Jefferson because of his idea of separation of church and state and because the majority of board members are Republicans they went along with it. What right does this individual have to revise your History? Camac |
| Posted by: Patch 19-Mar-2010, 11:42 AM |
| Camac It was a "discussion" until the equal number of democrats on the board got stupid and all but one walked out, thus leaving all of the decisions up to Republicans and one democrat. Only one woman walked out over the T. Jefferson issue. Personally, I disagree with the Republicans on that one because it is history like it or not. The democrats got just what their ignorance gained for them. There were a number of other radical left ideas that they were arguing over including "Mary has two mommy's" and much much more. Since mainstream America is opposed to those ideas, most of them do not want this crap taught to their children in school. Those who want their children exposed can handle that at home. Our religious origins are part of our history and that is why it is a legitimate part of discussions today. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Antwn 20-Mar-2010, 03:50 PM | ||
Of course they're part of our history, but how much emphasis is to be placed upon that singular issue? Is it an issue one mentions in passing or devotes time discussing? Well how important is it? What's more significant, what the founders did and how they accomplished it and what bearing it had on our country and the world or what religion the various founders believed while they were doing it? |
| Posted by: Camac 20-Mar-2010, 05:37 PM |
| Antwyn It seems to those like me on the outside looking in that Religion is working it's way into American Politics more every day. The Health care issue is most prominent now what with the religious right screaming blue bloody murder over abortion funding. Like it or not abortion is part of medical care. It is the law of the land here and our politicians whether they agree with it or not won't go near the subject with a ten foot pole because it is coverd under our Medical System and women have the right to choose. Our PM tried to inject his religious beliefs into the Gov. Foreign Aid Program last week and the you know what hit the fan and forced him to reverse the decision. It just seems that every time one reads or watches the news coming out of the US some Right Wing Religious group is trying to force it's beliefs on your whole country. I read an interesting article on the subject of Religious freedom that occurred in Philidelphia in the 1790. It seems that Elihu Palmer annouced that he was going to make a public speech on Deism on a certain Sunday and it sparked riots in the streets. The good citizens of Philly weren't really into total religious freedom and the man had to get out of town. So even back in the early days of your nation religion played an big role. Camac |
| Posted by: Antwn 21-Mar-2010, 04:31 PM | ||
Interesting that you mention abortion, since that's a big issue in our health care bill about to be up for a vote. Yes, debate over religion is as old as the Republic and is as fervent as ever. |
| Posted by: Camac 04-Apr-2010, 10:40 AM |
| Anywn; After doing some more reading into Deism I have come to the conclusion that this concept of God creating the Universe then washing his hands is not for me. Part of the philosophy I can relate to but I firmly believe that the Universe is the Supreme Creator and that all stems from it. The concept of God, this mystical, all powerful, all knowing being is an invention of man. As the saying goes, God created man so that man could create God. Camac |
| Posted by: Shadows 04-Apr-2010, 11:21 AM | ||
Bringing one's politics into religion and one's religion into politics is an unsound pratice . learn from history... A party affiliation should have nothing to do with one's religious beliefs... ignorence is aboundant on all sides. |
| Posted by: Patch 04-Apr-2010, 05:57 PM |
| I told you WHAT happened at the meetings. Both sides were discussing religion, rewriting history and other points as related to childrens text books. The R's stayed in the meeting and the D's walked out. Actually, I can find no mention of politics in their discussions till the D's brought it up and started walking out. I am sure that all present knew who were the conservatives and who where the liberals just as I am certain they did not wear name tags indicating their political affiliation. Back in the 50's the Russians walked out of the UN debates over North and South Korea and BINGO, we had UN involvement and the Korean war. That is what should really have been learned from "history!" Had they stayed in the meeting the outcome could have been different What did the D's think would happen when they walked out? The rules allowed members to pass their ideas with a majority vote by the "members present." One needs need to know the rules too, much like the UN again. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Antwn 07-Apr-2010, 10:23 AM | ||
I think you're missing the point. The point is what should be taught to kids about history and to leave out one of the American system's most important architects for superficial and highly political reasons is counter-educational as I see it. Whether Dems walked out or not is not the issue, its only the politics. What the kids who grow up might ultimately understand is what was kept from them and why, and the fact that facts themselves were of minor importance compared to agenda driven indoctrination, however subtle. Later they may ask themselves, their parents and educators why Jefferson was "removed from history". Its for the withholding of ideas, something Jefferson himself would have no doubt deplored. Those who wish to alter history to instill a pre-ordained set of conclusions and do so by withholding historical fact which may call those conclusions into question, have no interest in education. Their interest instead is in the control of thought, conclusions and values ultimately drawn from historical study. Kids must eventually ask themselves why they were so distrusted, why weren't ideas trusted, particularly ideas from primary founders of the American system of government. What were authorities in charge of their education trying to hide from them and why? That's what's sad and unfortunately all to typical. |
| Posted by: Patch 07-Apr-2010, 12:23 PM |
| Read my earlier posts here. |
| Posted by: Antwn 18-Apr-2010, 03:46 PM |
| The partisanship of this issue is only the political side, which is unfortunate but probably unavoidable considering the contentiousness of the culture wars. Bottom line is history curricula should be determined by historians not politicians of either persuasion. Historians know what's relevant and where to prioritize. History becomes political because agendas are involved. One does no service to new generations by teaching them what to think, how about teaching how to think? That's not accomplished by the withholding of historical facts or principle dramatis personae of the historical stage. |
| Posted by: Patch 19-Apr-2010, 07:14 AM |
| Again, read my posts here. |
| Posted by: Antwn 19-Apr-2010, 06:01 PM |
| I did. Is there something specific you think I'm missing from those posts? A point you'd like to emphasize? |
| Posted by: Patch 19-Apr-2010, 06:16 PM |
| I was opposed to changing history in textbooks (Jefferson). |
| Posted by: Antwn 19-Apr-2010, 06:38 PM | ||
Okay, thanks for the clarification! |