Graniteman - Racing and religion (Page 5)

Forum guidelines BT super discount
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Graniteman - Racing and religion Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 5
 
 
2010-07-14 8:25 PM
in reply to: #2980270

User image

Pro
6767
500010005001001002525
the Alabama part of Pennsylvania
Subject: RE: Graniteman - Racing and religion
Brock Samson - 2010-07-14 12:04 PM

I hate this argument.  The "Our founding fathers were religious, not necessarily Christian"  This is such a twisting of fact it is rediculous.  Which "Founding Fathers" are you referring to?  Jefferson? Franklin? William Whipple? William Ellery? John Penn? I know maybe John Hart or Thomas Stone.. oh wait you're refering to Edmund Randolf or maybe John Mercer.  Which of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, some, all, most?  Which of the 39 signers of the Constituion, some, all, most?  What about the individiuals that refused to sign the Constitution, or those that didn't sign because of other reasons?  Are they all religious but not christian?  Are they all Christian?  Are they all diests?

The FACT, and it is undeniable, and it is the ONLY FACT about this issue, is that the "Founding Fathers" were a diverse group of men, from diverse backgrounds.  Some were "religious", some were not "religious", some were devote Christians, some where not.

They held diverse views on all issues.  To argue that there was a consensus on any issue is to ignore history.  There wasn't even a consensus on the strenght of the federal government they were forming, so why do you think there was a consensus on something as personal as religion, God, and Christianity?

To argue that "THE founding fathers' were, as a group, either Christian or not Christian is a serious twisting of historical fact to support a given agenda.  The only fact we can assertain from the Founding Fathers and religion and Christianity in particular, is that their beliefs represented a wide  and varied  view of both religion and Christianity, and this view was probably an accurate reflection of the varied view of the populace in general.

Typically in these arguments either for or against the idea of Religion or Christianity of the founding fathers each side points to only the "founding fathers" who support their contention and ignores those that don't.

THERE IS NOT  A CONSENSUS amoung the "founding fathers" on religion or Christianity, to assert otherwise is to ignore true historical facts.

(The individual who was the first signator of the Bill of Rights was a Protestant Reverand and Congressman)



It seems to me that you've supported the assertion that the founders were "not neccesarily Christian" - especially in the way that the term is generally used currently (i.e. evangelical).  As you point out, they had a diverse range of religious opinion and beliefs.  And one of the brilliant things they did with this was to keep overt religion OUT of the constitution.  Were they influenced by their religious beliefs?  Probably, in the same way they were also influenced by the times they lived in (Enlightenment), and its spirit of scientific exploration of the world around them.  I am saddened when I see some (not all) religious individuals espousing religion over science, when one of the things that made people people of that time tick (and fueled the spirit of invention that drove our country to greatness) was the spirit of scientific inquiry and curiousity, as opposed to a blind adherence to the idea that everything we ever need to know is in the bible.

2010-07-14 8:36 PM
in reply to: #2981663

User image

Member
5452
50001001001001002525
NC
Subject: RE: Graniteman - Racing and religion
TexasMPGal - 2010-07-14 7:37 PM

But the question was to the population whether we thought it was appropriate for an RD to do this, and I'm saying it's appropriate for the RD to do whatever he/she wants to do (legally of course) as it's a privately owned event.


I think we're squarely in the splitting hairs stage at this point, but why not.  I don't equate appropriateness with legal.  Appropriateness, like religion, can be personal.  Some people think it's appropriate, others don't.  That's cool.

I look at it this way, while it is legal for people to talk on their cell phone in a restaurant, I don't think it is appropriate.  Some people do.  I do think the cell phone yappers are more disrespectful than the let's all have a quick prayer together even though I'm certain some of you are non-believers crowd.

Like I said before, the prayers don't bother me.  I just don't understand why someone standing in front of a crowd decides it's a good time for a prayer.  If anything, using a example I used before, I would rather that person standing beside me in line at the grocery store give me a little prayer because it's more likely that I will get really hurt driving home from the grocery store than racing.

Edited by Goosedog 2010-07-14 8:42 PM
New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Graniteman - Racing and religion Rss Feed  
 
 
of 5