Page 2 of 3

Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:27 pm
by Barbara Fitzpatrick
I see I was right about marc's 2nd post - it's even worse than his first. Sav's doing great. No personalities, name-calling, strawmen, etc. - just solid fact and rebuttal.

Didn't you love marc's "having children is natural instinct"? - what the heck does that have to do with christian principals and the constitution, even if it were true, which it isn't. (Having SEX is a natural instinct. Having children is just the result of acting on that instinct.)

Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:56 pm
by Savonarola
marc's third post is up.

It is incredibly hard not just to call him all the sorts of names that are applicable. He's taking the standard republican approach: lie repeatedly in the face of disproof and hope that people will eventually believe you.

I know that the judges will frown upon my accusing him of being a pathetic, ignorant liar, even if that's what he is. How much sugar-coating do I have to do?

I am actually sorry that I'll have another post after my next one. I want this nonsense to be over.

Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:50 pm
by Doug
DOUG
Keep the high road in the debate. You will get even more credit in the end.

marc quotes Luke 11:21 about Jesus supposedly supporting national defense. However, Jesus seems to be clear in that passage that one should NOT put one's confidence in armor and weapons to defend oneself. Instead, one should have faith in him.

Another set of verses from Luke 6 could be used against marc:

Luke 6:27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Don't strike back, don't try to stop thieves. Matthew is even more clear about this:

Matthew 5:39-42 (New King James Version):

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

(Bold added.)

Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:40 pm
by Savonarola
Thanks Doug.

I've got the meat of my response done already. I haven't done a final word count, but I think I'm somewhere around 800 words under the limit, so I'll find some more stuff to put in.

I'm unhappy about the claim that the only basic principles are the ones in the Preamble, which might be a convincing argument if I can't argue out of either that or the super-lenient definition of "Christian in nature." marc is playing the "good = Christian" card, and I'm afraid that might be enough for one or more of the judges. I'm trying to hammer home the fact that marc agreed to my set of four criteria, but he's still distancing himself from them so far that it'll probably seem irrelevant by the time the debate ends. I'm also worried about the judges saying that my criteria are too restrictive. Any thoughts or advice?

Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 11:07 pm
by Dardedar
SAV, in debate:
"One is not allowed to say, "the answer is somewhere on an incredibly long page that I've linked" and consider the matter sufficiently addressed. Shall the remainder of my posts consist solely of, "If you'll just search the internet, you'll find links to pages that say I'm right. The end."?
DAR
I am so glad you said that.
MARC says:
"Sixth amendment, witnesses (9th commandment) and fifth amendment, “taken without just compensation” – STEALING (8th commandment)

If you continue to claim that these aren’t Christian principles, surely you would have to admit that these principles came from somewhere. So far, you’ve made no attempt to show any alternatives to Christianity from where they could have arisen."
DAR
Really, this dim bulb is trying to pretend that no civilization had rules against stealing before Christianity? Amazing.
I believe that in order for you to prevent me from proving the resolution you’re going to have to show alternative sources for those principles. Sources that history proves that the founders were exposed to, and familiar with.
DAR
John Adams answers his question:

"The United States of America have exhibited,
perhaps, the first example
of governments erected on the simple principles
of nature; and if men
are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse
themselves of artifice,
imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will
consider this event as
an era in their history. Although the detail of
the formation of the
American governments is at present little known
or regarded either in
Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an
object of curiosity. It
will never be pretended that any persons employed
in that service had
interviews with the gods, or were in any degree
under the influence of
Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or
houses, or laboring in
merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be
acknowledged that these
governments were contrived merely by the use of
reason and the senses.

. . Thirteen governments [of the original states]
thus founded on the
natural authority of the people alone, without a
pretence of miracle or
mystery, and which are destined to spread over
the northern part of that
whole quarter of the globe, are a great point
gained in favor of the
rights of mankind."

--"A Defence of the Constitutions of Government
of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John
Adams
MARC says
"The time period before separation of church and state was established in 1947, which caused that distinction to largely become forgotten by those with your position – those unaware of Christian principles in the Constitution."
DAR
Separation established in 1947? Hilarious.

Madison, regarding separation, before 1947:

***
The only known references to separation in the writings of Madison are the following:

JUNE 3, 1811
To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself

Source of Information:
Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President Of The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of Congress, Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865), pp 511-512.


MARCH 2, 1819
The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.
Source of Information:
Letter to Robert Walsh from James Madison. March 2, 1819 Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, in Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. Vol. III, J. B. Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty, Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)


1817-1833
Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished in their short history. . . .

Source of Information:
Madison's Detached Memoranda. This document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.


JULY 10, 1822
Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together . . .
Source of Information:
Letter to Edward Livingston from James Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty, Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83.

SEPTEMBER 1833
. . .I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others". . . .
Source of Information:
Letter to Rev. Jasper Adams from James Madison, September, 1833. Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt, [not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488.
MARC
"It’s principles were based on the Deity described in the Declaration of Independence – the Christian one believed in by the vast majority of the 3,000,000 US population as shown above."
DAR
Rubbish. He doesn't get to go from deity to Christian God just because he wants to. If the founders wanted to specify Jesus they could have but did not.
Don't let him assume the Christianity of early America. Regarding the religiosity of the US in the early US days, consider:

***
Historian Richard Hofstadter claimed that "perhaps as many as ninety percent of the Americans were unchurched in 1790" (*Anti-Intellectualism in American
Life,* New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974, p. 82). On page 89, he said that
"mid-eighteenth century America had a smaller proportion of church members
than any other nation in Christendom," and he went on to say that "in 1800
[only] one of every fifteen Americans was a church member" (p. 89). In *The
American Experiment: Vineyard of Liberty,* James MacGregor Burns said that
"ninety percent of the people lay outside the churches" following the
revolution (New York: Vintage Books, 1983, p. 493).

A small press book *They Haven't Got a Prayer* (Elgin, Illinois: David C.
Cook, publisher, 1982) quotes Lynn R. Buzzard, executive director of the
Christian Legal Society (a national organization of Christian lawyers) as
saying, "Not only were a good many of the revolutionary leaders more deist
than Christian, the actual number of church members was rather small.
Perhaps as few as five percent of the populace were church members in 1776"
(p. 81).
History is solidly against the present effort of Xian fundamentalists to
prove that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation."
--F. Till

"At the time of its Founding, the United States seemed to be an infertile ground for religion. Many of the nation's leaders - include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin - were not Christians, did not accept the authority of the Bible, and were hostile to organized religion. The attitude of the general public was one of apathy: in 1776, only 5 percent of the population were participating members of churches."
[Ian Robertson, _Sociology_, 3rd editions, Worth
Publishing Inc.: New York, 1987, page 410]

D.

Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 1:41 am
by Savonarola
Thanks for the Adams quote, Darrel. I've seen that before, even recently, but completely forgot about it. It'll go into that ~800 word freebie.

I've already typed up a nice little response on jumping straight from deism's "Creator" to "Christian God." The Adams quote will back this up nicely.

Also notice that marc keeps railing against separation of church and state even though I haven't brought it up once. It's a pattern, actually: he has a supply of "information" that he agrees with and is eager to regurgitate it for the masses. I'll keep nailing him on the fact that he's not actually addressing the resolution every time he does, and he'll keep losing points on the judges' scorecards. Although, I guess that I should address the false history if I have words left, considering his promise to deliver "actual history" in his first post...

Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:34 am
by Dardedar
Savonarola wrote:I'll keep nailing him on the fact that he's not actually addressing the resolution every time he does
DAR
Yes, please do.

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:13 am
by Savonarola
My third post is up. You can read it here.

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:24 am
by Doug
The "marc" guy is claiming that John Calvin promoted freedom of speech!

This guy is completely ignorant of history.

==========
No book might be printed without a special permit. It was forbidden to write letters abroad. Images of the saints, other sculptures, and music were forbidden. Even as regards psalm-singing, the ordinances declared that "care must be taken" to avoid allowing attention to wander to the tune, instead of concentrating it upon the spirit and the meaning of the words; for "only in the living word may God be praised."

...Soon no one felt safe in Geneva, since the Consistory declared that human beings sinned almost every time they drew breath. We need merely turn the pages of the minute-book of the Town Council to see how skilful were the methods of intimidation. One burgher smiled while attending a baptism; three days' imprisonment. Another, tired out on a hot summer day, went to sleep during the sermon: prison. Some working men ate pastry at breakfast: three days on bread and water. Two burghers played skittles: prison. Two others diced for a quarter-bottle of wine: prison. A man refused to allow his son to be christened Abraham: prison. A blind fiddler played a dance: expelled from the city. Another praised Castellio's translation of the Bible: expelled from Geneva. A girl was caught skating, a widow threw herself on the grave of her husband, a burgher offered his neighbour a pinch of snuff during divine service: they were summoned before the Consistory, exhorted, and ordered to do penance. And so on, and so on, without end. Some cheerful fellows at Epiphany stuck a bean into the cake: twenty-four hours on bread and water. A burgher said "Monsieur" Calvin instead of "Maitre" Calvin; a couple of peasants, following ancient custom, talked about business matters on coming out of church: prison, prison, prison. A man played cards: he was pilloried with the pack of cards hung round his neck. Another sang riotously in the street: was told "he could go and sing elsewhere," this meaning that he was banished from the city. Two boatmen had a brawl, in which no one was hurt: executed. Two boys who behaved indelicately were sentenced first of all to burning at the stake; then the sentence was commuted to compelling them to watch the blaze of the faggots.

Calvin the Infallible
Most savagely of all were punished any offenders whose behaviour challenged Calvin's political and spiritual infallibility. A man who publicly protested against the reformer's doctrine of predestination was mercilessly flogged at all the crossways of the city and then expelled. A bookprinter who, in his cups, had railed at Calvin was sentenced to have his tongue perforated with a red-hot iron before being expelled from the city. Jacques Gruet was racked and then executed merely for having called Calvin a hypocrite.

From this website.===============

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:25 am
by Dardedar
DAR
Sav's turning up the burners.

Ingersoll on Calvin:

***
"John Calvin was of a pallid, bloodless complexion, thin, sickly, irritable, gloomy, impatient, tyrannical, heartless, and infamous. He was a strange compound of revengeful morality, malicious forgiveness, ferocious charity, egotistic humility, and a kind of hellish justice. In other words, he was as near like the God of the Old Testament as his health permitted."


"The government of God was tried in Geneva when John Calvin was his representative. Under this government of God, the flames climbed around the limbs and blinded the eyes of Michael Servitus, because he dared to express an honest thought. This government of God was established in New England and the result was that Quakers were hanged or burned. This government of God was established in Spain, and the Jews were expelled. This government of God was in the U.S. when slavery was regarded as a divine institution. The pulpit of that day defended the buying and selling of women and babes. The mouths of the slave-traders were filled with passages of Scripture, defending and upholding traffic in human flesh."

Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:45 pm
by Savonarola
marc's 4th post is up. I'm working on my closing statement and will likely have it posted tomorrow. I'll be glad to have this debate completed; it's a joke.

Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:18 pm
by Doug
Savonarola wrote:marc's 4th post is up. I'm working on my closing statement and will likely have it posted tomorrow. I'll be glad to have this debate completed; it's a joke.
DOUG
The idiot is still saying "Free speech is obviously a Christian principle."

I hope you roast him to a crisp on that. Free speech has been only possible in this country as we shed our religious past from our thoughts. You can bring up the Bible and John Calvin as examples of how Christianity has curtailed free speech.

Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:02 am
by Savonarola
Well, it was a real struggle to reply to his tripe and summarize my position in a mere 3500 words, but I somehow pulled it off. You can read my final post here.

Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:45 pm
by Doug
DOUG
"marc" says that free will is mentioned in the Bible 16 times.
AGAIN, the phrase "free will" is found in the Bible 16 times.
This is false, or misleading at best. Free will, as in volition, is not mentioned in the Bible at all, as far as I know.

He is probably equivocating on the meaning of "freewill offering," which in Hebrew law is an offering (or ritual sacrifice) given spontaneously, as opposed to an offering given at specific times or in accordance with Hebrew law to expiate sin. An offering outside of those already required by law were called "freewill offerings," but this was not a metaphysical pronouncement about whether people have free will.

Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:03 pm
by Dardedar
DAR
It seems to me Sav that you absolutely demolished the guy. I figured you would give the guy a good whooping but you far exceeded my expectations. Good job!
So looking at the ads, the debate forum is a Christian site of some kind? Even better.

D.

Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:49 pm
by Savonarola
Thanks Darrel. I wish I had a higher word count to work with; then it would have been even worse. I wanted 4000, and I don't think marc even got close to 3500 once.
Darrel wrote:So looking at the ads, the debate forum is a Christian site of some kind?
Yes and no. The ads pop up randomly, but I'm sure that the ratio of Republican ads to Democrat ads is about 2:1. The admin and moderators don't skew threads either way, although you'll notice that the "topics" listed under each forum were clearly chosen by a conservative. This is because the admin is apparently a conservative, and I've received official warnings for "violations" that were really given only because my posts were so damning. The members are a pretty good mix, with a few neocon religious nutjobs, a few rabid atheists, and a lot in between.

Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:58 pm
by Dardedar
DAR
I put a blurb about the debate on the website.

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:02 pm
by Savonarola
marc has posted his closing statement. While I thought he'd hone in on my weakest areas, he didn't. The post is pretty pathetic, including attacking me for things such as using most of my word limit. You'll be able to read it from any of the links above. I wish I had the opportunity to respond; even if I was allowed only one sentence for every passage marc submitted, I could quickly dispatch with the bullshit.

Any feedback here would be appreciated. Devil's advocation would even be okay.

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 12:56 am
by Doug
Savonarola wrote:marc has posted his closing statement. While I thought he'd hone in on my weakest areas, he didn't. The post is pretty pathetic, including attacking me for things such as using most of my word limit. You'll be able to read it from any of the links above. I wish I had the opportunity to respond; even if I was allowed only one sentence for every passage marc submitted, I could quickly dispatch with the bullshit.
DOUG
Is there a "peanut gallery"?

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:47 am
by Savonarola
Doug wrote:Is there a "peanut gallery"?
Yes, here, but you'd have to register to post. Everybody else stopped caring at about marc's second post.