posted
Meet the man who changed Glenn Beck's life Cleon Skousen was a right-wing crank whom even conservatives despised. Then Beck discovered him By Alexander Zaitchik
Sep. 16, 2009 |
On Saturday, I spent the afternoon with America's new breed of angry conservative. Up to 75,000 protesters had gathered in Washington on Sept. 12, the day after the eighth anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks, sporting the now familiar tea-bagger accoutrements of "Don't Tread on Me" T-shirts, Revolutionary War outfits and Obama-the-Joker placards. The male-skewing, nearly all-white throng had come to denounce the president and what they believe is his communist-fascist agenda.
Even if the turnout wasn't the 2 million that some conservatives tried, briefly, to claim, it was still enough to fill the streets near the Capitol. It was also ample testament to the strength of a certain strain of right-wing populist rage and the talking head who has harnessed it. The masses were summoned by Glenn Beck, Fox News host and organizer of the 912 Project, the civic initiative he pulled together six months ago to restore America to the sense of purpose and unity it had felt the day after the towers fell.
In reality, however, the so-called 912ers were summoned to D.C. by the man who changed Beck's life, and that helps explain why the movement is not the nonpartisan lovefest that Beck first sold on air with his trademark tears. Beck has created a massive meet-up for the disaffected, paranoid Palin-ite "death panel" wing of the GOP, those ideologues most susceptible to conspiracy theories and prone to latch on to eccentric distortions of fact in the name of opposing "socialism." In that, they are true disciples of the late W. Cleon Skousen, Beck's favorite writer and the author of the bible of the 9/12 movement, "The 5,000 Year Leap." A once-famous anti-communist "historian," Skousen was too extreme even for the conservative activists of the Goldwater era, but Glenn Beck has now rescued him from the remainder pile of history, and introduced him to a receptive new audience.
Anyone who has followed Beck will recognize the book's title. Beck has been furiously promoting "The 5,000 Year Leap" for the past year, a push that peaked in March when he launched the 912 Project. That month, a new edition of "The 5,000 Year Leap," complete with a laudatory new foreword by none other than Glenn Beck, came out of nowhere to hit No. 1 on Amazon. It remained in the top 15 all summer, holding the No. 1 spot in the government category for months. The book tops Beck's 912 Project "required reading" list, and is routinely sold at 912 Project meetings where guest speakers often use it as their primary source material. At one 912 meet-up I attended in Florida, copies were stacked high on a table against the back wall, available for the 912 nice price of $15. "Don't bother trying to get it at the library," one 912er told me. "The wait list is 40 deep."
What has Beck been pushing on his legions? "Leap," first published in 1981, is a heavily illustrated and factually challenged attempt to explain American history through an unspoken lens of Mormon theology. As such, it is an early entry in the ongoing attempt by the religious right to rewrite history. Fundamentalists want to define the United States as a Christian nation rather than a secular republic, and recast the Founding Fathers as devout Christians guided by the Bible rather than deists inspired by French and English philosophers. "Leap" argues that the U.S. Constitution is a godly document above all else, based on natural law, and owes more to the Old and New Testaments than to the secular and radical spirit of the Enlightenment. It lists 28 fundamental beliefs -- based on the sayings and writings of Moses, Jesus, Cicero, John Locke, Montesquieu and Adam Smith -- that Skousen says have resulted in more God-directed progress than was achieved in the previous 5,000 years of every other civilization combined. The book reads exactly like what it was until Glenn Beck dragged it out of Mormon obscurity: a textbook full of aggressively selective quotations intended for conservative religious schools like Utah's George Wythe University, where it has been part of the core freshman curriculum for decades (and where Beck spoke at this year's annual fundraiser).
But more interesting than the contents of "The 5,000 Year Leap," and more revealing for what it says about 912ers and the Glenn Beck Nation, is the book's author. W. Cleon Skousen was not a historian so much as a player in the history of the American far right; less a scholar of the republic than a threat to it. At least, that was the judgment of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, which maintained a file on Skousen for years that eventually totaled some 2,000 pages. Before he died in 2006 at the age of 92, Skousen's own Mormon church publicly distanced itself from the foundation that Skousen founded and that has published previous editions of "The 5,000 Year Leap."
As Beck knows, to focus solely on "The 5,000 Year Leap" is to sell the author short. When he died in 2006 at the age of 92, Skousen had authored more than a dozen books and pamphlets on the Red Menace, New World Order conspiracy, Christian child rearing, and Mormon end-times prophecy. It is a body of work that does much to explain Glenn Beck's bizarre conspiratorial mash-up of recent months, which decries a new darkness at noon and finds strange symbols carefully coded in the retired lobby art of Rockefeller Center. It also suggests that the modern base of the Republican Party is headed to a very strange place.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Willard Cleon Skousen was born in 1913 to American parents in a small Mormon frontier town in Alberta, Canada. When he was 10 his family moved to California, where he remained until he shipped off to England and Ireland for Mormon missionary work. In 1935, after graduating from a California junior college, the 23-year-old Skousen moved to Washington, where he worked briefly for a New Deal farm agency. He then began a 15-year career with the FBI, also earning a law degree from George Washington University in 1940. His posts at the FBI were largely administrative and clerical in nature, first in Washington and later in Kansas.
After retiring from the FBI in 1951, Skousen joined the faculty of Brigham Young University, the Latter-day Saints university in Utah. He then enjoyed a tumultuous four years as chief of police in Salt Lake City. During his tenure he gained a reputation for cutting crime and ruthlessly enforcing Mormon morals. But Skousen was too earnest by half. The city's ultraconservative mayor, J. Bracken Lee, fired him in 1960 for excessive zeal in raiding private clubs where the Mormon elite enjoyed their cards. "Skousen conducted his office as Chief of Police in exactly the same manner in which the Communists operate their government," Lee wrote to a friend explaining his firing of Skousen. "The man is a master of half-truths. In at least three instances I have proven him to be a liar. He is a very dangerous man [and] one of the greatest spenders of public funds of anyone who ever served in any capacity in Salt Lake City government."
During his stint as police chief, Skousen began laying the groundwork for his future career as a professional anti-communist. He published a bestselling expose-slash-history called "The Naked Communist." In the late '50s, America's far right began to bubble with organizations peddling stories about the true state of the Red Menace. Groups like the Church League of America and the John Birch Society organized to channel, feed and satisfy Cold War paranoia. Members of these groups were the original postwar "domestic right-wing extremist threat." Then as now, they were very much on the government's radar.
After his firing from the police force, Skousen became a star on the profitable far-right speakers circuit. He worked for both the Bircher-operated American Opinion Speakers Bureau and Fred Schwarz's Christian Anti-Communism Crusade. The two groups competed in describing ever more terrifying threats posed by America's enemies, foreign and domestic. As the scenarios became more and more outlandish, the feds grew concerned. In an internal memo, the FBI described Skousen's friend and employer Fred Schwarz as "an opportunist," the likes of which "are largely responsible for misinforming people and stirring them up emotionally ... Schwartz [sic] and others like him can only do the country and the anticommunist work of the Bureau harm."
How did Skousen become an expert on communism? He claimed, as his apologists still do, that his years with the FBI exposed him to inside information. He also boasted that he worked closely with J. Edgar Hoover. But both claims are open to question. Skousen's work at the Bureau was largely administrative, according to Ernie Lazar, an independent researcher of the far right who has examined Skousen's nearly 2,000-page FBI file. "Skousen never worked in [the domestic intelligence division] and he never had significant exposure to data concerning communist matters," says Lazar.
Skousen also trumpeted the insight he says he gained researching "The Naked Communist." But this research was as shaky as his résumé. Among the theories Skousen charged a healthy fee to discuss was the alleged treason of FDR advisor Harry Hopkins. According to Skousen, Hopkins gave the Soviets "50 suitcases" worth of info on the Manhattan Project, along with nearly half of the nation's supply of enriched uranium. This he told thousands of audiences across the country, sometimes giving five speeches a day.
When Skousen's books started popping up in the nation's high-school classrooms, panicked school board officials wrote the FBI asking if Skousen was reliable. The Bureau's answer was an exasperated and resounding "no." One 1962 FBI memo notes, "During the past year or so, Skousen has affiliated himself with the extreme right-wing 'professional communists' who are promoting their own anticommunism for obvious financial purposes." Skousen's "The Naked Communist," said the Bureau official, is "another example of why a sound, scholarly textbook on communism is urgently and badly needed."
Two years on the circuit made Skousen a nationally known figure. Aligned with the Birchers and Schwarz, he also founded his own Utah-based far-right organization, the All-American Society. Here's how Time magazine described the outfit in a December 1961 feature on what it called the "rightwing ultras":
The All-American Society, founded in Salt Lake City, has as its guiding light one of the busiest speakers in the rightist movement: W. Cleon Skousen, a balding, bespectacled onetime FBI man who hit the anti-Communist circuit in earnest in 1960 after being fired from his job as Salt Lake City's police chief ("He operated the police department like a Gestapo," says Salt Lake City's conservative Mayor J. Bracken Lee). Skousen freely quotes the Bible, constantly plugs his book, The Naked Communist, [and] presses for a full congressional investigation of the State Department.
By 1963, Skousen's extremism was costing him. No conservative organization with any mainstream credibility wanted anything to do with him. Members of the ultraconservative American Security Council kicked him out because they felt he had "gone off the deep end." One ASC member who shared this opinion was William C. Mott, the judge advocate general of the U.S. Navy. Mott found Skousen "money mad ... totally unqualified and interested solely in furthering his own personal ends."
When Skousen aligned himself with Robert Welch's charge that Dwight Eisenhower was a "dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy," the last of Skousen's dwindling corporate clients dumped him. The National Association of Manufacturers released a statement condemning the Birchers and distancing itself from "any individual or party" that subscribed to their views. Skousen, author of a pamphlet titled "The Communist Attack on the John Birch Society," was the nation's most prominent Birch defender.
Skousen laid low for much of the '60s. But he reemerged at the end of the decade peddling a new and improved conspiracy that merged left with right: the global capitalist mega-plot of the "dynastic rich." Families like the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds, Skousen now believed, used left forces -- from Ho Chi Minh to the American civil rights movement -- to serve their own power.
In 1969, a 1,300-page book started appearing in faculty mailboxes at Brigham Young, where Skousen was back teaching part-time. The book, written by a Georgetown University historian named Carroll Quigley, was called "Tragedy and Hope." Inside each copy, Skousen inserted handwritten notes urging his colleagues to read the book and embrace its truth. "Tragedy and Hope," Skousen believed, exposed the details of what would come to be known as the New World Order (NWO). Quigley's book so moved Skousen that in 1970 he self-published a breathless 144-page review essay called "The Naked Capitalist." Nearly 40 years later, it remains a foundational document of America's NWO conspiracy and survivalist scene (which includes Skousen's nephew Joel).
In "The Naked Communist," Skousen had argued that the communists wanted power for their own reasons. In "The Naked Capitalist," Skousen argued that those reasons were really the reasons of the dynastic rich, who used front groups to do their dirty work and hide their tracks. The purpose of liberal internationalist groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations, argued Skousen, was to push "U.S. foreign policy toward the establishment of a world-wide collectivist society." Skousen claimed the Anglo-American banking establishment had a long history of such activity going back to the Bolshevik Revolution. He substantiated this claim by citing the work of a former Czarist army officer named Arsene de Goulevitch. Among Goulevitch's own sources is Boris Brasol, a pro-Nazi Russian émigré who provided Henry Ford with the first English translation of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
"The Naked Capitalist" does not seem like a text that would be part of the required reading list on any reputable college campus, but some BYU professors taught it out of allegiance to Skousen. Terrified, the editors of Dialogue: The Journal of Mormon Thought invited "Tragedy and Hope" author Carroll Quigley to comment on Skousen's interpretation of his work. They also asked a highly respected BYU history professor named Louis C. Midgley to review Skousen's latest pamphlet. Their judgment was not kind. In the Autumn/Winter 1971 issue of Dialogue, the two men accused Skousen of "inventing fantastic ideas and making inferences that go far beyond the bounds of honest commentary." Skousen not only saw things that weren't in Quigley's book, they declared, he also missed what actually was there -- namely, a critique of ultra-far-right conspiracists like Willard Cleon Skousen.
"Skousen's personal position," wrote a dismayed Quigley, "seems to me perilously close to the 'exclusive uniformity' which I see in Nazism and in the Radical Right in this country. In fact, his position has echoes of the original Nazi 25-point plan."
Skousen was unbowed. In 1971, he founded the Freeman Institute, a research organization devoted to the study of the super-conspiracy directed by the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. (The institute later changed its name to the National Center for Constitutional Studies, which has offices in Malta, Idaho, and continues to publish Skousen's books, including Glenn Beck's favorite work of history, "The 5,000 Year Leap.")
By the end of the 1970s, the death of Skousen's biggest allies within the Mormon church hierarchy cleared the way for an official disavowal of his work. In 1979, LDS church president Spencer W. Kimball issued an order to every Mormon clergyman in the U.S. stating "no announcements should be made in Church meetings of Freemen Institute lectures or events that are not under the sponsorship of the Church. [This] is to make certain that neither Church facilities nor Church meetings are used to advertise such events and to avoid any implication that the Church endorses what is said during such lectures."
Skousen may have been too extreme for the Quorum of the Twelve in Salt Lake City, but he soon found rehabilitation on the intellectual margins of Reagan's Washington. In 1980, Skousen was appointed to the newly founded Council for National Policy, a think tank that brought together leading religious conservatives and served as the unofficial brain trust of the new administration. At the Council, Skousen distinguished himself by becoming an early proponent of privatizing Social Security. He also formed relationships with other evangelical church leaders and aligned the LDS church with an increasingly religious GOP.
"Skousen worked to change Mormonism from a new and unique American-born faith into an evangelical form of fundamentalist Christianity," says Rob Lauer, a leader of the Reform Mormonism movement. "By arguing that biblical principles were the basis of the U.S. government, he was among those most responsible for the LDS church becoming part of the religious right political establishment over the past 25 years."
In 1981, Skousen published "The 5,000 Year Leap," the book for which, thanks to Beck, he is now best known. But it wasn't that Skousen book that made the biggest headline in the 1980s. Toward the end of Reagan's second term, Skousen became the center of a minor controversy when state legislators in California approved the official use of another of his books, the 1982 history text "The Making of America." Besides bursting with factual errors, Skousen's book characterized African-American children as "pickaninnies" and described American slave owners as the "worst victims" of the slavery system. Quoting the historian Fred Albert Shannon, "The Making of America" explained that "[slave] gangs in transit were usually a cheerful lot, though the presence of a number of the more vicious type sometimes made it necessary for them all to go in chains."
Skousen spent the 1990s in semi-retirement. He spoke occasionally around the country and welcomed visiting politicians to his Salt Lake City home on Berkeley Street. His death in January 2006 was little noticed outside Mormon circles. If LDS members debated his legacy, it was in mostly hushed tones. But by then, he was already poised for a posthumous revival.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Glenn Beck's first public reference to anything Skousen seems to have occurred in 2003. In his memoir-cum-manifesto, "The Real America," was a chapter titled "The Enemy Within." It consisted of a list titled "Communist Goals of 1963." The list was originally published in Skousen's 1958 book "The Naked Communist," and was submitted to the Congressional Record by Florida Rep. Albert Herlong Jr., whom Beck identifies as the author. Beck asked readers of "The Real America" to ponder Skousen's list, then "check off" those goals already achieved by America's new enemies within. Replacing communists in Beck's view: "liberals, special-interest groups, [and] the ACLU."
It would be another few years before Beck really started boosting for Skousen's books. Apparently, around about 2007, a friend of Beck's sent him "The 5,000 Year Leap." In the column linked here, Canadian newspaper columnist Nigel Hannaford says the friend was a Toronto lawyer. Paul Skousen, Skousen's son, endorsed the outlines of the tale to Salon by e-mail, without giving dates: "As I understand it, Glenn Beck was given a copy of FYL by a friend in Canada. When Beck read it, suddenly the effusive and disembodied principles of freedom that he had been trying to dig up and put together all came together and he could make sense of them. He was so excited about the clarity it brought that he began mentioning it on his show."
Whatever the circumstances, Beck really began touting Skousen in the latter half of 2007. The first brief mention of Skousen in the online archives of Beck's radio show is Sept. 24, 2007. Less than two months later, Beck interviewed conservative pundit David Horowitz on his radio program. He asked him, "Have you ever read any Skousen? Have you read -- do you remember 'The Naked Communist'? I went back and reread that, it was printed in the 1950s. I reread that recently. You look at all the things the communists wanted to accomplish. It's all been done." Horowitz agreed.
The very next week, Bill Bennett appeared on Beck's radio program and received the same question. "Are you familiar with Skousen?" asked Beck. When Bennett replied yes, Beck gushed. "He's fantastic," he said. "I went back and I read 'The Naked Communist' and at the end of that Skousen predicted [that] someday soon you won't be able to find the truth in schools or in libraries or anywhere else because it won't be in print anymore. So you must collect those books. It's an idea I read from Cleon Skousen from his book in the 1950s, 'The Naked Communist,' and where he talked about someday the history of this country's going to be lost because it's going to be hijacked by intellectuals and communists and everything else. And I think we're there."
Beck continued to mention the book during 2008, but his Skousen obsession really kicked in as the 912 concept began to take shape. Even before Obama's inauguration, Beck had a game plan for a movement with Skousen at the center. On his Dec. 18, 2008, radio show, one month before Obama took office, Beck introduced his audience to the idea of a "September twelfth person."
"The first thing you could do," he said, "is get 'The 5,000 Year Leap.' Over my book or anything else, get 'The 5,000 Year Leap.' You can probably find it in the book section of GlennBeck.com, but read that. It is the principle. Please, No. 1 thing: Inform yourself about who we are and what the other systems are all about. 'The 5,000 Year Leap' is the first part of that. Because it will help you understand American free enterprise … Make that dedication of becoming a Sept. 12 person and I will help you do it next year."
By then, the Skousen family was ready to respond to the Beck-inspired demand. "We as a family," Paul Skousen told Salon, "were preparing to publish another edition, so I contacted his office with the request that Glenn write a foreword. He was gracious and kind and did just that. That is the version we're now publishing.
According to James Pratt of PowerThink Publishing, publishers of the new 30th anniversary edition of "Leap," which has the Beck foreword, it was intended to replace the version that the Beck show was already touting via links on its Web site. Pratt claimed in an e-mail to Salon that the previous version was not authorized by the family. "It was presumed by Mr. Beck and staff that copyright authority was in effect with that edition, and as an author I must say, I had also assumed the same thing ... I was more than a little surprised this was going on, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of copies."
PowerThink secured the agreement of the Skousen family to create the current edition of "The 5,000 Year Leap," which was first published on March 1, 2009. Pratt says that a federal lawsuit "is in process, to secure the copyright authority in an 'authoritative' way" to stop anyone but PowerThink from publishing the book.
In March, with the new book available, Beck invited Skousen's nephew Mark onto his Fox show, where the two men discussed splitting up the United States. (Mark would later say that between commercials, Beck told him that a friend had sent him "Leap" and that the book "changed his life.") A week later, Beck issued his famously maudlin announcement introducing the 912 Project. The teary-eyed performance was accompanied by a clarion call for all 912ers to buy " Leap." "I beg you to read this book filled with words of wisdom which I can only describe as divinely inspired," wrote Beck in his introduction to a recent edition. The result has been a publishing earthquake: More than 250,000 copies have been sold in the first half of 2009. James Pratt, the book's publisher, says Beck "has done more to bring the work of Dr. Skousen to light than any other individual in America today."
"The 5,000 Year Leap" is not the only Skousen title to find new life on the 912 circuit. The president of the National Center for Constitutional Studies, Dr. Earl Taylor Jr., is currently touring the country offering daylong seminars to 912 chapters based on Skousen's "Making of America." For $25, participants will receive a bagged lunch and stories about America's religious Founders and their happy slaves. An ad for Taylor's "Making of America" seminar, currently featured on the Web site of the Tampa 912 Project, claims that Skousen's book is "considered a great masterpiece to Constitutional students [and is] the 'granddaddy' of all books on the United States Constitution."
Like so much declaimed by W. Cleon Skousen and his 21st century acolyte Glenn Beck, this last statement is fantasy. But it is also a profitable and popular one. In coming to terms with a movement that has an ever more tenuous relationship with accepted fact, we relearn that perennial lesson grasped even by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. Fantasies can have serious consequences.
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a looney tune now I know why Beck is a half wit. If the so called christian right knew that what they hold dear to them is backed by LDS teachings they would go crazy well crazier than they are.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beck is simply amazing at how well he can make smoke and mirrors.
he's one of th emain leaders of the complaining about how many "czars" Obam has, and he spends alot of time villifying the "czars" for thier differnt political beleifs.
well,to make a good point about how paranoid Beck really is? there is no such thing as a Czar in American politics...
look it up. it is not a job title.
In the United States, "czar" is an informal, media-created term used to refer to certain high-level executive branch officials. There has never been any U.S. government office with the title "czar", but various office holders have sometimes been refered to by the nickname "czar" rather than their actual title. The "czars" have various titles (such as advisor, director, administrator, or diplomatic envoy), and they advise, direct or oversee operations on a given topic or coordinate policies between different departments on a given topic.
since it isn't even a job title? it's kindof difficult to "prove" who is a czar and who isn't.
in summation of the issue? i think we all want the president to have the right assistance in his job, since we know it is too big for one person to do it all, whether or not we like or don't like the President and his policies is waht will dictate whether we like his czars.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Gender: Male Religion: Mormon Race or Ethnicity: White Sexual orientation: Straight Occupation: TV Personality, Radio Personality Party Affiliation: See Note [1]
Nationality: United States Executive summary: Conservative TV and radio talk-show host
Glenn Beck grew up in Mount Vernon, Washington, a small town about sixty miles north of Seattle. He started on radio by winning an hour of air time in a contest on one of the town's two radio stations. While still in high school, he worked as a late-night and weekend disc jockey at a different station about forty miles from Seattle, until he was fired for missing scheduled shifts. He went straight from high school to full-time radio work, and by his mid-20s he was a successful radio DJ. With his early success, though, Beck became an alcoholic and daily drug user. His first marriage ended in divorce, and then he kicked his addictions with help from Alcoholics Anonymous. Now clean and sober for years, Beck says he still suffers back pain from an injury incurred when, intoxicated or high, he tumbled through a window.
Beck suffers from Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), so his show is always fast-paced. Fans describe him as quick-witted, well-informed, an independent thinker, and a good Christian. His mantra, he says, is to begin and end each day on his knees, praying for the troops and the president. A Mormon with self-described libertarian leanings, Beck is big on conservative politics and traditional family values, and his radio program is syndicated on more than 200 US stations. He also had an hour-long TV show that ran three times nightly on CNN Headline News.
In the build-up to America's 2003 war on Iraq, Beck countered anti-war protests by using his radio show to organize dozens of pro-war rallies across the nation, and he has promised he will never question the cause, “no matter how unpopular this war gets." He has described Jimmy Carter as "a waste of skin", Cindy Sheehan as "a pretty big prostitute", and fantasized on the air about strangling to death Michael Moore.
Beck is also the founder and editor of Fusion, a magazine of conservative political perspective, where a regular feature is the magazine's humorous "future obituaries" of prominent liberals, celebrities, and terrorists. In its September 2006 issue, Fusion solemnly commemorated the fifth anniversary of September 11 with a cover drawing of Beck standing in front of World Trade Center's twin towers.
[1] "I'm not a Republican, nor a Democrat. I'm a commonsense-thinking conservative." CNN (22-May-2007)
Mother: Mary (d. suicide) Wife: (div., two daughters) Daughter: Mary (has cerebral palsy) Daughter: Hannah (b. 1991) Wife: Tania (one son, one daughter) Son: Raphe (adopted 2004) Daughter: Cheyenne Grace Beck (b. 30-Apr-2006)
High School: Sehome High School, Bellingham, WA (1982) University: Yale University (dropped out)
Alcoholics Anonymous Converted to Mormonism 2000 (from Roman Catholicism) Endorsement of Select Comfort Sleep Number bed Birther Movement Global Warming Skeptics Surgery hemorrhoid surgery (26-Dec-2007) Risk Factors: Alcoholism, Marijuana, Cocaine, Obesity
posted
What did it get changed to? I will tell you he was an alcohal and drug addicted looser to just a looser with a lot less brain cells.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not really familiar with Beck, but I do know he is.
However, I did take the time to read the lengthy article that was posted at the start of this thread. I have to say..... that I fail to see any real issue contained within. I get that the guy that wrote the book went through some kind of metamorphasis that left him alienated from those that he was trying to be affiliated with.....surely such has been the case with the majority of figures that have brought about significant changes to innumerable establishements. I have never read his book (FYL)...... Nevertheless, it seems to be resonating with many persons in the current social climate. So without having read it....I have to assume that it is a powerful and relevant work in the world of today.
If "perception is reality"...... to be so dismissive is foolish, because evidently there exist an ever-growing sect that views whatever ideas contained within the book to be of some worth.
Even to an outsider....the article is obviously slanted to cast Beck in a negative light, and it is not even done very covertly. To people like myself; it makes me wonder; "Why?" I have to assume that it can only be because he is taking a position that not popular with the "establishment."....... in the current political climate... that only serves to further my interest in Beck and this author, because I like many question a lot of the recent happenings over the last several years.
If I were someone that truly did not like Beck; I think I would write the author of the article and tell him to never do another piece on him.
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rounder1: because evidently there exist an ever-growing sect that views whatever ideas contained within the book to be of some worth.
Excellent choice of words, and very apropos. Sect..yes... very apropos indeed. IMO
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Notice the lack of histrionics. Of course, he has to wiggle around and back-pedal and just flat-out refuse to answer some stuff...
and he did better than I would have done re: checking out those gorgeous gams of hers
He did say, notably, he might've voted for Hillary over McCain and that even Obama is better than McCain would've been. That's prolly gonna surprise a few peeps...
I agree with Tex, I think Couric was fair and Beck handled himself well. One quote I took from it that I think pertains to this thread...
Beck: "I'm not a journalist, I'm an opinion guy."
Now, as to the article above, I have to start with full disclosure...
1) I am Mormon (for those that don't know).
2) I HAVE read the 5000 year leap.
3) I know a little about Beck, have been to his Christmas show and own two of his books.
That being said, I found almost nothing in the Leap that could be classified and strictly Mormon. Many christian faiths that I've come into contact with believe fully that this land was chosen by God for his people and that the Constitution is a sacred document. None of that is particular to the Mormon faith.
As to the author's (of the article) assertion that the founding fathers were more deist than christian is absolutely asinine. Deism preaches a god that created everything and then abandoned it. Many of the quotes of the Founding Father's show that they believed quite vividly in a God that would aid them in times of war\strife if they were worthy of it.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
I agree with Tex, I think Couric was fair and Beck handled himself well. One quote I took from it that I think pertains to this thread...
Beck: "I'm not a journalist, I'm an opinion guy."
Now, as to the article above, I have to start with full disclosure...
1) I am Mormon (for those that don't know).
2) I HAVE read the 5000 year leap.
3) I know a little about Beck, have been to his Christmas show and own two of his books.
That being said, I found almost nothing in the Leap that could be classified and strictly Mormon. Many christian faiths that I've come into contact with believe fully that this land was chosen by God for his people and that the Constitution is a sacred document. None of that is particular to the Mormon faith.
As to the author's (of the article) assertion that the founding fathers were more deist than christian is absolutely asinine. Deism preaches a god that created everything and then abandoned it. Many of the quotes of the Founding Father's show that they believed quite vividly in a God that would aid them in times of war\strife if they were worthy of it.
yikes, hold on SF. I said he acquits himself well. If you'll notice my other remarks, it's clear I believe he's moderating his behavior in front of Katie Couric.
At that point of the interview where he refuses to elucidate his comments about Obamma being a racist, jeez, he looks like that frog might have been on a close-up, if it were real.
Now, about Mormons: I don't know squat about Mormons other than rumors of some kind of secret underwear. However, I was invited to Mormon country once, concerning a job interview. Later it was clear that the corporate office in California wanted me and my wife to shore up the book-production effort they had going on in Utah. Clearly, the two of us could have done the work of five people AND made their program work.
Instead, they decided to open a joint-venture with a community college and train book publishing to kids. If that doesn't smack of xenophobia, well ya ta hey.
Perhaps needless to say, their dreams of expanding died on the vine. Can you imagine? Starting a Jr. College program for copy editors who would in three months be copy editing college textbooks? (or even six months? Or even a year?) It's ludicrous.
All I'm saying is, the Mormon deal seems pretty exclusive.
To repeat: I don't know *what* Mormons really believe re: Christ, Toltecs, Bhudda, Mohammed.
But they sure can cut off their noses to spite their faces.
posted
Beck: "I'm not a journalist, I'm an opinion guy."
in other words he's a propagandist just like limbugger.
i mean he has his own separate opinions to spread, but you know what? i think he should put his opinions in his garden where they belong.
the IDEA that some goober like him can make several hundred million dollars for sharing his opinions and THATS ALL should tell us all something is really sick in our society.
the idea that he and his opinion is part of the GDP tells me that we need to recalibrate our econometrics.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to the author's (of the article) assertion that the founding fathers were more deist than christian is absolutely asinine. Deism preaches a god that created everything and then abandoned it. Many of the quotes of the Founding Father's show that they believed quite vividly in a God that would aid them in times of war\strife if they were worthy of it.
of course you beleive that, you have been indoctrinated yourself.
Thomas Jefferson rewrote the Bible. Yep, he was a Deist, capital D intended.
he removed all references to miracles. he was one of the most pre-eminent of the Deists, and he was requested to write the Constitution which he did with no mention of Jesus or even of God.
do a search, you will not find it.
the reason for that is that the US of America was founded by a group of religious REJECTS who were willing to recognise to each other that they had come here to escape persecution from organised State Religion. MD? a Catholic Colony for Brits -church of Englan was Protestant.Cecil Calvert received a charter from Charles I of England for the new colony of Maryland, named for the Queen Consort Henrietta Maria, shortly after the death of his father, the 1st Baron Baltimore, who had long pursued a colony in the mid-Atlantic to serve as a refuge for English Catholics.
Mass? Puritans NC? John Locke was the secretary to the Lords Proprietors of NC. John Locke is considered one of the fathers of modern libertarianism:
here is his view on consciousness:
Locke posits an "empty" mind, a tabula rasa, which is shaped by experience; sensations and reflections being the two sources of all our ideas.
notice the lack of mention of God in the influence of the mind?
there has been a concerted effort to rewrite history as it relates to the religious attitudes of our Founding Fathers in the last 75 years.
this revisionism revolves around the arguments over whether or not COMMUNISM is OK in the US.
Marx repudiated religion as the opiate of the masses (now we have TV )
this was the tone of the day when all of these diverse religious groups came together to form the Union.
Deism was natural by-product of Age of Enlightenment. Yous ee it was kinfof hard to explain why "allofasuddenlike" people were discovering all of these scientific advances that came not thru religious teaching.
remember that "new thoughts" were repressed by the State Churches.
no, there is nothing asinine about claiming that the Founders were Deists. Deists believe in the existence of God, on purely rational grounds, without any reliance on revealed religion.
this is why people like limbugger and beck really anger me.
they are pandering to angry people and making chit up as they go. it all come out garbled and nobody bothers to check facts any more. the Age Enlightenment was the day of the Deist.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Beck: "I'm not a journalist, I'm an opinion guy."
in other words he's a propagandist just like limbugger.
i mean he has his own separate opinions to spread, but you know what? i think he should put his opinions in his garden where they belong.
the IDEA that some goober like him can make several hundred million dollars for sharing his opinions and THATS ALL should tell us all something is really sick in our society.
the idea that he and his opinion is part of the GDP tells me that we need to recalibrate our econometrics.
Use to, you had to earn your bones as a reporter before you became a columnist or were invited to join the editorial staff. In broadcast, peeps trusted folks like Cronkite, Chet & David, etc. Nowadays peeps can't tell the difference between a ****ger, a comedian, or a blowhard. Beck is basically a failed Zoo-guy, a shock-jock who made it big the way a blind hog stumbles onto a mess of acorns.
A proper response to that line will take more than I have time for here at work, so I'll add to this when I get home.
Deism was as much a logical extension of the Catholic\Anglican strife as the Protestant\Reformation movement. One simply sought to know God better through different teachings and the other through up their hands in abdication of that responsibility. Deism is little more than Agnosticism in a pretty dress.
As far as the characterizing the Founding Fathers as Deists because of Jefferson's Bible (a fact that I admit I was unaware of), perhaps we should look to other members and see what they had to say about religion.
Alexander Hamilton:
"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man." - "Famous American Statesmen," by Sarah K. Boulton.
George Washington:
"The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country." – General Order, (9 July 1776) George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 3g Varick Transcripts
"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian." – General Orders (2 May 1778); published in Writings of George Washington (1932), Vol.XI, pp. 342-343
Ben Franklin:
“The moral and religious system which Jesus Christ transmitted to us is the best the world has ever seen, or can see.”
John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!
Doesn't sound like Deists to me. (shrug)
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
George Washington? two quotes? there's not many more to support your case than that. you will find that he was forced to be involved in the Church of England to hold political offices in Virginia...
in those 2 cases? he was writing to recruit to arms.
Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.
Letter to Edward Newenham (20 October 1792)
We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth & reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened age & in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States.
* Letter To the members of the New Church of Baltimore (22 January 1793)
* The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. o Letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island (1790)
and this one is about Democracy:
* Democratical States must always feel before they can see: it is this that makes their Governments slow, but the people will be right at last. o Letter to Marquis de Lafayette (25 July 1785)
Washington wrote very little in reference to religion.
Ben Franklin? read the WHOLE quotation, it goes on from there
Franklin, who normally preferred to contemplate the eternal in the privacy of his own home, had been invited by Jedediah Andrews to become a member of the Presbyterian church. He attended for five Sundays in a row. He became a pew holder and a contributor, but he nevertheless ceased to attend weekly services... In general, most Franklin scholars have found him to be quite moderate in his attitude toward religion. Typically, Alfred Owen Aldridge has described Franklin as a confirmed Deist, who, in contrast to more militant Deists like Tom Paine, did not attempt to "wither Christianity by ridicule or bludgeon it to death by argument."
Benjamin Franklin was identified as an Episcopalian by the Library of Congress. A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution by M. E. Bradford was cited as the source stating he was later a Deist. (Source: Ian Dorion, "Table of the Religious Affiliations of American Founders", 1997).
About March 1, 1790, [Franklin] wrote the following in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, who had asked him his views on religion...:
As to Jesus of Nazareth , my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble...." (Carl Van Doren. Benjamin Franklin. New York : The Viking Press, 1938, p. 777.)
He died just over a month later on April 17.
i will provide more later.
Deism is not what you have been told it is either. Deism is the acceptance of One God and a rejection of Magic.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thomas Paine became very important. In 1776, he published Common Sense, a strong defense of American Independence from England. He traveled with the Continental Army and wasn't a success as a soldier, but he produced The Crisis (1776-83), which helped inspire the Army. This pamphlet was so popular that as a percentage of the population, it was read by or read to more people than today watch the Super Bowl.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. Thomas Paine
Every religion is good that teaches man to be good; and I know of none that instructs him to be bad. Thomas Paine
Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed. Man cannot make principles; he can only discover them. Thomas Paine
this one is too long to post, but itis a must read:
Every person, of whatever religious denomination he may be, is a DEIST in the first article of his Creed. Deism, from the Latin word Deus, God, is the belief of a God, and this belief is the first article of every man's creed.
.....The Deist needs none of those tricks and shows called miracles to confirm his faith, for what can be a greater miracle than the creation itself, and his own existence? There is a happiness in Deism, when rightly understood, that is not to be found in any other system of religion. All other systems have something in them that either shock our reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in order to force himself to believe them......
the Founders were very critical thinkers and respected the Faith of others while expressing very little in the way of Dependence upon Faith for themselves.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:George Washington? two quotes? there's not many more to support your case than that.
Please, Glass, I told you that I only had a short time to post quotes. Here is at least one more before I have to run.
From the First Inaugural Address...
"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.
Now, if you want to nit pick about what Deism is, then let's set some kind of base to work from. Deism is NOT simply anti-cabalistic monotheism. There are three major tenets of Deism.
1) There is a single creator deity. (not all that different than the Church of Rome or any of the major current religions)
2) Said creator being ordered the universe with Natural Laws that are eternal and immutable. Man learns about his creator by discovering said laws.
3)Said creator being does not interfere with, talk to, or impose his will on any of his creations. (this is the key tenet for our discussion and what makes Deism if not unique, definitely different than most religious bodies)
If you disagree with these tenets let's settle that first, then we'll get back to whether the Founding Fathers meet the criteria.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
3)Said creator being does not interfere with, talk to, or impose his will on any of his creations. (this is the key tenet for our discussion and what makes Deism if not unique, definitely different than most religious bodies)
you do realise that when it is someone elses God who speaks to them we call it a myth right?
i beleive you beleive that.
you are quoting this from where exactly?
allow me to clarify that many of these man professed to one another quite clearly that they were Deists.
GW was among those men as i showed you .
Ben Franklin and TJ too....
i linked you to their definition of Deism here it is again at another site:
Of the Religion of Deism Compared with the Christian Religion
It honors reason as the choicest gift of God to man, and the faculty by which he is enabled to contemplate the power, wisdom and goodness of the Creator displayed in the creation; and reposing itself on His protection, both here and hereafter, it avoids all presumptuous beliefs, and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to revelation. Thomas Paine
it is possible to un-indoctrinate yourself if you wish. you are Free to do so in the country founded by these great Deists.
they saw to it that you and i were left with the option, it is up to you what you do with it.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
if this doesn't settle it for you? i don't know what will: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
that is article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli-The treaty was signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797, finally receiving ratification from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by President John Adams on June 10, 1797.
23 of the 32 sitting Senators were present for the June 7 vote which unanimously approved the ratification recommendation. it was only the third treaty ratified
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; ....
And thankfully so, Glass. My contention is not that the U.S. is a 'Christianity' based country. If this were founded on ANY religion it would have swiftly followed it's predecessors into pointless wars over personal choices. In order for the U.S. to truly be free, it HAD to be religious neutral.
That being said, to claim the Founding Fathers were Deists is akin to claiming they were Masonic (and hence bringing into question whether masonic teachings influenced our country's founding). Were there Masons among the Founders? Yes. Were all of them Masonic? Of course not.
As for your Paine link? Rubbish. Sorry, but having read it through it's little more than a hit piece on the Church of Rome rather than an apology on Deism. Not truly helpful other than to establish Paine as a Deist.
Having researched several sites to make sure my understanding of Deism is accurate I will share one link on the topic before I leave this part alone:
The effort to find this natural religion came to be known as Deism. The focus naturally was on ethics. Deism first appeared in England in the seventeenth century in response to the theological controversies that divided Christians during the sixteenth century. Deism must be distinguished from theism and atheism. Atheists were scornful of deists saying that were not weak enough to be Christians, and not strong enough to be atheists. The Deists believed themselves to be Christians. Their God was not the personal God of the theists: a God who operated through history and concerned himself continually with the affairs of human beings. Rather their God was the Great Artificer of the Universe who with a thrust of his Almighty hand, had set rolling the myriad spheres, and left creation to its own devices. Rather than being intimately involved with the creation, this God had left humanity on its own to be guided in its affairs by reason, the "candle of the Lord."
The author goes on to claim several of the Founders as Deists including George Washington. He attempts to explain away their professions of faith and reliance on Providence as merely pandering to the masses. This is something that I believe is crucial to our discussion. Either one of three things has to be true:
1) The author is right. Washington and others simply pretended to be religious in order to amass political power.
2) The Founders in question simply didn't understand was true Deism was.
3) Finally, they weren't Deists (capital D) and were simply deists (lower case d).
I leave it to you to decide which you believe. I however refuse to accept 1 and have difficulty accepting 2. Power hungry liars (which 1 would have to make our Founders be) have not the moral ability nor strength to produce this great nation. As to 2, ignorance about such a common concept of the time as to what Deism professed seems unlikely to me as well.
While several sites tried to waffle on whether God interacts with his creations all were quite specific that He(She, It) doesn't talk to them. This allows the Deist to dismiss ALL religions that claim such revelation. Yet, as I cited above, Washington specifically references God's hand in the creation and guidance of the U.S. Either he believed in a God that guides his creations or he simply lied to maintain appearance. I don't know about you, but I refuse to think so little of one of the greatest men to ever walk this land.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by StonedPigeon: What an amazing waste of cyber space, you either agree with what the man has to say or you don't, end of ****in story.
Why are we talking Beck when we need to be talking Issues?
i have to disagree (what's new )
this "discussion" which is not a discussion is a perfect example of what's wrong with our country.
you cannot have a dialogue without agreeing to the meanings of the words.
ultra-right? ultra-left? two sides of the same coin.
i am reminded of how often different Christian sects call each other non-Christians as well... i beleive the Founders were well aware of the problem even then, and took steps to not solve it, but to avoid it entirely.
today many people wish to re-create the problem.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: As for your Paine link? Rubbish. Sorry,
sorry? LOL.. that's too easy.
what is rubbish about it? Tom Paine was wrong? The Founders in question simply didn't understand what true Deism was?
do you realise how truly self-contradcitory that is?
the Founders didn't know what they were?
Reread my post you quoted, Glass. I explained exactly why it was rubbish, imo. Paine doesn't explain anything about Deism. He simply says they believe in God 'and there he rests'. Paine spends the rest of the entire article condemning those who believe in Christianity to the bin of deluded idiots.
Once again, if you disagree with my three preeminent tenents of Deism that I listed say so and we'll find out what needs to be defined for our discussion. Otherwise I return to my previous post...
quote: Either one of three things has to be true:
1) The author is right. Washington and others simply pretended to be religious in order to amass political power.
2) The Founders in question simply didn't understand was true Deism was.
3) Finally, they weren't Deists (capital D) and were simply deists (lower case d).
If the Founders in question were Deists in truth, then how do we explain their repeated reference to the Hand of Providence in the making of this country?
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
i may as well try to tell you that you are not Christian as to define Deism for everyone.
it not me who said it was asinine to call them Deists.
what i can tell that i know is that George Washington was born into a Christian family, was expected by his family to, and did, participate in the Anglican Church and that by the time he died become what passed for a Deist in his day.
it is your "judgement" that he musta lied.
all i know is that these guys were very skeptical of the hand of God when communicating amongst themselves which is in fact very evident in their correspondence, if they were being dishonest with eh public? well, that's Politics....
Ben Franklin Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Payne all professed to be Deists in their correspondences. many others did too. The 1971 Encyclopedia Britannica, 7:183, states the following: "By the end of the 18th century deism had become a dominant religious attitude among upper-class Americans, and the first three presidents of the United States held this conviction, as is amply evidenced in their correspondence."
i alos KNOW these facts:
In God We Trust was printed on US coin the first time about the time of the Civil War.
It was adopted as the National motto under Eisenhower.
One nation "under God" was not in the original pledge of allegience, Which was written in 1892 ( by a Socialist no less)....
Francis Julius Bellamy (May 18, 1855 – August 28, 1931) was an American Baptist minister and Christian Socialist[1] who wrote the original Pledge of Allegiance in 1892
i already shared the Treaty of Tripoli with you that was the fifth congress... most of those guys were there when the country was Founded...
now, i know this Deism issue bothers many people who want to call this nation a Christian nation. but the fact is you are trying to tell me that YOU know them better than they know themselves.
and i KNOW the Constitution say there shall be religious tests to hold office, even tho George Washington took the bible to be sworn in on....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i may as well try to tell you that you are not Christian as to define Deism for everyone.
it not me who said it was asinine to call them Deists.
what i can say that i know for sure is that George Washington was born into a Christian family, was expected by his family to, and did, participate in the Anglican Church and that by the time he died become what passed for a Deist in his day.
it is your "judgement" that he musta lied.
all i know is that these guys were very skeptical of the hand of God when communicating amongst themselves which is in fact very evident in their correspondence, if they were being dishonest with eh public? well, that's Politics....
Ben Franklin Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Payne all professed to be Deists in their correspondences. many others did too. The 1971 Encyclopedia Britannica, 7:183, states the following: "By the end of the 18th century deism had become a dominant religious attitude among upper-class Americans, and the first three presidents of the United States held this conviction, as is amply evidenced in their correspondence."
i shared with you Thomas Paynes own writings and you called it rubbish... well, he wrote it NOT ME! and it makes me think you have some rather dogmatic religious views...
i also KNOW these facts:
In God We Trust was printed on US coin the first time about the time of the Civil War.
It was adopted as the National motto under Eisenhower.
One nation "under God" was not in the original pledge of allegience, Which was written in 1892 ( by a Socialist no less)....
Francis Julius Bellamy (May 18, 1855 – August 28, 1931) was an American Baptist minister and Christian Socialist[1] who wrote the original Pledge of Allegiance in 1892
i already shared the Treaty of Tripoli with you that was the fifth congress... most of those guys were there when the country was Founded...
now, i know this Deism issue bothers many people who want to call this nation a Christian nation. but the fact is you are trying to tell me that YOU know them better than they know themselves.
and i KNOW the Constitution say there shall be religious tests to hold office, even tho George Washington took the bible to be sworn in on....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To let nationalism and conservatism false pride get in the way of reality. All one has to do is read the the written messages the founding fathers sent to each other and you will see for yourself how they thought and the reasons that they made the decision to rebel from England.
One of the many and most important reasons was to have the freedom from religion by keeping it out of the affairs of state.
Since many were slave holders and delt in the slave trade the most immoral business a person could be in and not Christian to begin with and those that did not own slaves most likely murdered American Natives as they stole there land.
Freedom for the founders yes for most of those that fought no. Most of those that fought were not property owners and did not have the right to vote most of the founding fathers were afraid to give the common man that right if you want to hear the way most of them felt about that read federalist paper number 10. The right to vote for woman was not even a consideration and if you weren't white forget voting at all.
This is not a Christian based government and its survival has nothing to do with Gods favor it is a chain of events and geography that made us what we are. Unless you feel that slave ownership and labor murder and land theft not letting a good 80% of the population have a say and worrying that they may desire the same things you have like the right to vote and have a say to make it hard by social circumstances to achieve to get there so you can keep power in your own hands.
If this is the makings of a Christian Government and Christians then me and you went to different Churches and read a totally different New Testament Seeking Freedom.
And by the way all of the Freedoms that we enjoy today were taken from this Government and the ruling elite that run the government by the use of force and blood shed nothing was ever granted.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
seeking freedom the repeated reference to the guiding hand of Christ that made this country great nothing is further from the truth.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raybond: seeking freedom the repeated reference to the guiding hand of Christ that made this country great nothing is further from the truth.
i hear the same sort of stuff every time i watch a NASCAR race raybond, it's so common that i don't even take it seriously... it is so cliche it has no real meaning.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
