As already pointed out, Washington was not a Deist. Nor was Jefferson.

He rejected any religious label and leaned Unitarian.

In fact, the number of Deist in any role of founding the country or writing the Constitution can be counted on less than 1 hand out over a couple of hundred men.

The vast majority were Christians.

Appealing to natural laws of Reason and Logic is your fancy way of saying you will believe what you want to believe and deny God actually gave us any firm revelation or that the founders of this country believed in such firm foundation.

But, hey, Richard, we argued this on Fayette Speaks and you wouldn't answer specific question there, so you won't here, either.

Later.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real, and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

This blog is not a useful means to begin a debate such as you suggest.
Religion and politics are two subjects it is said that should never be discussed, and here we have both intertwined together.

In addition, since my name is "out" there, my arguments are open to public consumption. Yours is not. I enjoy a good debate and argument based upon fact and opinion, but since this subject is so very "emotional" to most people, then I will obviously argue in a guarded manner in hopes of not offending anyone with my more caustic opinions.

Your Fayette Speaks was specifically designated to be a forum for such debates. I began a dialogue with you that, as expected, evolved along lines that I did not expect, but had chosen to answer in a manner that I was comfortable with. Which meant that I planned to answer only after specific agreed to terms were reached. Its hard to debate someone whose definition and meaning of words are not the same common folk. Remember, your position was an unwavering belief in the inerrant word of God. For me to even try to begin a discussion with an opponent of your statute, required a delicate and very disciplined approach, albeit, I may not have answered your questions as quickly as you would have liked, I still believed I needed to establish the definitions of our words to properly debate you.

In addition, since you were the "moderator" at Fayette Speaks, and you chose to "moderate" my speech that you believe was in violation of a rule that I never saw nor read, until you posted it AFTER I had already had my posts deleted, then I decided on ending the debate there. Even if my comments were out of sync with your rules, which I will not debate here, to delete them summarily is a form of censorship that I chose not to participate in. You had the right to do so, and I had the right to respond. Perhaps you could have merely left my posts for all to see, and to use them as examples of poor participation by members, but to delete them meant my time had ended with your website.

Therefore, I would love the debate, but alas, this is not a forum to which I would feel comfortable having a religious and political debate, and Fayette Speaks unfortunately is not either since I can not speak out of fear that I will have my message culled due to your ownership authority.

And finally, there were many deists involved within the framework of our founding fathers. Jefferson has been named to be one by many sources, but as expected, many decry this out of a since of loyalty to their Christian faith. I understand that, but the debate over whether he was or wasn't a deist is not settled, and I believe much of his writings can be logically connected to a man who considered rational and reasoned thought to be more compelling than the emotional obsessions that mankind has with how their were raised in one religion or another.

Give him another try at FAYETTE SPEAKS. An executive decision was made and PTC Guy was removed as moderator of the "Let's Talk Religion" section. A new guy was hired.

I don't want to interfere with PTCGUY's authority to run his website as he sees fit. If I don't abide by the rules that he decides on, even if they are "ex post facto" or not, then so be it.

Besides, I find I have more time for more important things when I don't spend it on Fayette Speaks, like playing Texas Hold'em at the local restaurants.

I'll think about returning, but I would have to have real assurances that I don't get deleted, save that of using foul language, which is an objective and not subjective finding.

Privately email me with your decision. I've got a few more reviews of restaurants I could share as well as a few opinions and insight into up and coming events in our local political fiefdom called Fayette.

BTW: I love your new moniker's Icon. Is this the paster of Mt Olive Baptist Church?

First, the rules were in place when the Forum was created. Not after the fact. And put in a sticky thread so no on had an excuse for not reading them.

You CHOSE to not read them. Your problem.

Second, rules of debate are that when challenged on a statement you make, you answer the challenge. You CHOSE to not answer.

We never agreed that you never needed to answer. You said you wanted answers to certain questions before you answered mine.

I answered and you refused to keep your end of the deal.

So get off the high horse.

And this crap that your name is out there thus you are valid and I am not.

Learn the big rule of online forums. It is the TOPIC that is the issue. Not the name or whatever the poster uses.

The TOPIC was valid. The ISSUES I posted in my questions nailed you to the wall. They showed you were not coming from any position of Logic or Reason, but your personal bias and feelings.

CTZonEdit said it well. Quit crying like a baby and answer questions.

Says a lot, about a person, who will run away from a conversation, go to these lengths to avoid answering questions, and then pop up somewhere else and start their preaching and pontificating again.

I am done. Just wanted to point out the character of your so-called engaging in intellectual discussion.

So, think about it. If you decide discussion on that topic is a two way street, then reply. If you don't, there are other forum threads to engage in.

You left. You were never told to go away.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real, and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

This is exactly why these matters can not be discussed as they are. People get nasty and take these topics very personal, including stifling the debate by censoring those comments that THEY think are inappropriate.

PTCguy, its your ball field, your baseball, your bat. You picked up the ball and bat and said you are the umpire in our game/debate. I said I will not debate you in such a manner as to allow you to dictate the rules. You then try to argue that your rules are fair and therefore I am wrong in objecting to them.

Well, excuse me for having an opinion that is different than yours, God Forbid. But I won't entertain your attempts at making yourself 'feel' better when you were challenged for your draconian censorship. Call it reasonable, call it necessary, call it whatever you want, but censorship over content is what it was. Quit complaining about it, you've won. How could you not have won, when you make the rules, you are the umpire and no one is there to play against you. Attacking me by saying I'm full of it, infers that you are still fighting. Why? Its over, I give up. I surrender.

Go back to Fayette Speaks and control the debate there, and on thecitizen, let us both make an effort at not turning this site into a religious dogma course. People wear their religious feelings on their sleeves and find it necessary to stand up for what they believe and in doing so, they often get very angry, which produces little for us to learn from it.

A religious forum is where these debates should be had. Preferably one where true open debate, including chastising others for not answering questions is freely allowed (as you repeatedly did to me online), and where no one is censured for not arguing as the Moderator dictates (again as you did to me online). Otherwise, you can go on your own site, create a new name and debate with yourself, since that is apparently the only opponent worthy of your time. May I suggest the moniker PTC-The Omnipotent!

PTC Guy---You let a lawyer in to a religion debate? Wow, that’s amazing. Almost heretical.You are not likely to get an informational response to any question.

What did Jesus have to say ? Read Luke 11:46-52:

“And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them...Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering." Luke 11:46-52.

That’ll teach you, PTCGuy.

Yep. That verse does nail Richard very accurately. Never the merits or realities of the issue. Always dwelling in the periphrals, as is that is where truth is to be found.

Winning, not establishing truth, guilt or innocence, is the goal.

For sure, no actual information was to be found in what Richard said. Just a diatribe of opinions and kill the messenger statements.

But hey, a really good judge once told me that the courts were never intended to find justice, just enforce the laws.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real, and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Franklin was a deist; Washington was very clearly not. He was a Christian. The perverted result of the religion cases has been to endorse atheism as a religion. Government has abridged religion; it endorses atheism by prohibiting the mention of any religious subject. In the landmark case of Engel v. Vitale, school prayer was eradicated from schools. The tragedy of that case from a legal standpoint was that for the first time in legal history, the US Supreme Court announced a decision wholly unsupported by any legal authority (other than the Jefferson letter to the Church of Danbury, CT [“wall of separation of church and state.”]). This was an almost heretical departure from the legal tradition of stare decisis. Justice Douglas dissented, noting that the prohibition of ANY form of religious discussion constitutes a de facto endorsement of atheism. Many believe that this case (and its progeny) is one of the most damaging events in American history, given the plethora of social problems that have cascaded since, and which were largely non-existent before. Why? No sense of right and wrong has any value unless it is grounded in the immutable. By wholly excluding God from the conversation, you logically sanction temporal or “situational” ethics. Nothing is necessarily right or wrong; utilitarianism becomes the test. The French historian Alexis de Toqueville visited the early beginnings of Amercia and remarked that "When America ceases being good, America will cease being great." One might wonder if we are close to that point.

I'll preface this comment by agreeing that America is the best country that ever existed....

Now, as to the good ole days of America's origination Under God...

Blacks were slaves, plain and simple.
Women were chattel.
Society was clearly distinguished by the classes, rich v. poor, educated v. uneducated.

So I don't see the Good Ole Days in the same rose colored lights that you tend to remember. The good ole days depicted on our television shows. . . Father Knows Best, the Donna Reed Show, Leave it to Beaver, are just T.V.. America has always had its fair share of very moral and ethical people, and just as many immoral and evil ones as well.

I don't attribute good nor evil with their religion, since I've seen much evil come from religion, and much good come from mere simpletons who didn't have a particular faith. So, although many religions have "threatened" moral living upon their sheep, many people still live extremely moral and upright lives that have never crossed the threshold of a local church, synagogue or mosque. How could this happen if your opinion is factually accurate?

Doing good unto others as you would have them do unto you, is something we should do as a reasoned and laudable way to live, not out of fear that if we don't, we are going to burn in hell's fire.

Religions have done an awful allot of good over the centuries, AND an awful lot of evil as well.

Should we start burning the witches again? Or stoning the adulterers or homosexuals? Should women be subservient to their husbands and lose their right to vote? The list goes on and on as to how religion, when given governmental authority and power, can wreck havoc, while reasoned and intellectual honesty tends to encourage freedom and peace among individuals and governments.

As found on Fayette Speaks, Hobbs refuses to accept the normal definition of god or religion.

That is his tool for playing the 'us' against 'them' arguments.

God is whatever one holds supreme in their lives. Thus Hobbs is his own god.

Religion is an organized set of beliefs and standards one upholds and lives by. Thus Hobb is his own 'Bible.'

Alway fascinating how many try to pretend to be religion free, when no one is. Everyone believes in something and some standard or morality, even when it is amoral.

Hobbs arguments are not against any religion, just those that are not his religion.

But don't try to pin him down on how he acquired all this 'Truth' he finds by 'digging deep into himself,' as he said, in paraphrase on FS.

He will not answer because he would have to admit he made up his mind based on his feelings and that makes it Truth.

A very poor standard of Truth. Many dictators and worse have done so in history.

And among the worst murders were those who upheld they were not religions. Lenin, Trotsky, Saddam and many such others.

He also fails to note the religions that reject violence in the name of their Truth, such as Buddhists, Biblical Christians, Bahais and so on.

Okay. I vented. Done.

Later, all!
-----------------------------
Keeping it real, and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Because of the "venting" that comes out of the participants to these discussion, nothing ever gets accomplished, other than hurt feelings. I suspect I vent as well, but its over not being able to finish in a practical manner, the analysis that I was trying to make in my comments.

The mere infusion of religious beliefs means that rational and logical analysis is no longer desired nor necessary for the ultimate goal of the debate, that being to force one's personal "beliefs" down upon another.

Thomas Paine said it better than I when he wrote to a friend who was trying to convert him to Christianity.
"But I wish you to know that this answer to your letter is not written for the purpose of changing your opinion. It is written to satisfy you, and some other friends whom I esteem, that my disbelief of the Bible is founded on a pure and religious belief in God; for in my opinion the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it."

This alone is enough to get me banned for life from Fayette Speaks, is it not? I am at least convinced that it is a bit too much to expond on in this particular newspaper's Blog.

The book by Chris Hedges American Fascists seems to be saying many of the same things you are, that's why I thought you had read it.

I just read the reviews on Amazon and you are quite right, there's a lot of similarity. I ordered the book, looks like quite an interesting read.

I like it already, and the author is very well educated. This book was well researched.(in my humble opinion) He has some very valid points, and they are very thought provoking. You'll enjoy it, so will Richard if he ever reads it.

Gee, can't you ever just answer questions?

Instead, you are like a vulture circling an animal hoping it will die. Trying to annoy it into dying.

Be the lawyer, as you always are, facts be damned when they don't server your case.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real, and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Did any of Richards posts contain fowl language??? Did he just disagree with you, o'great one? Buddha forbid, or is it God forbid?

oppppsss oh please don't make Cal delete my post just because I question you, or worse disagree.

How old are you 2 or 3???

Oh, the exquisite irony of Christianist PTC Guy lecturing us on "facts". This is the man, you'll recall, who stated last summer with a straight face that "Science is a religion".

I actually went slumming over on FayetteSqueaks to see what the hullabaloo was about. While I disagree with Richard Hobbs about a great many issues of the day, I think he's handled this whole attempted debate with PTC Guy with aplomb and dignity.

Not surprisingly for a man with notable control issues, PTC Guy arbitrarily and summarily deleted some of Mr. Hobbs posts over there when the subject matter was not to his liking. How very petty, yet not surprising.

I also note that PTC Guy once again falls back on his peculiar habit of peppering people he disagrees with with numerous specious question s unrelated to the core issue when he is cornered. Some things never change.

The mere infusion of religious beliefs means that rational and logical analysis is no longer desired nor necessary for the ultimate goal of the debate, that being to force one's personal "beliefs" down upon another.

Well, I don't know where you come from or where you've been, but that is not my experience at all. To my mind, "rational and logical analysis" is at a premium in "religious" debate. Why suppose that a proposition whose subject is "God" is any more immune to such analysis than one about anything else? If my beliefs about God are incoherent or without warrant, then they are just that. Of course, a part of the overall debate is whether there are "religious" ways of knowing that go beyond our more mundane faculties. But the public debate over this very question certainly engages the latter.

I see that I have come in late on a bit of debate over at the Fayette Speaks site. Perhaps we should take up some of the issues over there.

Please kick in your thinking, on FS, to Richard's statements.

You will find he does attach your ability to think with logic and reason.

But since it is all said there, that is the best place to add comment.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real, and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

What is your opinion, or have you read the book American Fascists, by Chris Hedges?

Also what is your opinion about the white girl recieving a death threat online?

Just curious

I have no knowledge of either of these particular events.

I haven't read the first, and if the second is true, perhaps the computer geeks can trace their message back to the original computer, which is possible. Or at least that is what I am told.