• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

"But this started as a Christian country!"

.

you apparently STILL do not know what a stawman is... the notion of a christian nation is THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD. refuting that contention is not a diversion and it is not arguing away from the topic...it IS the topic. If that is NOT the topic you wish to discuss you are in the wrong thread.

and no, 'fictitious' does not mean 'false'. the arguments i posted, however you view them, are not "of, relating to, or characteristic of fiction" OR "imaginary" OR "conventionally or hypothetically assumed or accepted" OR "not genuinely felt".

the phrase 'green apples' does not mean that all apples are green. the term 'frightened religionists' does not mean that all religious people are frightened. and not all 'religious' are 'religionist'. there is a difference between the two terms and i could save you the trouble of looking them up (not that you would, of course) and tell you it means 'a religious zealot... an ideologue', but of course, i would have to define those words for you too and ...

if YOU find it difficult to appreciate the difference between a religious person and a religious zealot... well, i can certainly understand that.

do you know what "infancy" means? perhaps you meant 'infantile'? that would not really have suited the case, either, but at least it fills the role in being the correct part of speech, assuming you are speaking English. again, i would recommend a greater familiarity with the words you use.

geo.

A strawman is when you direct your concerns toward some fictional argument I never made. Like claiming I said this was a Christian nation. I never said this. You create this fiction so that you could debate me. However, you failed. So yes in your infancy, your baby like ways, (English being a living language, i can move a noun to a adjective, and yes I know infantile is an adjective. Infancy works better here) you can't move past that you create this strawman argument by misrepresenting my position. Instead of debating my actual points, you debated your own. The fact that you directly lie about Adams is another matter.
 
i never made any such claim. if you think i am mistaken, kindly point to where i did. it was not necessary to claim that you did in order to make arguments refuting it, you see, because THAT IS THE PREMISE OF THE THREAD.

i have no particular desire to debate you. in fact, this discussion does not exactly qualify as a debate since only one here is actually presenting arguments and providing support for them. and that person is not you, the issue is an important one though. because there are a bunch of religionists... religious ideologues... on the public airwaves and even on the campaign attempting to pervert our SECULAR government with their religionism. and I don't want to let them get away with it.

i did not lie about adams or anything else. and if you were standing in the same room with me you would not have the balls to say that because i would crush your puny little skull for it.

geo.
 
it was a sop to religious ideologues.... people who think rather the way you appear to.

geo.

Well that statement right there is enough to prove you have no clue what the **** you are talking about and are relying on dickishness to make up what you lack in truthfulness.

Me, a religious idealogue. That's just too ****in funny.
 
your inability to reason comes naturally?

my condolences.

geo.
 
ouchie!.

geo.
 
Last edited:
So if we agree that our rights come from a creator, and are therefore inalienable, rather than from man, who is failable, who tells us what god believes to be inalienable rights?

Anyone see the problem here?
 
So if we agree that our rights come from a creator, and are therefore inalienable, rather than from man, who is failable, who tells us what god believes to be inalienable rights?

Anyone see the problem here?

I do. Being god's prophet on Earth, it is up to me to relay to the sons of man what their inalienable rights are. You do not have the right to question me, btw.
 
I do. Being god's prophet on Earth, it is up to me to relay to the sons of man what their inalienable rights are. You do not have the right to question me, btw.

Well consider me the first convert to Dittohead notism :)

I await your commands...
 
Well consider me the first convert to Dittohead notism :)

I await your commands...

Bless you my child.

I hereby allow you to do anything that doesn't impinge on the liberty of others, and give all others the same freedoms. I command you to support politicians who understand that the purpose of governemnt is to protect the liberties your creator has endowed you with.

Further, god wants me to relay to the sons of man that it is wrong to try to impose their own values on the rest of society by force of law.
 
No, if we omit your god from the equation we secularists do not necessarily transfer all of what religionists have attributed to him to ourselves. We did not create the universe, we cannot condemn you to eternal torment for having sex and we did not manufacture The Rights Of Man. We just wrote it.

Superb. I hope you don't mind me correcting the punctuation.

There is nothing necessarily God given about natural rights. There are natural rights and then there are social rights, which derive from a social contract (see Madison or Rousseau) that legitimizes the governments rights to rule (it's a deal, a contract between the government and the people). Natural rights come from a free conscience, something that the ancient lands with their storied pomp had denied many. But the traditions of natural rights come from British political struggle and the European Reformation:

Martin Luther said:
Furthermore, every man is responsible for his own faith, and he must see it for himself that he believes rightly. As little as another can go to hell or heaven for me, so little can he believe or disbelieve for me; and as little as he can open or shut heaven or hell for me, so little can he drive me to faith or unbelief. Since, then, belief or unbelief is a matter of every one's conscience, and since this is no lessening of the secular power, the latter should be content and attend to its own affairs and permit men to believe one thing or another, as they are able and willing, and constrain no one by force

The USA was foudned as a secular country in the spirit of teh Enlightenment. Those who wish to make it a theocracy are the new Tories, like those around Cromwell who persecuted the Levellers and wanted to create a new model monarchy. Ironic, as it was the Levellers who paved the way for the American Revolutionists themselves.
 
Superb. I hope you don't mind me correcting the punctuation..

feel free to correct away.

thanks for the Rousseau reference... an important man whose influence we tend to overlook.

the irony in this thread is the failure of the religionists to cite the single most influential thinker in the realm of 'natural rights' and perhaps the most influential thinker in modern protestant christianity as well, the quite devout John Locke, who saw rational secularism as a protection of faith as Luther suggests in the quote you posted (if you can cite that quote, i would appreciate it).
I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other....
Locke - A Letter Concerning Toleration

More irony, tt was the Protestantism Reformatuion (as you say) itself the first sparked the Enlightenment and the first premise of modern secular society and it is now its greatest threat, at least in this country. Reactionary christianity has gained ground in response to the increasing radicalism of Islam, but it is not Islam that poses the greater threat to liberty HERE.

Locke based his political secularism on what he considers a fundamental religious truism - that no man can claim to have sovereignty over another as only God may be said to own anything aside from himself and every man owns himself - all men are equal in this. Our natural rights are a reflection of this equality as it is something we all share.

This is the equality that Franklin wrote of. And it is 'ownership' and the right to 'own' that undergirds Liberty (and liberalism). no one may claim rightful ownership of anything without implicitly granting the right to own the same thing (if not the claim to ownership) to all others, so all men are free to pursue the same things. No life has greater righfulness than another, so all men have a right to life and .....
The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil interests. . . . .Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like.
ibid

i love that 'indolency of body'... my personal specialty.and for those who question a right to health, no m. Obama did not make it up.

geo.
 
Wikipedia can be underestimated as a source (Luther quote).

Of course I agree with you. I see America as awash with new Tories who seek a pre Reformation certainty. They want religion in schools, the official debunking of science on evolution and climate change, and a system of politics, which they call Constitutional, that sounds like the system of neglect favoured by European monarchs (until they needed a war, which these guys seem to be comfortable with too). Tom Paine is as relevant and fresh as he ever was in facing down these new Tories. Shall we take a peek?

Reflecting your view:

It is a fraud of the Christian system to call the sciences human invention; it is only the application of them that is human. 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.

Reflecting the internationalism and idealism of the idea of America:

Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good

The christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.

O! ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose not only tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the Old World is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.

The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not the affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent—of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe. 'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to the end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed time of continental union, faith and honor.

Regardin religion, Paine would now be a scourge of the Right:

Mingling religion with politics may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America.

Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

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 did not believe the resurrection; and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I; and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.

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 call it the word of a demon rather than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it as I detest everything that is cruel.

An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil.

And just so we know what the ideologist of America thought about Obamacare:

the Rights of Man said:
Having thus ascertained the greatest number that can be supposed to need support on account of young families, I proceed to the mode of relief or distribution, which is,

To pay as a remission of taxes to every poor family, out of the surplus taxes, and in room of poor-rates, four pounds a year for every child under fourteen years of age; enjoining the parents of such children to send them to school, to learn reading, writing, and common arithmetic...

By adopting this method, not only the poverty of the parents will be relieved, but ignorance will be banished from the rising generation, and the number of poor will hereafter become less, because their abilities, by the aid of education, will be greater. Many a youth, with good natural genius, who is apprenticed to a mechanical trade, such as a carpenter, joiner, millwright, shipwright, blacksmith, etc., is prevented getting forward the whole of his life from the want of a little common education when a boy.

I now proceed to the case of the aged.

I divide age into two classes. First, the approach of age, beginning at fifty. Secondly, old age commencing at sixty.

At fifty, though the mental faculties of man are in full vigour, and his judgment better than at any preceding date, the bodily powers for laborious life are on the decline. He cannot bear the same quantity of fatigue as at an earlier period. He begins to earn less, and is less capable of enduring wind and weather; and in those more retired employments where much sight is required, he fails apace, and sees himself, like an old horse, beginning to be turned adrift.

At sixty his labour ought to be over, at least from direct necessity. It is painful to see old age working itself to death, in what are called civilised countries, for daily bread.

...

The persons to be provided for out of this gross number will be husbandmen, common labourers, journeymen of every trade and their wives, sailors, and disbanded soldiers, worn out servants of both sexes, and poor widows.

There will be also a considerable number of middling tradesmen, who having lived decently in the former part of life, begin, as age approaches, to lose their business, and at last fall to decay.

Besides these there will be constantly thrown off from the revolutions of that wheel which no man can stop nor regulate, a number from every class of life connected with commerce and adventure.

To provide for all those accidents, and whatever else may befall, I take the number of persons who, at one time or other of their lives, after fifty years of age, may feel it necessary or comfortable to be better supported, than they can support themselves, and that not as a matter of grace and favour, but of right...If there be more, society, notwithstanding the show and pomposity of government, is in a deplorable condition in England.

Of this one hundred and forty thousand, I take one half, seventy thousand, to be of the age of fifty and under sixty, and the other half to be sixty years and upwards. Having thus ascertained the probable proportion of the number of aged persons, I proceed to the mode of rendering their condition comfortable, which is:

To pay to every such person of the age of fifty years, and until he shall arrive at the age of sixty, the sum of six pounds per annum out of the surplus taxes, and ten pounds per annum during life after the age of sixty.

This support, as already remarked, is not of the nature of a charity but of a right. Every person in England, male and female, pays on an average in taxes two pounds eight shillings and sixpence per annum from the day of his (or her) birth; and, if the expense of collection be added, he pays two pounds eleven shillings and sixpence; consequently, at the end of fifty years he has paid one hundred and twenty-eight pounds fifteen shillings; and at sixty one hundred and fifty-four pounds ten shillings. Converting, therefore, his (or her) individual tax in a tontine, the money he shall receive after fifty years is but little more than the legal interest of the net money he has paid; the rest is made up from those whose circumstances do not require them to draw such support, and the capital in both cases defrays the expenses of government. It is on this ground that I have extended the probable claims to one-third of the number of aged persons in the nation.- Is it, then, better that the lives of one hundred and forty thousand aged persons be rendered comfortable, or that a million a year of public money be expended on any one individual

After all the above cases are provided for there will still be a number of families who, though not properly of the class of poor, yet find it difficult to give education to their children; and such children, under such a case, would be in a worse condition than if their parents were actually poor. A nation under a well-regulated government should permit none to remain uninstructed. It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.

Were twenty shillings to be given immediately on the birth of a child, to every woman who should make the demand, and none will make it whose circumstances do not require it, it might relieve a great deal of instant distress.

Also twenty thousand pounds to be appropriated to defray the funeral expenses of persons, who, travelling for work, may die at a distance from their friends. By relieving parishes from this charge, the sick stranger will be better treated.

These circumstances which are the general cause of the little thefts and pilferings that lead to greater, may be prevented. There yet remain twenty thousand pounds out of the four millions of surplus taxes, which with another fund hereafter to be mentioned, amounting to about twenty thousand pounds more, cannot be better applied than to this purpose. The plan will then be:
First, To erect two or more buildings, or take some already erected, capable of containing at least six thousand persons, and to have in each of these places as many kinds of employment as can be contrived, so that every person who shall come may find something which he or she can do.

Secondly, To receive all who shall come, without enquiring who or what they are. The only condition to be, that for so much, or so many hours' work, each person shall receive so many meals of wholesome food, and a warm lodging, at least as good as a barrack. That a certain portion of what each person's work shall be worth shall be reserved, and given to him or her, on their going away; and that each person shall stay as long or as short a time, or come as often as he choose, on these conditions.

Is this one of the earliest examples of a treatise for the welfare state? Is this great man, so often being misquoted on government, not a giant of humanism in his espousing of "society" and her needs? This was according to many Founding fathers the person most responsible for America. Can anyone who reads Paine, the ultra secularist, the grand idealist, the internationalist ( aparticpant in not just one great Revolution but two!), the champion of opportunity and the poor, the scourge of privelege and indolence, the compassionate agitator who raised his small head against the mightiest superpower in the world, a traitor to his King and Country...can anyone doubt that America is a liberal project and that the modern American Right, the new Tories, who want to drink tea rather than boycott it, who want to shut out the world that Paine wanted to conquer with ideas, who want to return to superstition and co-erced thought, are putting the American Revolution in grave jeopardy.
 
Wikipedia can be underestimated as a source (Luther quote).

oh, i do not disparage wikipedia. in the middle school where i tutor, students are discouraged from using it as a source, but i like to show them how to gauge the value of individual listings... go to the source the page lists and evaluate THAT.
Tom Paine is as relevant and fresh as he ever was in facing down these new Tories.
to be sure. notwithstanding the pretense of esteem many conservatives express towards m. Paine, in fact, if he were alive and writing these things today, he would have to do so anonymously or face constant harassment, particularly for those statements you bolded.

I am going to cross post some of these things in the General Political forum... a thread there questioning 'liberals' assertion of a 'right to material goods' needs better answer than it has been receiving.

first, though, allow me to commend not so much the content of your post (though, of course, we are in agreement) as the fine writing, this in particular (typos corrected).
Can anyone who reads Paine, the ultra-secularist, the grand idealist, the internationalist ( a particpant in not just one great Revolution but two!), the champion of opportunity and the poor, the scourge of privilege and indolence, the compassionate agitator who raised his small head against the mightiest superpower in the world, a traitor to his King and Country...can anyone doubt that America is a liberal project and that the modern American Right, the new Tories, who want to drink tea rather than boycott it, who want to shut out the world that Paine wanted to conquer with ideas, who want to return to superstition and coerced thought, are putting the American Revolution in grave jeopardy.

just ****ing gorgeous, that.

geo.
 
i never made any such claim. if you think i am mistaken, kindly point to where i did. it was not necessary to claim that you did in order to make arguments refuting it, you see, because THAT IS THE PREMISE OF THE THREAD.

i have no particular desire to debate you. in fact, this discussion does not exactly qualify as a debate since only one here is actually presenting arguments and providing support for them. and that person is not you, the issue is an important one though. because there are a bunch of religionists... religious ideologues... on the public airwaves and even on the campaign attempting to pervert our SECULAR government with their religionism. and I don't want to let them get away with it.

i did not lie about adams or anything else. and if you were standing in the same room with me you would not have the balls to say that because i would crush your puny little skull for it.

geo.

You said Adams was not a Christian. That is a direct lie. Further, you have supported nothing with evidence. You just claim that the "creator" this was "tacked on" as if it was the irrational fear of the secular people who wimped out. Your cites even disagree with you as your own quote shows that Adams was active in the Church. Further, you provide examples of drafts before the DoI was presented to the CC, not even drafts from debate at the CC. I will agree with you though on one thing only. This isn't a debate. This is a person who doesn't know history (you) trying to rewrite history to suit your own distorted view of the world. This is socially constructed history at its best example. No real foundation on what was actually happening at the time; this is just what you want history to be, not what history is.
 
do not call me a liar again.

adams was a unitarian who rejected the divinity of jesus of nazareth. if you think a man may call himself a christian without believing that jesus was christ, fine.

no NOT call me a liar again.

geo;.
 
do not call me a liar again.

adams was a unitarian who rejected the divinity of jesus of nazareth. if you think a man may call himself a christian without believing that jesus was christ, fine.

no NOT call me a liar again.

geo;.

He didn't call you a liar. He said one of your assertions was a lie. And it was.
 
do not call me a liar again.

adams was a unitarian who rejected the divinity of jesus of nazareth. if you think a man may call himself a christian without believing that jesus was christ, fine.

no NOT call me a liar again.

geo;.

First and foremost the Unitarian movement at the time was moving towards rejecting the divinity of Jesus but this belief didn't become widespread until after the formation period. Second, since Adams was Unitarian before and during the beginning of the formation period in Unitarian and because Unitarians even then were accepting of differing philosophies, there is a good chance that he may have believe in the divinity of Jesus although he may not. Further, Unitarians themselves considered themselves Christian at the time and had a fear other would not call them Christian. And lastly, if he believed in the God and the philosophy of Jesus, there is no reason not to call him Christian. It is just like Messianic Christianity today. You jump to conclusions just because his form of Christianity doesn't fit your exact qualification. His actions speak very loudly here. He was an active member of a Christian Church.

So yes this claim that Adams wasn't a Christian, though irrelevant to the main conversation, was a lie or at least sever ignorance on your part pertaining to history. It just goes to show how people skew history towards what they want to believe and not what history actually is. this is just like those who create the "flat earth" silliness during the 1800s and those trying to get us all to believe that we never landed on the moon today. Socially constructed is generally not history.
 
Regardless of whether some or all of the founding fathers attended Christian churches, this nation was not founded on Christianity. It is a secular state, founded with the separation of church and state firmly embedded in the constitution. The FF may have believed in Christ, but were not at all interested in starting another nation where the church and the state were combined into a monolithic entity crushing liberty of the people unfortunate enough to have been born under its despotism.

The US has religions of all stripes, along with many citizens who reject religion completely, all living in peace under the separation of church and state. That is one of the cornerstones of liberty, and one of the greatest achievements of this nation.
 
First and foremost the Unitarian movement at the time was moving towards rejecting the divinity of Jesus but this belief didn't become widespread until after the formation period. Second, since Adams was Unitarian before and during the beginning of the formation period in Unitarian and because Unitarians even then were accepting of differing philosophies, there is a good chance that he may have believe in the divinity of Jesus although he may not. Further, Unitarians themselves considered themselves Christian at the time and had a fear other would not call them Christian. And lastly, if he believed in the God and the philosophy of Jesus, there is no reason not to call him Christian. It is just like Messianic Christianity today. You jump to conclusions just because his form of Christianity doesn't fit your exact qualification. His actions speak very loudly here. He was an active member of a Christian Church.

So yes this claim that Adams wasn't a Christian, though irrelevant to the main conversation, was a lie or at least sever ignorance on your part pertaining to history. It just goes to show how people skew history towards what they want to believe and not what history actually is. this is just like those who create the "flat earth" silliness during the 1800s and those trying to get us all to believe that we never landed on the moon today. Socially constructed is generally not history.

Yeah whatever. Adams loved Paine. Said he made the American Revolution. And Paine thought Christianity was twaddle.

I'm a Christian. And I believe, like St. Paul, in the clear separation of Church and State. As directed by Jesus Christ.

So tell me. Are you capable of civil discussion or DEBATE. Check the forum title. This means meeting and engaging with arguments. Not tripping our peurile abuse.
 
Last edited:
do not call me a liar again.

adams was a unitarian who rejected the divinity of jesus of nazareth. if you think a man may call himself a christian without believing that jesus was christ, fine.

no NOT call me a liar again.

geo;.

Appropriate outrage. The "lie" flamebait was uncalled for. But to be expected.
 
Yeah whatever. Adams loved Paine. Said he made the American Revolution. And Paine thought Christianity was twaddle.

I'm a Christian. And I believe, like St. Paul, in the clear separation of Church and State. As directed by Jesus Christ.

So tell me. Are you capable of civil discussion or DEBATE. Check the forum title. This means meeting and engaging with arguments. Not tripping our peurile abuse.

I am a Christian and like Hitchens and Michael Shermer. Just because you like or even agree with a person on some issues doesn't means that you complete and totally agree with that person on every issue. So you argument here doesn't support the conclusion that Adams wasn't a Christian either. And Geo cites go to show you that Adams was Christian since he was active in a Christian Church, even buried there. Further to debate one needs someone who is actively trying to debate as well. Geo isn't. He is systematically misrepresenting my position, claiming i mean things even after I have fully rejected those intentions, and is misrepresenting history. So my abilities not withstanding, a debate takes two dance and only I have shown up with dancing shoes.

My comment towards Geo stands and will stand until he retracts. Calling someone's clearly fictitious statement as a lie is not abuse.

Further, I have no problem with the separation of Church and state either. My point has and will remain to be, that man should never be in charge of determining what is and what isn't a right. Rights always have to come from without, given to use by some external force, whatever that force maybe. the reasons for this conclusion were outlined several pages back and have never been fully countered.
 
Last edited:
Appropriate outrage. The "lie" flamebait was uncalled for. But to be expected.

yeah.... he and his friend gumball or whatever his handle is are hoping to get me to boil over.... liar will do it too.

personally, i very much agree with Adams. Adams used the term 'christian' in reference to himself, but no one today who expressed his beliefs would be called christian by contemporary christians. he rejected the notion of eternal life, he rejected the divinity of jesus, he considered anyone who lived by the precepts that Jesus taught to be 'christian', regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

“I believe with Justin Martyr, that all good men are Christians, and I believe there have been, and are, good men in all nations, sincere and conscientious.”
– To Samuel Miller, July 8, 1820.

even after coming to the realization that i could not longer pretend to believe what i could not understand and which did not seem to have much actual presence in the world in which i live, i continued calling myself a 'christian' - i do not anymore... there is the implicit stipulation of ' spiritual salvation', a concept i cannot accept. But then, nor did Adams:

"I believe too in a future state of rewards and punishments too; but not eternal."
-- To Francis van der Kemp, July 13, 1815.

And, i retain a certain Catholocism, at least on the matter of Acts vs Faith. what you think, what you believe, what you say... who cares?

it is what you DO that counts. insulting people because you disagree with them... well, THAT never fell under the rubric of 'christian' for me.

If I am wrong about eternity and heaven, I am certain that I am right about that.

thanks,
geo.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom