About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


Post 40

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 - 5:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While researching Jefferson's "emancipation and deportation" quote, I came across in the same section of his autobiography, discussing the legislation of the early bills which formed our first government, the following:

"The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it’s protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “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 it’s protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."

The Works, vol. 1 (Autobiography, Anas, 1760-1770), [1906], Ford.

http://files.libertyfund.org/files/800/Jefferson_0054-01_EBk_v6.0.pdf


"...protection of [minority]opinion was meant to be universal...coercion[by the majority] was a departure of the holy plan of the author of our[as majority] religion...om proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection ... infidel of every denomination."

As an infidel of no denomination, I appreciate that.





Post 41

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 - 6:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
STeve:

"Yes. Technically, it is a logical fallacy they commit, but it is done in a way that evokes the emotional context used by religion... making something seem greater than the individual - to put an aurora of the sacred about something."

We deeply agree on this point; the appeals to "S"ociety are precisely the same emotional context as appeals to God as a higher authority that yet jarringly requires some here on earth to speak for it.

This was the entire point of Durkheim's "Religious Formes" and he and his embraced the new religion as if finding a blinding truth: The Tribe itself was actually God. Ancient mankind was just confused while in the presence of the real God (the Tribe itself) and worshiped the wrong totem. Durkheim and his acolytes were going to make sure that modern man worshiped the true God: "S"ociety.

As Nietzsche was observing that ancient mankind's God was dead, his contemporaries were seamlessly shifting gears, and not an RPM was missed. (Religion Per Minute.)

God dies hard.





Post 42

Friday, October 14, 2011 - 5:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I learned today that Scott Nearing published a book named "Social Religion" twice: once during his 'religious' years, and a few years later when he had overtly turned 'socialist.'

Social Religion: A Discussion of the Place of Social Welfare in a Religious Program. Philadelphia: Friends Conference, 1910.

Social Religion: An Interpretation of Christianity in Terms of Modern Life. New York: Macmillan, 1916.

His lament was that classic religion was too passive and not getting the job done(eliminating poverty, ignorance, crime, and want.) He was impatiently arguing for a more muscular religion, even as he claimed to be a pacifist.

He found that more muscular religion in socialism/communism -- the impatient storming of the state to create a new theocracy based on a new muscular religion. Social Scientology, scientific statism.

He was a pacifist who yet condoned the aiming of state guns at the lives of real people to get what he wanted.



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


User ID Password or create a free account.