Hallo Todd, Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 20:02:00, you wrote:
AE> Gustl, AE> If you'll notice, the exception that I took was to the absolutism AE> that you expressed. >>>>> The Founding Fathers were not religious men, >>>> This bit is absolutely false. Yes, responding in kind to her absolutist remark. Perhaps if not probably not a wise choice, but I did limit it to ONLY that remark and hers is a false premise. >> The problem I have with your reply is not with you, but with letting >> others, whether those others be contemporary society or Webster's >> dictionary for that matter, control my world and conception of reality >> by controlling the language. Webster's reflects current usage and it seems to me it does conveniently alter meanings with time. Besides this, you know that I make a clear distinction between religion-religious and organized-religion-religious and you also know that I believe in individual liberty and a reasonable separation of church and state. Yet you end this up by apparently arguing against something I didn't say. Nowhere have I ever advocated any specific religion. You are arguing against things in your own head brother, not mine. It is not a far reach to declare that at least 13 of them were religious, and that makes the "they" portion of Allen's proposition false. It would be a far and impossible reach however to declare that the advocated any specific religion. The drive towards religious thought may be as innate as the drive towards personal survival. Religion comes from the inward out and has been with us since before words. I will not allow the Holy Roman church or the Baptist church or any "religious authority" to define for me what is possibly my most fundamental urge. I will certainly not allow Webster's to do so nor will I allow another to control the definitions. To control the definitions is to control the argument which is why, in debate, definitions are first agreed upon. I believe the founding fathers viewed religion much the same as I view religion and that is strictly personal and subjective and not imposed by some outside "authority". Ones religion defines for that person ones relation to the cosmos. It is just a person and their relationship to the "other". It begins before we are able to understand and once we have that ability we realize how much we will never be able to understand. Perhaps that is where the organized church started...taking this bit and that bit and claiming this is all there is and they know because they have religious authority. Who knows? But I haven't bought that lie and I won't bend over and allow any "authority" to stick definitions which control my thoughts and world up where the sun doesn't shine. I also will not reject everything any religion says out of hand just because I have found some or even most of their teachings to be false. The baby doesn't go out with the bathwater. I have learned to be selective and to keep the flowers growing in the manure and let the manure lay. We have been on this list for a while and I believe you are aware of how I define religion and that I make a distinction between religion and organized religion. I also believe that you know that Allen was not making that distinction and that the founding fathers do fall into the category of religious men under the terms of my definition and at least for the 13 Freemasons under their terms. So Todd, with whom are you arguing? It appears to me that you are arguing with your own religious background. I have defined my terms from day one here and those men fit my definition which is broad but specific. It allows for anyone regardless of affiliation or lack thereof. It gives one breathing space and allows for differences of not only opinion but also in understanding, discernment, apprehension and definition. Allen would have everyone painted with the same brush and I do not accept that. To go back to an old subject. There are places in this world where cows are sacred and some where they are not. Are those who revere cows religious or not? And those who don't? How about the proverbial ascetic living in the cave in the mountain? Would you be willing to let Webster's narrow and erroneous definition define you? How about if they put "Todd Swearington" in the dictionary and then put down what they thought described you? That wouldn't float. But we constantly let "authorities" shape and control our world by accepting how they define it and fitting ourselves into their mold. It boggles ones mind. This is why I keep repeating myself. We are not talking about religious differences we are talking about sectarian, creedal differences. Differences in our cultures and upbringing and how we are taught to express our understanding. If three people are speaking and one speaks about this, another that and the third the other and all are referring to the same thing what we have is a difference in perhaps name, form or expression but the substance remains the same. Same same religion. But it is a case of Schein und Sein, what it appears to be and what it is. Enter the "authorities". "This is what it is. They say it is that. We are right and they are wrong. They're heathens and going to Hell." There's your definition brother. I know you're not buying that so why would you let them continue calling a cow a duck without an argument? For me these things are fundamental matters and stand in the way of our truly understanding one another and cooperating with one another to build a better world. To accept definitions which we know to be fundamentally flawed and incorrect is to be manipulated despite and perhaps particularly because of current popular usage. The urge toward inward religion is innately cohesive, inclusive and universal. It is the manipulation of that innate urge for partisan purposes which is fundamentally flawed and wrong. I may be wrong about all of this but I don't believe so. So far it works for me and I guess that is what matters. If my beliefs cause me to do wrong, evil or harm to others and this amazing world we live in then I will be the first to get up off them, repudiate the and walk another path. But so far they haven't let me down. They keep me concentrated on substance while recognizing that name and form may differ and allow me to communicate with others and cooperate with others without prejudice or penalty. They help keep my mind open and my judgements charitable. They lead me to call for mercy when justice is what is deserved. They urge me to find points of agreement rather than disagreement. They show me that love, kindness, gentleness and peace may suffer in the short run but over the long run they will triumph. They engender hope and service as I am able to the community in whatever manner I am able and that the community is humankind without the artificial restrictions we have burdened ourselves with. These are my personal beliefs, my religious beliefs, my religion and I own them. Not the church. Not the government. Not Noah Webster. It is at our core and the same for everyone. We may call it something different but the substance remains the same. The world may take everything else from us but it cannot take this although it can be given up by oneself. You know that I have a great respect for you and your abilities Todd. I also believe that when all is said and done that you understand what I am saying and that there is no real, meaningful disagreement about this. We may disagree now and then on which turn in the road to take but I think our paths are leading to the same place. Happy Happy, Gustl AE> Well? Just exactly how do you propose that humans communicate if AE> there aren't some ground rules and consistencies, such as AE> definitions? Websters isn't exactly the same fount of AE> mis-understanding as Rush Limbrain, Tom Reed, Bill O'Really, Haley AE> Barber, Donald Rumsfeld, et al, who conveniently alter their AE> definitions on the turn of a dime to suit their ends. AE> Surely the proposal wouldn't be to discontinue the use of AE> relatively static definitions and throw the doors open to whatever AE> interpretation anyone wants to offer at any given second. Would AE> it? >>From Websters New World, Third College Edition: AE> religious - >>adjective - 1) characterized by adherence to religion or a AE> >>religion; devout; pious; godly. 2)of,concerned with, appropriate to, or AE> teaching religion. 3) belonging to a community of monk, nuns, etc. 4) AE> conscientiously exact; careful; scrupulous AE> Only line item one of these definitions is applicable relative to AE> the founding fathers' personal dispositions toward religion(s), AE> with the operable words being "adherence." and "religion." While AE> most of these gentlemen acknowledged that there was almost surely AE> something bigger than they, and by and large held to the principal AE> tenants of healthy human behavior found in the doctrines of many AE> religions, none of them appear to have exhibited "adherance to AE> religion" in any other fashion than it held occassionally (or AE> perhaps more frequently) to be constructive in societal stability AE> and the development of individual character. AE> adhere - intransitive verb - 1) to stick fast; stay attached. 2) AE> to stay firm in supporting or approving AE> Take a look again at the definitions. Then take a look at Brooke AE> Allen's statement. The founding fathers certainly valued the AE> rights of others to adhere to their doctrine/dogma of choice. They AE> were firm in a belief that religions held value in society. They AE> were equally as adherant to the belief that no people or person of AE> any religion(s) should ever possess the right from a podium of AE> national influence to disenfranchise others of their right to AE> pursue differing spiritual beliefs, or any "lack" of spiritual AE> belifs for that matter. AE> That's not to say that anyone of any religious persuasion should AE> not hold office, only that the office should not be used to AE> pillory and/or subjugate any person or people. These were not AE> pious, necessarily devout or godly men. Certainly they were AE> reasonably intelligent, well aware of the inevitable chaos of AE> permitting either church or state to achieve authority or AE> superiority over the other. AE> Couple that with their personal biographies and you have a AE> collective of men who certainly weren't thrilled in the slightest AE> with religion from the sectarian perspective, nor what the zeal of AE> sectarian pursuit can do to the offense of human kind. And while AE> they appeared to hold respect for the better principles of AE> religions in general, none of them appear to have "adhered" to any AE> religion in specific - unless, perhaps, attending Sunday service AE> at the same church two weekends in a row constitutes "adherance." AE> What could be said is that these men may have been spiritually AE> inclined or perhaps "adherant," but by definition it's a far reach AE> to declare that they were "religious." AE> Todd Swearingen ...snip-it's all there in the archives :o)... -- Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. Mitglied-Team AMIGA ICQ: 22211253-Gustli ******** The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. C. S. Lewis, "The Screwtape Letters" ******** Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Stra§e liegen, da§ sie gerade deshalb von der gewšhnlichen Welt nicht gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden. ******** Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. George Carlin ******** The best portion of a good man's life - His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love. William Wordsworth _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
