RANT ARCHIVE 6:

 

...or should it be 666?

 

 

RELIGION

 

 

Some of the material on this site is guaranteed to offend people that have never been exposed to the information, ideas, and links we have posted. Some people may feel uncomfortable or get angry at what they find. Others will feed off it, grateful that we exposed the information we have. Still others may not care at all. Our goal is to create a dialogue between and among these people. A dialogue that focuses on questioning conventions, and challenging Authorities and Elites. 

 

freedom of information, freedom of thought, and freedom of speech and action

 

 

 

_________________________________________________

 

 

 

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."   

                                                                               James Madison     

Forth U.S. President and principal author of the Constitution and Bill of Rights

 

 

___________________________________________________

 

 

Rather than offend on our site, we can direct you to sites that do a better job than we could ever do on the religion issue (though I'm sure we could give them a run for their money).

 

 

OUR RUN FOR THE MONEY:

 

     Two Rants more meant for those that want to "save us:"

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________________________________

     Two more things: a look at two screwed up wackos.

__________________________________________________________________

 

OFF-SITE $:

 

 

                       THE HARDCORE/PUNK GUIDE TO CHRISTIANITY
                              by Robin Banks

                               http://plusminusrecords.com/hcpguide/index.html

 

>>Why Women Need Freedom From Religion www.ffrf.org/nontracts/women.html

>>Dare To Question: Elizabeth Cady Stanton http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/elizabeth_stanton/dare.html

also see: http://religion.aynrand.org/

>>The Failure of Christianity by Emma Goldman http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/failureofchristianity.html

 

>>The Skeptical Review:  www.theskepticalreview.com/

            The Secular Web hosts the online version of past issues of the printed version of The Skeptical Review (www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/index.shtml) but is not responsible for editing its content. If you have questions or criticisms regarding specific contents of this periodical, please join the Errancy email list to discuss it, or write a letter to the editor. And please note that subsequent to the November/December 2002 issue, the Skeptical Review will be published in an online version, only, at www.theskepticalreview.com

 

 

>>Biblical Errancy: http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/ 2500 Punderson Drive; Hilliard, Ohio  43026

            The issues raised in Biblical Errancy represent a challenge to Bible inerrantists, and religion in general.

 

 

>>Ever seen the artificial light and then then stepped over to the real light of rationalism? Ask the Ex-Christians: ExChristians.net: http://vanallens.com/exchristian/intro03.php

 

>>WAS THERE NO HISTORICAL JESUS? http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jesus.html

    also see http://vanallens.com/exchristian/2002_08_25_archive.php

 

>>THE PAGAN ORIGINS OF THE CHRIST-MYTH:

www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/index_FLASH.html

 

>>THE GOD MOVIE www.thegodmovie.com/clip-Trailer.php

 

 

___________________________________________________________

 

 

Where to find literature that is skeptical and critical of religion: 

 

 

          PROMETHEUS BOOKS: www.prometheusbooks.com

 

          BIBLICAL ERRANCY book link

          

          ROBB MARKS:  RM Bookseller

 

          SECULAR WEB:  

 

          DETOX WEBZINE: Back to splash page...

           

           American Rationalist

 

           Rationalist

 

           Skeptic 

 

           Skeptical Inquirer 

 

           Free Inquiry 

 

 

          The Journal of Higher Criticism:

 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________

 

 

Searching for answers that question New Age sewage, paranormal phenomenot and religious frippery?:

          

  • SKEPTIC PLANET SEARCH: 

 

  • The Skeptic's Dictionary: The Truth is in Here

 

 

________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

The Randi Paranormal Challenge


James Randi, a.k.a. The Amazing Randi, magician and author of numerous works skeptical of paranormal claims, offers "a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power." His rules are little more than what any reasonable scientist would require. If you are a mental spoon bender, you can't use your own spoons. If you are going to see auras, you will have to do so under controlled conditions. If you are going to do some remote viewing, you will not be given credit for coming close in some vague way. If you are going to demonstrate your dowsing powers, be prepared to be tested under controlled conditions. If you are going to do psychic surgery or experience the stigmata, expect to have cameras watching your every move.

For more information on the James Randi Paranormal Challenge see www.randi.org, or send e-mail to randi@randi.org or snail mail to

JREF
201 S.E. 12th St (E. Davie Blvd)
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815
U.S.A.

After collecting the million dollars, successful psychics should contact B. Premanand of the Indian Skeptic, who will pay Rs. 100,000 "to any person or persons who will demonstrate any psychic, supernatural of paranormal ability of any kind under satisfactory observing conditions." "Mr. Prabir Ghosh will pay Rs. 20,00,000 to anyone who claims to possess supernatural power of any kind and proves the same without resorting to any trick in the location specified by Prabir Ghosh." Also, the Australian Skeptics will throw in an additional $100,000 (Australian), $80,000 for the psychic and $20,000 for anyone "who nominates a person who successfully completes the Australian Skeptics Challenge." If you nominate yourself, and are successful, you get the whole hundred grand. Finally, the Association for Skeptical Inquiry (ASKE), a U.K. skeptic organization, offers £12,000 for proof of psychic powers.

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________

 

All Those Opposed:

           

          

          www.rationalist.org/      

 

          www.nobeliefs.com/

        

          www.rationalist.org.uk/index.shtml

 

          www.americanhumanist.org/

 

          www.cfiwest.org/

 

          www.religionisdumb.com

 

          www.alt-atheism.org/

 

          www.atheistunited.org/

 

          www.atheists.org/

      

          www.positiveatheism.org/

 

          www.ffrf.org/

 

  

 

_________________________________________________________________

 

 

Page 1

get the entire anti-tract @ http://www.minitru.org/llf/wwjd.html

 

________________________________________________________________

 

No Morality Without the Bible?

FARRELL TILL

 

(Farrell Till was a Minister for The Church of Christ for twelve years and five of those were spent doing missionary work http://vanallens.com/exchristian/fartil.htm . He is the editor and frequent contributor to his magazine The Skeptical Review.)

 

Of all the arguments that fundamentalists resort to in their defense of the Bible, none is more ridiculous than their claim that the Bible is necessary for people to know how to live moral lives. They arrive at this conclusion through a series of assumptions. Their first assumption is that God exists, and onto this assumption, they pile another one: morality (and they even make it an absolute morality) emanates from the nature of God. Then, of course, they assume that their God, in verbally inspiring the Bible, revealed absolute morality to mankind. Hence, man must rely on the Bible to know what is moral and immoral. They envision life without the Bible as a moral chaos reminiscent of ancient Israel before the time of its kings when "everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).

The whole superstructure of this argument is built upon another assumption that is incredibly cynical on the part of a group that delights in condemning the pessimism of philosophies that question the existence of God. This assumption is that man is incapable of making moral decisions without divine guidance. In other words, man must have God's help or else he just can't determine for sure what is right and what is wrong.

Were it not for the seriousness of fundamentalist attempts to impose this belief on society in general, it would be too ridiculous to deserve comment. We have used human intelligence to cure diseases, split the atom, and invent a technology that has us reaching for the stars, yet Christian fundamentalists would have us believe that we are too stupid to discover that lying, stealing, and killing are harmful enough to the general welfare to be considered morally wrong. That view of life is about as pessimistic as any that can be imagined, infinitely more pessimistic than the mental action of a skeptic who questions the existence of an afterlife for which he can see no verifiable evidence.

This foundation belief of Bible fundamentalism is of course erroneous. It is even contradicted by the Bible itself. In Romans 2:14, the Apostle Paul said that the Gentiles, who had not received the law [of Moses] or, in other words, a revelation from God, had nevertheless sometimes done "by nature the things of the law" and were therefore "a law unto themselves." If this doesn't mean that Paul believed that the Gentiles who had no divine revelation had discovered morality on their own, then pray tell what does it mean? So even if the existence of the biblical god could undeniably be proven, how could bibliolaters, in the face of this statement from their much revered apostle to the Gentiles, justify their claim that man must have direct guidance from God in order to live morally?

The fact is that no one can prove the existence of God. Volumes have been written on the subject, but no theist has yet advanced an argument for God's existence that has not been adequately answered. Anyone who doubts this should read the information available on the subject, and a good place to begin would be with George H. Smith's Atheism: the Case Against God. In this book, one will find logical refutations of all the major theistic arguments.

What this means is that the fundamentalist claim that there can be no morality without a god to reveal it to us is just an empty shell. It begins with an unprovable assumption and ends with a conclusion that even the Bible contradicts. What kind of argument is that?

The fallacy of the argument is obvious from its flagrant appeal to wishful thinking. It is certainly appealing to think that we will live in another world after we die in this one, and so wishful thinkers spend their lives believing in religions that offer them the hope of gods and saviors who promise them eternal life in a great beyond. Few of these wishful thinkers ever bother to subject their otherworldly beliefs to rational examination. They want it, so they assume that they will get it just on the basis of their wanting it. Nothing could be more irrational than belief based on a premise no more substantial than this, yet this is exactly how many theists reason. "I want it, and so I know that I will get it."

If there is no God, fundamentalists are fond of saying, then there can be no standard of objective or absolute morality. Well, so what? What kind of argument is that? If there isn't, then there just isn't. What the fundamental- ists are really saying is that it would certainly be nice if everything on the subject of morality was already decided for us and neatly laid out in categories of black and white. This is right, and this is wrong, period, end of the discus- sion. But if it isn't that way, then it just isn't that way, and no amount of wishful thinking or praying or hoping will ever change the fact that it isn't that way. We (mankind) are just in the world on our own and will have to get by the best that we can.

The thought of that terrifies most theists, but it shouldn't. God wasn't much help to us in discovering how to cure or prevent smallpox, diphtheria, typhoid, whooping cough, polio, measles, and dozens of other diseases. We had to do it on our own. God wasn't much help to us in making the scientific discoveries that led to the technology that now makes life so comfortable for us. We had to do it on our own. So if we did all these things without God, surely we can make the moral discoveries that are necessary for society to function in an orderly, beneficial way.

To the fundamentalists, of course, this is all outrageous heresy. The Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God. It just is, and no amount of rational argumentation will remove them from their fantasy world in which everything is either black or white. There is one thing, however, that they cannot do. They cannot open their Bibles and demonstrate just how anyone can know what absolute morality is. They will say that the Bible provides us with a guide to absolute morality, but they can't show us exactly what absolute morality is.

Is it, for example, morally right for blood to be transfused from one person to another? Most religions permit it, but the Jehovah's Witnesses argue that biblical principles properly understood condemn it. Who is right? When the Bible was being written, the technology for transfusing blood didn't exist, so the Bible did not directly address this problem. The same is true of numerous other technologies now available to us. The transplantation of body organs (including even cross-species transplants), artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, genetic mapping, gene splicing--these are all technologies that were developed after the Bible was written, so what is the "correct"" moral position to take on these issues? Through processes of in vitro fertilization and embryo transplantations, a woman in South Dakota gave birth to her own grandchildren. Was it morally right for her to do this? What does the Bible say? Well, of course, the Bible doesn't say anything about this or any of the other technological procedures mentioned above. If we asked a hundred theologians to take their Bibles and resolve the moral dilemmas posed by these technologies, we would find ourselves hopelessly trapped in a maze of confusion when all of their answers were in.

Last summer, when the story about the Lakeberg twins first appeared in the newspapers, the article was clipped and mailed to several fundamentalist preachers known to believe in absolute morality. An accompanying letter asked them to explain what the Bible had to say about the dilemma that the parents of those twins were facing. The twins were joined at the chest and shared a common heart. Surgery would mean that one of the twins would have to die, and subsequently this was the decision that the parents made. The absolute moralists who received that letter were asked to state what their god of absolute morality has revealed to us in this matter.

Not a one of these preachers has yet answered that letter. Their silence shouts the inconsistency of their position. The Bible gives us a guide to absolute morality, so they say, yet they cannot tell us what absolute morality has to say about the difficult moral dilemmas that we must confront in our modern society.

Elsewhere in this issue, a debate on biblical morality begins. Before it is over, maybe Lindell Mitchell, the spokesman for the fundamentalist position, will try to explain to us how the Bible can be an absolute moral guide in problems that didn't even exist in biblical times. If he doesn't attempt to explain it, some of us just may suspect that he isn't nearly as sure of his position as he would like us to believe.

 

 

____________________________________________________________________

 

DEISM and the "Founding Fathers"   

June 25: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge finds the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional--thank god.

According to Bush, however: "The Declaration of God in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't violate rights. As a matter of fact, it's a confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from god, as a proclamation in our Declaration of Independence." The president said the country needs "common sense judges who understand that rights were derived from God. Those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench." What about someone's freedom to be free from religion? As far as I can tell, the rights, and beauty of the rights of this country, were created by rational men, not a god. And many of those men were Deists. The pledge was created by Francis Bellamy in 1892. In 1954, the phrase 'under god' was added to the pledge during the Red Scare of  McCarthyism. The following  year our county's beautiful original motto: "from many comes one" (E Pluribus Unum) was changed to 'in god we trust' and the Treasury started branding our money with it as well.  This may not be unconstitutional like the pledge, but why stop there. I feel sorry for some of the teachers that have recite the pledge daily, knowing that some of them don't agree with it, and others that know some of their students would rather not either. Ultimately, coercive worship of the flag is fascism, not patriotism, because patriotism is a voluntary act of freedom, not forced compulsion.

June 27: The U.S. Supreme court finds the use of school vouchers to divert public funds to private (including parochial) schools in Milwaukee to be "constitutional." So...what about that "Wall of  Separation?" 

Deism is a rejection of revealed religion or religion by the testimony of others, the foundation of Christianity. Theology can be divided into two classes: natural, which seeks knowledge of God through reason, and revealed, which requires faith in revelation (this is according to the Christian theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas, some theologians do not believe in the natural class).  Deists reject belief in anyone else's accounts of 'talking to god' or being revealed visions or revelations of any sort from a god or gods. In Deism, knowledge is held more important than belief, reason more important than faith, revelations are ignored, and nothing is sacred enough to escape the light of inquiry and doubt. Meaning critiques of the Bible, Jesus, god theories, miracles and revelation are fair game and a tenet of Deism.  The Deistic god is a god of nature that is not at all involved in this world or human affairs. Impersonal.

To let some Deists (which I am not) do some explaining, here is what they have to say: from www.Deism.com/:

Deism is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1941, as: "[From Latin Deus, God. Deity] The doctrine or creed of a Deist." And Deist is defined in the same dictionary as: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason."

This common sense approach to God and a spiritual philosophy can not only bring a lasting profound sense of peace and happiness to the individual, but it also has the potential to go light years in eradicating religious fear, superstition and violence.

What is the basis of Deism?    Reason and nature. We see the design found throughout the known universe and this realization brings us to a sound belief in a Designer or God.

Is Deism a form of atheism?    No. Atheism teaches that there is no God. Deism teaches there is a God. Deism rejects the "revelations" of the "revealed" religions but does not reject God.

If Deism teaches a belief in God, then what is the difference between Deism and the other religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.?     Deism is, as stated above, based on nature and reason, not "revelation." All the other religions make claim to special divine revelation or they have requisite "holy" books. Deism has neither. In Deism there is no need for a preacher, priest or rabbi. All one needs in Deism is their own common sense and the creation to contemplate.

Do Deists believe that God created the creation and the world and then just stepped back from it?    Some Deists do and some believe God may intervene in human affairs. For example, when George Washington was faced with either a very risky evacuation of the American troops from Long Island or surrendering them he chose the more risky evacuation. When questioned about the possibility of having them annihilated he said it was the best he could do and the rest is up to Providence.

Do Deists pray?    Only prayers of thanks and appreciation. We don't dictate to God.

How do Deists view God?    We view God as an eternal entity whose power is equal to his/her will. The following quote from Albert Einstein also offers a good Deistic description of God: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

Is Deism a cult?    It's impossible for Deism to be a cult because Deism teaches self-reliance and encourages people to constantly use their reason. Deism teaches to "question authority" no matter what the cost.

Unlike the revealed religions, Deism makes no unreasonable claims. The revealed religions encourage people to give up, or at least to suspend, their God-given reason. They like to call it faith. For example, how logical is it to believe that Moses parted the Red Sea, or that Jesus walked on water, or that Mohammed received the Koran from an angel? Suspending your reason enough to believe these tales only sets a precedent that leads to believing a Jim Jones or David Koresh.

What's Deism's answer to all the evil in the world?     Much of the evil in the world could be overcome or removed if humanity had embraced our God-given reason from our earliest evolutionary stages. After all, all the laws of nature that we've discovered and learned to use to our advantage that make everything from computers to medicine to space travel have existed eternally. But we've decided we'd rather live in superstition and fear instead of learning and gaining knowledge. It's much more soothing to believe we're not responsible for our own actions than to actually do the hard work required for success.

Deism doesn't claim to have all the answers to everything, we just claim to be on the right path to those answers.

SO WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE FOUNDING FATHERS?

Many of them were Deists. And their Deism, that is non-Christian, ideology afforded America the pluralism it was founded on in order to obtain FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT IMPOSED DOGMA, including "under god."

The point is: a Secular State is the best method of insuring that we all have Freedom of Conscience as established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And luckily, the Enlightenment and the 'rationalism' of Deism, afforded the founding fathers with the common sense to separate religion and government so that we may all be free--the reason England was abandoned to begin with. They realized, no one should be bothered by or forced to acknowledge the ideology of someone else, and everyone should be free in their own place/space and time to think and do as they please as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others' freedoms. In other words, religious philosophies are a private, not public, matter.

The excerpts below are from Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Paine. (taken from: “Quotations that Support the Separation of Church and State” compiled by Ed and Michael Buckner, Published by the Atlanta Freethought Society, 1993. A limited number of changes and additions to the original compilation were made (they are noted with this font)).

Thomas Jefferson

(1743-1826; author, Declaration of Independence and the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom; 3rd U.S. President, 1801-1809)

Convinced that religious liberty must, most assuredly, be built into the structural frame of the new [state] government, Jefferson proposed this language [for the new Virginia constitution]:  “All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution”:  freedom for religion, but also freedom from religion.  (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation,  San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 38.   Jefferson proposed his language in 1776.)

Where the preamble [of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom] declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read, “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindu and Infidel of every denomination.  (Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363) 

In the Notes [on the State of Virginia] Jefferson elaborated his views on government’s keeping its distance from all religious affairs and religious opinions.  “The legitimate powers of government,” he wrote, “extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.  But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God.  It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation,  San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, pp. 42-43. )

. . . “shake off all the fears of servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely [sic] crouched.  Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal for every fact, every opinion.  Question with boldness even the existence of a god because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.  You will naturally examine first the religion of your own country.  Read the bible then, as you would read Livy or Tacitus.  The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature does not weigh against them.  But those facts in the bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces.  Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from god.  Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong as that it’s [sic] falshood [sic] would be more improbable than a change of the laws of nature in the case he relates. . . .  Do not be frightened from this enquiry by any fear of it’s [sic] consequences.  If it ends in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in it’s [sic] exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you.  If you find reason to believe there is a god, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, and that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement.  If that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus was also a god, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love.  In fine, I repeat that you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject any thing because any other person, or description of persons have rejected or believed it.  Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable not for the rightness but uprightness of the decision”. . . .  (Thomas Jefferson, letter to his young nephew Peter Carr, August 10, 1787.  From Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society, New York: George Braziller, 1965, pp. 320-321.)

 “I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”  (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799.  From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 499.)

 Jefferson and The Wall

 “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”  (Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 369)

 “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”   (Thomas Jefferson, “First Inaugural Address,” March 4, 1801; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 364.)

 Jefferson’s Mistrust of Clergy

 “History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.  This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.”  (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Baron von Humboldt, 1813;  from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 370)

 “The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.”   (Thomas Jefferson, as quoted by Saul K. Padover in Thomas Jefferson on Democracy, New York, 1946, p. 165, according to Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, compilers, The Great Quotations on Religious Liberty, Long Beach, CA:  Centerline Press, 1991, p. 48.)

 “In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.  He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.  It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes.  (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 371)

 Across the ages, clergy have been interested [according to Jefferson] not in truth but only in wealth and power; when rational people have had difficulty swallowing “their impious heresies,” then the clergy have, with the help of the state, forced “them down their throats.”  Five years later, he [Jefferson] wrote of “this loathsome combination of church and state” that for so many centuries reduced human beings to “dupes and drudges.”   (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation,  San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 47.  According to Gaustad, the first quotes are from a letter from Jefferson to William Baldwin, January 19, 1810;  the second source is a letter from Jefferson to Charles Clay, January 29, 1815.)

 The University of Virginia

Jefferson wanted to make William and Mary an institution of the state of Virginia, but they would not break with the Church so he started UVA. Furthermore, not even a class in theology was to be offered at UVA: “A professorship of Theology should have no place in our institution [the University of Virginia]." (Thomas Jefferson, letter  to Thomas Cooper, October 7, 1814.  From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 492.)

 He [Jefferson] rejoiced with John Adams when the Congregational church was finally disestablished in Connecticut in 1818; welcoming “the resurrection of Connecticut to light and liberty,” Jefferson congratulated Adams “that this den of priesthood is at length broken up, and that a protestant popedom is no longer to disgrace American history and character.”  (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation,  San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 49.)

 Jefferson’s Deistic Rejection of Christianity

 “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a Virgin Mary, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. . . . But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away [with] all this artificial scaffolding.”  (Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 11 April 1823, as quoted by E. S. Gaustad, “Religion,” in Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson:  A Reference Biography, New York:  Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1986, p. 287.)

 . . . Jefferson expressed himself strongly on that larger apocalypse, the Book of Revelation, in a letter to Alexander Smyth of 17 January 1825: it is “merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.”  Apocalyptic writing deserved no commentary, for “what has no meaning admits no explanation;” therefore, apocalyptic prophecies associated with Jesus deserved and would receive no attention from Jefferson in his Life and Morals of Jesus.  (E. S. Gaustad, “Religion,” in Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson:  A Reference Biography,  New York:  Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1986, p. 287.)

 To conclude this discussion of the religious clauses of the First Amendment, let’s talk some more about Thomas Jefferson and his “wall.”  Some TV preachers, as well as writers, politicians, and, worst of all, Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, have sought to pull down the wall by disparaging Jefferson’s influence on the First Amendment.  A popular bit of historical revisionism that floats around these days goes something like this:  Jefferson served as ambassador to France during the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  He had no hand in their preparation and passage because he was out of the country.  Therefore, his metaphor about the “wall of separation” is misplaced and ill-informed because he was living in France and was out of touch.

                Tommyrot!  Thomas Jefferson was James Madison’s mentor.  Madison as the chief architect of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights drew heavily from Jefferson’s ideas and kept in regular contact with his fellow Virginian even though the latter lived in France.  Volumes of correspondence exist between the two men as they discussed the day’s crucial events.  Jefferson understood that the First Amendment created a separation between church and state because he, more than most of the Founders, gave form and substance to the nation’s understanding of how the two institutions should best relate in the new nation.  Some politicians, lawyers, and preachers subject us to mental cruelty when they disparage Jefferson’s interpretation simply because he lived in France during the years of the Constitution’s framing.   (Robert L. Maddox, Baptist minister and speech writer and religious liaison for President Jimmy Carter, Separation of Church and State:  Guarantor of Religious Freedom, New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1987, pp. 67-68.)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the freedom of press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  (Amendment 1,The Constitution of the United States.)

James Madison

(1751-1836;  principal author, U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights;  4th U.S. President, 1809-1817)

 “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize [sic], every expanded prospect.”  (James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774, as quoted by Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation,  San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 37.)

 On Feb. 21, 1811, Madison vetoed a bill for incorporating the Episcopal Church in Alexandria and on Feb. 28, 1811, one reserving land in Mississippi territory for a Baptist Church.  (James D. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents [Washington, 1896-1899], I, 489-490, as cited in a footnote, Elizabeth Fleet, “Madison’s Detatched Memoranda,”  William & Mary Quarterly, Third series: Vol. III, No. 4 [October, 1946], p. 555.)

 Madison and Military/Government Chaplains

Chaplainships of both Congress and the armed services were established sixteen years before the First Amendment was adopted.  It would have been fatuous folly for anybody to stir a major controversy over a minor matter before the meaning of the amendment had been threshed out in weightier matters.  But Madison did foresee the danger that minor deviations from the constitutional path would deepen into dangerous precedents.  He took care of one of them by his veto [in 1811] of the appropriation for a Baptist church.  Others he dealt with in his “Essay on Monopolies,” unpublished until 1946.  Here is what he wrote:

                “Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?  In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative.  The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.  The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them, and these are to be paid out of the national taxes.  Does this not involve the principle of a national establishment . . . ?”

                "The appointments, he said, were also a palpable violation of equal rights.  Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain?  “To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the veil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.”  The problem, said the author of the First Amendment, was how to prevent “this step beyond the landmarks of power [from having] the effect of a legitimate precedent.”  Rather than let that happen, it would “be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex [the law takes no account of trifles].”  Or, he said (likewise in Latin), “class it with faults that result from carelessness or that human nature could scarcely avoid.”

                “Better also,” he went on, “to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion.”  . . . The deviations from constitutional principles went further: 

                “Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.  Although, “recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.”    (Irving Brant, The Bill of Rights: Its Origin and Meaning,  Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1965, pp. 423-424.  Brant gives the source of “Essay on Monopolies” as Elizabeth Fleet, “Madison’s Detatched Memoranda,”  William & Mary Quarterly, Third series: Vol. III, No. 4 [October, 1946], pp. 554-562.)

 “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”  (James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822;  published in The Complete Madison: His Basic Writings, ed. by Saul K. Padover, New York: Harper & Bros., 1953.)

George Washington

(1732-1799;  “Father of His Country;” 1st U.S. President, 1789-1797)

The following year [1784], when asking Tench Tilghman to secure a carpenter and a bricklayer for his Mount Vernon estate, he [Washington] remarked:  “If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe.  They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists.”  As he told a Mennonite minister who sought refuge in the United States after the Revolution:  “I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable Asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong”. . . . He was, as John Bell pointed out in 1779, “a total stranger to religious prejudices, which have so often excited Christians of one denomination to cut the throats of those of another.” (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion,  Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, p. 118.  According to Boller, Washington wrote his remarks to Tilghman in a letter dated March 24, 1784; his remarks to the Mennonite--Francis Adrian Van der Kemp--were in a letter dated May 28, 1788.)

. . .Bird Wilson, Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, was one of the first openly to challenge in public the pietistic picture of Washington that was being built up by [Mason Locke] Weems and his followers.  In a sermon delivered in October 1831, which attracted wide attention when it was reported in the Albany Daily Advertiser, Wilson stated flatly, that “among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.”  Washington, he went on to say, “was a great and good man, but he was not a professor of religion; he was really a typical eighteenth-century Deist, not a Christian, in his religious outlook.”  (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 14-15.)

As Bishop William Meade put it, somewhat nastily, in 1857: “Even Mr. Jefferson, and [George] Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence.”  (William Meade, Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, 2 vols.; Philadelphia, 1857, I, 191).    (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion,  Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, p. 26.)

Unlike Thomas Jefferson--and Thomas Paine, for that matter--Washington never even got around to recording his belief that Christ was a great ethical teacher.  His reticence on the subject was truly remarkable.

Washington frequently alluded to Providence in his private correspondence.  But the name of Christ, in any correspondence whatsoever, does not appear anywhere in his many letters to friends and associates throughout his life. (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion,  Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 74-75.)

. . . if to believe in the divinity and resurrection of Christ and his atonement for the sins of man and to participate in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper are requisites for the Christian faith, then Washington, on the evidence which we have examined, can hardly be considered a Christian, except in the most nominal sense. (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion,  Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, p. 90.)

[on Washington’s first inaugural speech in April 1789]  . . . That he was not just striking a popular attitude as a politician is revealed by the absence of the usual Christian terms:  he did not mention Christ or even use the word “God.” Following the phraseology of the philosophical Deism he professed, he referred to “the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men,” to “the benign parent of the human race.”   (James Thomas Flexner, George Washington and the New Nation [1783-1793],  Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1970, p. 184.)

Washington’s religious belief was that of the enlightenment:  deism.  He practically never used the word “God,” preferring the more impersonal word “Providence.” How little he visualized Providence in personal form is shown by the fact that he interchangeably applied to that force all three possible pronouns: he, she, and it.   (James Thomas Flexner, George Washington: Anguish and Farewell [1793-1799], Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1972, p. 490.)

As President, Washington regularly attended Christian services, and he was friendly in his attitude toward Christian values.  However, he repeatedly declined the church's sacraments.  Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary. . . . Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative.

George Washington’s practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian.  In the enlightened tradition of his day, he was a devout Deist--just as many of the clergymen who knew him suspected.  (Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol,  New York: The Free Press, 1987, pp. 174-175.)

John Adams

(1735-1826; major leader at Constitutional Convention in 1787; 2nd U.S. President , 1797-1801)

In his youth John Adams (1735-1826) thought to become a minister, but soon realized that his independent opinions would create much difficulty.  At the age of twenty-one, therefore, he resolved to become a lawyer, noting that in following law rather than divinity, “I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself.”  (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation,  San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 88.   The Adams quote is from his letter to Richard Cranch, August 29, 1756.)

“Let the human mind loose.  It must be loose.  It will be loose.  Superstition and Dogmatism cannot confine it.”  (John Adams, letter to John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816.  From Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation,  San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 88.)

“We think ourselves possessed, or, at least, we boast that we are so, of liberty of conscience on all subjects, and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact!  There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations.  In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel.  In England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot poker.  In America it is not better; even in our own Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the Old Testament or New.  Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating into the divine authority of those books?  Who would run the risk of translating Dupuis*?  But I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I have it much at heart.  I think such laws a great embarrassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind.  Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws.  It is true, few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution, and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them.  But as long as they continue in force as laws, the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations.  I wish they were repealed.  The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated.  Adieu.”   (John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, January 23, 1825.  Adams was 90, Jefferson 81 at the time; both died on July 4th of the following year, on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  From Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society,  New York: George Braziller, 1965, p. 234.)

*Charles F. Dupuis wrote histories on comparative religion, and like all worthy comparative religious scholars, he equated Christianity to a conglomeration of popular pagan religions that proceeded it. (Dupuis, like many religious scholars, also professed that the Jesus of the Bible was a non-historical figure, that is, he did not exist.).

Benjamin Franklin

(1706-1790; American statesman, diplomat, scientist, and printer. Freethinker.)

[Benjamin] Franklin drank deep of the Protestant ethic and then, discomforted by church constraints, became a freethinker.  All his life he kept Sundays free for reading, but would visit any church to hear a great speaker, no doubt recognizing a talent he himself did not possess.

With typical honesty and humor he wrote out his creed in 1790, the year he died:  “I believe in one God, Creator of the universe. . . . That the most acceptable service we can render Him is doing good to His other children. . . .  As to Jesus . . . I have . . . some doubts as to his divinity*;  though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble.”  (Alice J. Hall, "Philosopher of Dissent: Benj. Franklin," National Geographic, Vol. 148, No. 1, July, 1975, p. 94.)

*Perhaps he read Dupuis as well.

Thomas Paine

(1737-1809; author of Common Sense, the match that started the fire; key American patriotic writer.)

Paine on Religion

“As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith.”   (Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776.  As quoted by Leo Pfeffer, “The Establishment Clause: The Never-Ending Conflict,” in Ronald C. White and Albright G. Zimmerman, An Unsettled Arena:  Religion and the Bill of Rights,  Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990, p. 72.)

“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly-marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law.  Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.”  (Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1791-1792.  From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, pp. 499-500.)

“Toleration is not the opposite of intolerance but the counterfeit of it.  Both are despotisms: the one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, the other of granting it.”  (Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, p. 58.  As quoted by John M. Swomley, Religious Liberty and the Secular State: The Constitutional Context,  Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1987, p. 7.  Swomley added, “Toleration is a concession; religious liberty is a right.”)

“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine.  But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself.  Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.

It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society.  When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.

He takes up the profession of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade he begins with a perjury.  Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this?”  (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.  From Paul Blanshard, ed., Classics of Free Thought, Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1977, pp. 134-135.)

Paine on the Bible

“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God.  It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.  (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.  From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 494.)

“Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies.”  (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.  From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 494.)

Paine and Deism

“The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.  It has been the most dishonorable belief against the character of the Divinity, the most destructive to morality and the peace and happiness of man, that ever was propagated since man began to exist.”  (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.  From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 494.)

Well, I think... they... have said enough. And how and the hell do some of our presidents get-off calling America a Christian nation? Despite the fact that this is a "melting-pot?" Oh, I forgot, it's a pot where the creme curdles together among the masses they bleed and ignore, and there are also those of which they like to skim off out-of-sight and out-of-mind. Something is rotten in the states of the united.

______________________________________________________________________________

 

For more on church state separation

www.au.org/ 

www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html

www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm

www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/milner.html

www.atheistsunited.org/html/pamphlets/Morris/Founding.html

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

 JESUS CHRIST IS THE ANSWER?

DEAR BELIEVER.  You ask me to accept Jesus as my personal Saviour; yet his behavior and teachings often expose one who should be escaped, not sought.  I only ask that you read what follows in the spirit of open-mindedness taught in Prov. 15:10 NIV [New International Versison] ("he who hates correction will die") and Prov. 12:1 NASB ("he who hates reproof is stupid") because I seek to "Prove all things" (1 Ths 5:21).

   (1) While on the Cross Jesus said, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me" (Mark 15:34).  

How could Jesus be our savior when he couldn't even save himself?  Those aren't the words of a man voluntarily dying for our sins; those are the words of a man who can think of a hundred places he would rather be.

   (2) Jesus said, "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matt. 5:22).  yet, he himself did so repeatedly as Matt. 23:17,19 and Luke 11:40 and 12:20 show.  

Shouldn't he be in danger of hell too?

   (3) Except for those of biased Christian writers, there isn't one writing outside the bible in all of ancient history that clearly refers to Jesus of Nazareth.

   (4) Isn't Jesus a false prophet since he wrongly predicted in Matt. 12:40 that he would be buried 3 days and 3 nights as Jonah was in the whale 3 days and 3 nights?  

Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning is only 1 1/2 days.

   (5) Another prophecy by Jesus in John 13:38 ("The cock shall not crow, TILL THOU (Peter) HAST DENIED ME 3 TIMES") is false because Mark 14:66-68 shows the cock actually crowed after the first denial, not the third.

   (6) How could Jesus be our model of sinless perfection when he denies his moral perfection in Matt. 19:17 ("And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God?).

   (7) In 1 Cor. 1:17 ("For christ sent me (Paul--Ed.) NOT TO BAPTIZE, but to preach the gospel") Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matt. 28:19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, BAPTIZING them..."

So how could Jesus be the fountain of wisdom?

   (8) How could Jesus, whom the NT repeatedly refers to as the son of man, be our saviour when this is clearly forestalled by Psalm 146:3 ("Put not your trust in princes, nor in THE SON OF MAN in whom there is no help") and Job 25:6 ("How much less man, that is a worm?  and THE SON OF MAN, which is a worm")?

   (9) How could Jesus be god when he repeatedly said he was not God's equal; he wasn't god.  Obvious examples are: John 14:28 ("...for my Father is greater than I"), John 20:17 ("I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and TO MY GOD, and your God), and John 7:16 ("My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me").

   (10) While on the Cross Jesus said, "Forgive them Father they know not what they do."  To whom was he speaking?  They say, "God."  But I thought he was God?  How can God speak to God if there is only one God? That's two gods.

   (11) Jesus told us to "honor thy father and mother" (Matt. 15:4) but contradicted his own teaching in Luke 14:26 ("If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother...he cannot be my disciple").

   (12) In John 3:13 ("And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man....")  Jesus erred because 2 Kings 2:11 ("...Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven") shows Elijah went earlier.

   (13) In Matt. 16:28 Jesus said, "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."  Yet, they all died and he never came.

   (14) Jesus told us to "Love your enemies; bless them that curse you" but ignored his own advice by repeatedly denouncing his opposition. Matt. 23:17 ("Ye fools and blind"), Matt. 12:34 ("O generation of vipers"), and Matt. 23:27 ("...hypocrites...ye are like unto whited sepulchers....") are excellent examples of hypocrisy in action.

   (15) Even many of the staunchest defenders of Jesus admit that his comment in Matt. 10:34 ("I came not to send peace but a sword") contradicts verses such as Matt. 26:52 ("Put up again thy sword into his place: FOR ALL THAT TAKE THE SWORD SHALL PERISH WITH THE SWORD").

   (16) The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Rom 1:3, Acts 2:30).  Yet, how could Jesus meet the requirement since his genealogies in Matt. 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David THROUGH JOSEPH who was not his natural father (The Virgin Birth).

   (17) Jesus told a man in Mark 8:34 that "whosoever will come after me let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me."  What cross?  He hadn't died on the cross yet.  There was nothing to take up.  That man would have had no idea what he was talking about.

   (18) In Mark 10:19 Jesus told a man to follow the commandments.  Yet, one of those listed by Jesus was "defraud not" which isn't even an Old Testament commandment.

   (19) In Luke 12:4 Jesus told his followers to "Be not afraid of them that kill the body, " but Matt. 12:14-16, John 7:1, 8:59, 10:39, 11:53-54, and Mark 1:45 show that he hid, escaped, and slinked around on numerous occasions.

   (20) In Luke 23:43 Jesus said to the thief on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."  But how could they have been together in paradise that day if Jesus lay in the tomb 3 days?

   (21) For Jesus to be executed for our sins makes about as much sense as my son telling a judge that he would accept execution for my crimes. Although a nice gesture it has nothing to do with justice.  What judge would agree?

   (22) And lastly, in Matt. 15:24 Jesus said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" but later told his followers to "Go ye therefore, and teach ALL nations" (Matt. 28:19).  To whom, then, are they to go?  Only to the Jews or everyone.

    These examples expose only a few of the many reasons I can't accept Jesus as a Saviour.  A far greater number can be found in the monthly publication, BIBLICAL ERRANCY, a national periodical focusing on biblical errors, contradictions, and fallacies, while providing a hearing for apologists.  

 

_________________________________________________________________________________

also see http://vanallens.com/exchristian/2002_08_25_archive.php

 

 

 

WAS THERE NO HISTORICAL JESUS? http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jesus.html

 

THE PAGAN ORIGINS OF THE CHRIST-MYTH: www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/index_FLASH.html

 

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Full text: Bin Laden's 'letter to America'

Online document--the full text of Osama bin Laden's "letter to the American people", reported in the Observer. The letter first appeared on the internet in Arabic and has since been translated and circulated by Islamists in Britain.

 

I hesitated in posting this, and have had second thoughts many times, but it is a piece of history now and I think it is better seen than forgotten. Though vile and insane, it serves as an educational means to understand reasoning of a madman and the events connected to that mind. 

 

__________________________________________


Observer Worldview

Sunday November 24, 2002
The Observer

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful,

"Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory" [Quran 22:39]

"Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan."[Quran 4:76]

Some American writers have published articles under the title 'On what basis are we fighting?' These articles have generated a number of responses, some of which adhered to the truth and were based on Islamic Law, and others which have not. Here we wanted to outline the truth - as an explanation and warning - hoping for Allah's reward, seeking success and support from Him.

While seeking Allah's help, we form our reply based on two questions directed at the Americans:

(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.

(ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.

When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islaam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) - and we make no distinction between them.

(iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.

(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.

(ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.

(iii) These governments steal our Ummah's wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.

(iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.

(v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.

(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.

(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.

(2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!

(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:

(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.

(c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us.

(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.

(e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.

(f) Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs.

The American Government and press still refuses to answer the question:

Why did they attack us in New York and Washington?

If Sharon is a man of peace in the eyes of Bush, then we are also men of peace!!! America does not understand the language of manners and principles, so we are addressing it using the language it understands.

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.

(b) It is the religion whose book - the Quran - will remained preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment. Allah has challenged anyone to bring a book like the Quran or even ten verses like it.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.

(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

(v) You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.

(vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.

(vii) You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it.

(viii) And because of all this, you have been described in history as a nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past. Go ahead and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic American Invention.

(xi) You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and*industries.

(x) Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people, who hold sway in their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with their gifts. Behind them stand the Jews, who control your policies, media and economy.

(xi) That which you are singled out for in the history of mankind, is that you have used your force to destroy mankind more than any other nation in history; not to defend principles and values, but to hasten to secure your interests and profits. You who dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan, even though Japan was ready to negotiate an end to the war. How many acts of oppression, tyranny and injustice have you carried out, O callers to freedom?

(xii) Let us not forget one of your major characteristics: your duality in both manners and values; your hypocrisy in manners and principles. All*manners, principles and values have two scales: one for you and one for the others.

(a)The freedom and democracy that you call to is for yourselves and for white race only; as for the rest of the world, you impose upon them your monstrous, destructive policies and Governments, which you call the 'American friends'. Yet you prevent them from establishing democracies. When the Islamic party in Algeria wanted to practice democracy and they won the election, you unleashed your agents in the Algerian army onto them, and to attack them with tanks and guns, to imprison them and torture them - a new lesson from the 'American book of democracy'!!!

(b)Your policy on prohibiting and forcibly removing weapons of mass destruction to ensure world peace: it only applies to those countries which you do not permit to possess such weapons. As for the countries you consent to, such as Israel, then they are allowed to keep and use such weapons to defend their security. Anyone else who you suspect might be manufacturing or keeping these kinds of weapons, you call them criminals and you take military action against them.

(c)You are the last ones to respect the resolutions and policies of International Law, yet you claim to want to selectively punish anyone else who does the same. Israel has for more than 50 years been pushing UN resolutions and rules against the wall with the full support of America.

(d)As for the war criminals which you censure and form criminal courts for - you shamelessly ask that your own are granted immunity!! However, history will not forget the war crimes that you committed against the Muslims and the rest of the world; those you have killed in Japan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon and Iraq will remain a shame that you will never be able to escape. It will suffice to remind you of your latest war crimes in Afghanistan, in which densely populated innocent civilian villages were destroyed, bombs were dropped on mosques causing the roof of the mosque to come crashing down on the heads of the Muslims praying inside. You are the ones who broke the agreement with the Mujahideen when they left Qunduz, bombing them in Jangi fort, and killing more than 1,000 of your prisoners through suffocation and thirst. Allah alone knows how many people have died by torture at the hands of you and your agents. Your planes remain in the Afghan skies, looking for anyone remotely suspicious.

(e)You have claimed to be the vanguards of Human Rights, and your Ministry of Foreign affairs issues annual reports containing statistics of those countries that violate any Human Rights. However, all these things vanished when the Mujahideen hit you, and you then implemented the methods of the same documented governments that you used to curse. In America, you captured thousands the Muslims and Arabs, took them into custody with neither reason, court trial, nor even disclosing their names. You issued newer, harsher laws.

What happens in Guatanamo is a historical embarrassment to America and its values, and it screams into your faces - you hypocrites, "What is the value of your signature on any agreement or treaty?"

(3) What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with yourselves - and I doubt you will do so - to discover that you are a nation without principles or manners, and that the values and principles to you are something which you merely demand from others, not that which you yourself must adhere to.

(4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.

(5) We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins.

(6) Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington.

(7) We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy of supporting the Jews because this will result in more disasters for you.

If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him. The Nation which is addressed by its Quran with the words: "Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him if you are believers. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of believing people. And remove the anger of their (believers') hearts. Allah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise." [Quran9:13-1]

The Nation of honour and respect:

"But honour, power and glory belong to Allah, and to His Messenger (Muhammad- peace be upon him) and to the believers." [Quran 63:8]

"So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be*superior ( in victory )if you are indeed (true) believers" [Quran 3:139]

The Nation of Martyrdom; the Nation that desires death more than you desire life:

"Think not of those who are killed in the way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are alive with their Lord, and they are being provided for. They rejoice in what Allah has bestowed upon them from His bounty and rejoice for the sake of those who have not yet joined them, but are left behind (not yet martyred) that on them no fear shall come, nor shall they grieve. They rejoice in a grace and a bounty from Allah, and that Allah will not waste the reward of the believers." [Quran 3:169-171]

The Nation of victory and success that Allah has promised:

"It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad peace be upon him) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it victorious over all other religions even though the Polytheists hate it." [Quran 61:9]

"Allah has decreed that 'Verily it is I and My Messengers who shall be victorious.' Verily Allah is All-Powerful, All-Mighty." [Quran 58:21]

The Islamic Nation that was able to dismiss and destroy the previous evil Empires like yourself; the Nation that rejects your attacks, wishes to remove your evils, and is prepared to fight you. You are well aware that the Islamic Nation, from the very core of its soul, despises your haughtiness and arrogance.

If the Americans refuse to listen to our advice and the goodness, guidance and righteousness that we call them to, then be aware that you will lose this Crusade Bush began, just like the other previous Crusades in which you were humiliated by the hands of the Mujahideen, fleeing to your home in great silence and disgrace. If the Americans do not respond, then their fate will be that of the Soviets who fled from Afghanistan to deal with their military defeat, political breakup, ideological downfall, and economic bankruptcy.

This is our message to the Americans, as an answer to theirs. Do they now know why we fight them and over which form of ignorance, by the permission of Allah, we shall be victorious?

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002

 

 

Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory 

Bush's Armageddon Obsession, Revisited

by MICHAEL ORTIZ HILL www.counterpunch.org/hill01042003.html