<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Dispatches from the Creation Wars &#187; Jon Rowe</title>
	<atom:link href="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/author/jrowe/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches</link>
	<description>Just another  site</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2011 09:30:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2-alpha</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Bryan Fischer&#8217;s Christian Nationalism</title>
		<link>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/07/06/bryan-fischers-christian-natio/</link>
		<comments>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/07/06/bryan-fischers-christian-natio/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:51:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon Rowe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Church and State]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religious Right Leaders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theocracy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/07/06/bryan-fischers-christian-natio/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jon Rowe here. A little while ago I refuted this article by Bryan Fischer that claimed America&#8217;s Founders as evangelical Christians. I&#8217;m not sure if he&#8217;s replying to me in this article (rather he replies to some unnamed secularist whom he insults); but he doubles down on an error all too commonly made by Christian&#8230;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jon Rowe here.  A little while ago <a href="http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/09/bryan-fischers-confusion.html">I refuted</a> <a href="http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/100903">this article</a> by Bryan Fischer that claimed America&#8217;s Founders as evangelical Christians.  I&#8217;m not sure if he&#8217;s replying to me in <a href="http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/110622">this article</a> (rather he replies to some unnamed secularist whom he insults); but he doubles down on an error all too commonly made by Christian Nationalist history revisionists.</p>
<p><span id="more-12738"></span><br />
It&#8217;s the idea that, &#8220;[o]f the 55 framers of the Constitution, we know as a matter of historical record that 51 or 52 of them swore on oath to evangelical statements of faith,&#8230;&#8221;  Indeed that, &#8220;these men swore an oath before Almighty God that they believed the Bible to be God&#8217;s revelation to mankind and that they themselves believed Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and that they trusted in him for their eternal salvation.&#8221;</p>
<p>I refute this myth in more detail <a href="http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2011/07/bryan-fischer-digs-himself-deeper-in.html">here.</a>  Bottom line:  This figure comes from the late ME Bradford of the University of Dallas.  And 1. Christian Nationalists like Fischer distort what Bradford originally found and 2. what Bradford originally found is not very useful.  Bradford did NOT find 51 or 52 &#8220;members&#8221; swearing &#8220;oaths&#8221; to their church&#8217;s official doctrines.  Rather he found some kind of nominal connection or affiliation with a church that professed orthodoxy.</p>
<p>Even taking an oath was sometimes or often done as a means to a secular end.  For instance, Thomas Jefferson, when he became a vestryman, DID take oaths to orthodox doctrines that he privately rejected, because in Virginia that position had secular social and legal functions to it.  Indeed, I have found a lot of Founders quite ticked off at having to take sectarian oaths in order to be involved in secular political and work matters such that record abounds in anti-creedal, anti-oath sentiments.  This explains, in part, their rationale for <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/">Art. VI., Cl. 3</a> of the US Constitution.</p>
<p>And it&#8217;s not just &#8220;key&#8221; Founders like Jefferson to whom this applies.  Again, I don&#8217;t know for sure what <em>all</em> or <em>the vast majority</em> of them exactly believed because the record, other than showing formal, nominal affiliations with orthodox churches (which Jefferson and other deistic and unitarian minded Founders had) is not crystal clear.  And neither does anyone else for that reason.  But take someone like William Livingston, as an example of a non-key Founder.  He was the first elected governor of New Jersey and a delegate from NJ at the Constitutional Convention.  He was identified by Bradford as a Presbyterian.  But I have found radically anti-creedal and theologically unitarian sentiments from Livingston which I blogged about <a href="http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/03/william-livingston-unitarian.html">here</a> and <a href="http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/03/william-livingston-hater-of-creeds-and.html">here</a>.</p>
<p>This footnote to ME Bradford does not prove what the Christian Nationalists want it to prove.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/07/06/bryan-fischers-christian-natio/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brief on Founding Fathers and Islam I Co-Authored For the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding</title>
		<link>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/04/16/brief-on-founding-fathers-and/</link>
		<comments>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/04/16/brief-on-founding-fathers-and/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2011 13:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon Rowe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Church and State]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theocracy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/04/16/brief-on-founding-fathers-and/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jon Rowe here. James Hanley and I co-authored a policy brief for the above named institute on Muslims and the Founding Fathers which may interest you. The discussion always continues on America&#8217;s Founders and religion at American Creation and you may specifically discuss this policy brief here.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jon Rowe here.  James Hanley and I <a href="http://ispu.org/detailed_publication.php?type=reports&#038;id=585">co-authored a policy brief for the above named institute on Muslims and the Founding Fathers</a> which may interest you.  The discussion always continues on America&#8217;s Founders and religion at <a href="http://americancreation.blogspot.com/">American Creation</a> and you may specifically discuss this policy brief <a href="http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2011/04/brief-on-founding-fathers-and-islam-i.html">here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/04/16/brief-on-founding-fathers-and/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>John Fea&#8217;s New Book</title>
		<link>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/03/01/john-feas-new-book/</link>
		<comments>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/03/01/john-feas-new-book/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 11:43:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon Rowe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Church and State]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theocracy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/03/01/john-feas-new-book/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jon Rowe here. Ed gave me permission to pop in now and then and alert you all to things I think are important. The book was delivered yesterday to my house. I&#8217;ve been having fun leafing through it. I really like what I see so far and hope it becomes a &#8220;standard bearer&#8221; in the&#8230;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jon Rowe here.  Ed gave me permission to pop in now and then and alert you all to things I think are important.  </p>
<p><a href="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Was-America-Founded-as-a-Christian-Nation/John-Fea/e/9780664235048/?itm=2&#038;USRI=John+Fea">The book</a> was delivered yesterday to my house.  I&#8217;ve been having fun leafing through it.  I really like what I see so far and hope it becomes a &#8220;standard bearer&#8221; in the &#8220;Christian Nation&#8221; debate.  And I&#8217;m not just saying that because he thanks me on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0664235042/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&#038;pf_rd_s=center-3&#038;pf_rd_r=0V3VD475YCMQJ9C2JF74&#038;pf_rd_t=101&#038;pf_rd_p=470938811&#038;pf_rd_i=507846#reader_0664235042">page xix</a>.</p>
<p>It takes a balanced, critical approach to the &#8220;Christian Nation&#8221; question.  There&#8217;s a little in there for everyone which means that both &#8220;Christian Nationalists&#8221; and &#8220;Secular Nationalists&#8221; will find things with which to agree and disagree.</p>
<p>Finally, <a href="http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2011/02/john-fea-updates-with-grizzard-on-daily.html">at American Creation we discuss</a> one of Dr. Fea&#8217;s articles he wrote for AOL on George Washington&#8217;s faith. Fea reproduces an important passage from Frank Grizzard&#8217;s book on why George Washington&#8217;s &#8220;Daily Sacrifice&#8221; prayer journal is phony.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/03/01/john-feas-new-book/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Later</title>
		<link>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/27/later/</link>
		<comments>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/27/later/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:49:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon Rowe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Church and State]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/27/later/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I see Ed is back so my services are no longer needed. Many thanks to him and you for the opportunity to reach a wider audience. Check out my regular blogging at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen and American Creation. If I can get one last plug in. I was going reboot this post on&#8230;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see Ed is back so my services are no longer needed.  Many thanks to him and you for the opportunity to reach a wider audience.  Check out my regular blogging at the <a href="http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/">League of Ordinary Gentlemen</a> and <a href="http://americancreation.blogspot.com/">American Creation</a>.  </p>
<p>If I can get one last plug in.  I was going reboot this post <a href="http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/09/bryan-fischers-confusion.html">on Bryan Fischer&#8217;s confusion</a>.  But I&#8217;ll just summarize the link.  It shows how the followers of David Barton mangle history worse than Barton does, that indeed he gives winks and nods to these kinds of errors.  Barton, for instance, unlike Fischer, is well aware (at least now he is) that J. Adams is a unitarian but has no idea what to do with it.  He gives folks like Fischer the impression that &#8220;there is hardly a stitch of difference between the theology of&#8221; the Founders, including J. Adams &#8220;and contemporary conservative evangelicals.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/27/later/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>George Washington v. Fundamentalists</title>
		<link>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/26/george-washington-v-fundamenta/</link>
		<comments>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/26/george-washington-v-fundamenta/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Dec 2010 13:58:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon Rowe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Church and State]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/26/george-washington-v-fundamenta/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On the Swedenborgs. From a modern fundamentalist website: Swedenborgianism is also known as The New Church, the Church of New Jerusalem. Founder: Emanuel Swedenborg, born in Stockholm, Sweden in 1688. Died in 1772. Of course, members of this group deny that Emanuel Swedenborg is the author of the religion, but will admit that it draws&#8230;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On the Swedenborgs.  <a href="http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/-religions-list/swedenborgianism">From a modern fundamentalist website</a>:<br />
<span id="more-11479"></span></p>
<blockquote><p>Swedenborgianism is also known as The New Church, the Church of New Jerusalem.</p>
<p>Founder: Emanuel Swedenborg, born in Stockholm, Sweden in 1688.  Died in 1772.  Of course, members of this group deny that Emanuel Swedenborg is the author of the religion, but will admit that it draws it primary theology from his writings.</p>
<p>Headquarters:  No single headquarters.  The North American headquarters is located in Newtonville, MA.</p>
<p>Membership:   25,000 to 50,000 world wide.</p>
<p>Doctrines: Denies the Vicarious Atonement, the Trinity, and deity of the Holy Spirit.  It holds to Christ as divine.  All religions lead to God, though all are not equally enlightened. One of its goals is to bring the world together under a new religious understanding. It teaches a need for Christianity to undergo a rebirth &#8212; according to Swedenborgian interpretations.  The Bible is the inspired word of God with two levels:  the historical and the deeper spiritual one.  Regarding the Trinity, a Swedenborg pastor said, &#8220;The Christian trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are aspects of God just as soul, body, and activities are aspects of each one of us.&#8221;</p>
<p>There is no personal devil.  Instead, the devil is the personification of human evil.  Hell is corrupted human society.  The Scriptures are best interpreted through the writings of  Swedenborg.  Angels go through cycles of purity of character where they are sometimes closer and at other it times further from God.  Swedenborg stated that the Acts and Epistles were not inspired as are the four Gospels and the Book of Revelation.  There is no physical resurrection. After death, a person becomes an angel or an evil spirit. Angels are not supernatural creations of God.  Position in the afterlife is based on &#8220;the kind of life we have chosen while here on earth.&#8221;</p>
<p>At a person&#8217;s death, his mind falls asleep for three days in a place called the world of the spirits. Afterwards, he awakens and encounters spirits who&#8217;ve died before hand who help him adjust to the afterlife.</p>
<p>[...]</p>
<p>Origins: Emanuel Swedenborg was born on January 29, 1688 (died 1772) in Stockholm. His father was a Lutheran minister. Emanuel was very bright and had an inquisitive mind. He was particularly interested in science and religion. In the former, he was recognized as an expert in geology and he also studied astronomy, cosmology, and physics. In 1744 he was stricken with a severe delirium which seems to have affected his mind for the rest of his life since many trance states were attributed to him as his life progressed.</p>
<p>In 1745 he had a vision where loathsome creatures seemed to crawl on the walls of his room. Then a man appeared who claimed to be God. This apparition said that Emanuel was to be the one who would communicate the teachings of the unseen realm to the people of the world. He would be the means by which God would further reveal Himself to the world.</p>
<p>Publications: Arcana Coelestia: The Earths in the Universe. The 35 volumes of writings by Swedenborg.</p>
<p>Comments: This is a dangerous mystical non-Christian religion.  Its denial of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, the vicarious atonement, and rejection of Acts and the Pauline epistles clearly set it outside of Christian orthodoxy.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.watch.pair.com/GW.html">From George Washington</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>To the members of the New Church at Baltimore.</p>
<p>    Gentlemen,</p>
<p>    It has ever been my pride to mind the approbation of my fellow citizens by a faithful and honest discharge of the duties annexed to those Stations to which they have pledged to place me; and the dearest rewards of my Services have been those testimonies of esteem and confidence with which they have honored me. But to the manifest interpretation of an over-ruling Providence, and to the patriotic exertions of United America, are to be ascribed those events which have given us a respectable rank among the nations of the earth. &#8211;</p>
<p>    We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened Age &#038; in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man&#8217;s religious tenets, will not forfeit his protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining &#038; holding the highest offices that are known in the United States.</p>
<p>    Your Prayers for my present and future felicity were received with gratitude; and I sincerely wish, Gentlemen, that you may in your social and individual capacities, taste those blessings which a gracious God bestows upon the Righteous.</p>
<p>    G. Washington</p></blockquote>
<p>And yes, the Swedenborgs of GW&#8217;s day &#8212; after Swedenborg himself who, like the Mormons, claimed additional revelation &#8212; believed, more or less, what the fundamentalist website reproduced.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Swedenborg">This is what Wiki said of ES</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>
At the age of fifty-six he entered into a spiritual phase in which he experienced dreams and visions. This culminated in a spiritual awakening, where he claimed he was appointed by the Lord to write a heavenly doctrine to reform Christianity. He claimed that the Lord had opened his eyes, so that from then on he could freely visit heaven and hell, and talk with angels, demons, and other spirits. For the remaining 28 years of his life, he wrote and published 18 theological works, of which the best known was Heaven and Hell (1758),[4] and several unpublished theological works.</p></blockquote>
<p>How this might help an &#8220;originalist&#8221; interpretation of the religion clauses:  Whether Washington was personally saying he had no problems with the theology or just being &#8220;diplomatic,&#8221; one thing is clear:  He tells the Swedenborgs they are covered under the US Constitution&#8217;s &#8220;religion clauses.&#8221;  </p>
<p>There is debate as to what exactly was protected under the original federal Constitution.  The term &#8220;religion&#8221; is used generically in Art. VI and the First Amendment.  Some Christian Nationalists suggest it meant &#8220;Christian sects only.&#8221;  I disagree for a number of reasons.  However, the issues in this case are, 1) what is &#8220;Christianity&#8221;? 2) is Swedenborgianism &#8220;Christianity&#8221;?  And then 3) proceed with your conclusions under the irrefutable premise that whatever Swedenborgianism is, George Washington held it to be equally protected with all of the other &#8220;sects&#8221; under the US Constitution&#8217;s laws.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/26/george-washington-v-fundamenta/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jefferson, Freemasonry, &amp; the Illuminati</title>
		<link>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/25/jefferson-freemasonry-the-illu/</link>
		<comments>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/25/jefferson-freemasonry-the-illu/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Dec 2010 12:12:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon Rowe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Church and State]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/25/jefferson-freemasonry-the-illu/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve oft-heard &#8220;the Founders were all Freemasons.&#8221; Well, no. Many of the Founders were Freemasons. George Washington was. Ben Franklin was. Thomas Jefferson, from what I have studied, was not. Yet, Freemasonry perfectly resonated with Jefferson&#8217;s beliefs and that of the American Founding as a whole. Freemasonry was generally monotheistic. It was also, alas, bigoted&#8230;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;ve oft-heard &#8220;the Founders were all Freemasons.&#8221;  Well, no.  Many of the Founders were Freemasons.  George Washington was.  Ben Franklin was.  Thomas Jefferson, from what I have studied, was not.  Yet, Freemasonry perfectly resonated with Jefferson&#8217;s beliefs and that of the American Founding as a whole.  Freemasonry was generally monotheistic.  It was also, alas, bigoted against atheists (see their <a href="http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/history/anderson/index.html">original book of constitutions</a>).  It was kind of like the Boy Scouts, any religion will do.  Only atheists need not apply.</p>
<p>What follows is an excerpt of <a href="http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/jefferson.html">a letter from Jefferson to his friend Bishop James Madison</a> (cousin of the fourth American President) lauding not just Freemasonry but also illuminated Masonry.  In there, Jefferson also includes his appreciation for unitarian Christian Revs. Joseph Priestley and Richard Price &#8220;who believe[d] in the indefinite perfectibility of man.&#8221;  While I haven&#8217;t seen proof that Bishop Madison was a unitarian, he certainly was, like Priestley and Price an &#8220;enlightenment&#8221; Christian who believed in heterodox notions like man&#8217;s perfectibility and made the &#8220;Christian&#8221; case for the French Revolution.<br />
<span id="more-11474"></span></p>
<blockquote><p>I have lately by accident got a sight of a single volume (the 3d.) of the Abbe Barruel&#8217;s &#8216;Antisocial conspiracy,&#8217; which gives me the first idea I have ever had of what is meant by the Illuminatism against which &#8216;illuminate Morse&#8217; as he is now called, &#038; his ecclesiastical &#038; monarchical associates have been making such a hue and cry.</p>
<p>Barruel&#8217;s own parts of the book are perfectly the ravings of a Bedlamite. But he quotes largely from Wishaupt whom he considers as the founder of what he calls the order. As you may not have had an opportunity of forming a judgment of this cry of &#8216;mad dog&#8217; which has been raised against his doctrines, I will give you the idea I have formed from only an hour&#8217;s reading of Barruel&#8217;s quotations from him, which you may be sure are not the most favorable. Wishaupt seems to be an enthusiastic Philanthropist.</p>
<p>He is among those (as you know the excellent Price and Priestley also are) who believe in the indefinite perfectibility of man. He thinks he may in time be rendered so perfect that he will be able to govern himself in every circumstance so as to injure none, to do all the good he can, to leave government no occasion to exercise their powers over him, &#038; of course to render political government useless. This you know is Godwin&#8217;s doctrine, and this is what Robinson, Barruel &#038; Morse had called a conspiracy against all government. Wishaupt believes that to promote this perfection of the human character was the object of Jesus Christ. That his intention was simply to reinstate natural religion, &#038; by diffusing the light of his morality, to teach us to govern ourselves. His precepts are the love of god &#038; love of our neighbor. And by teaching innocence of conduct, he expected to place men in their natural state of liberty &#038; equality. He says, no one ever laid a surer foundation for liberty than our grand master, Jesus of Nazareth. He believes the Free Masons were originally possessed of the true principles &#038; objects of Christianity, &#038; have still preserved some of them by tradition, but much disfigured.</p>
<p>The means he proposes to effect this improvement of human nature are &#8216;to enlighten men, to correct their morals &#038; inspire them with benevolence. Secure of our success, sais he, we abstain from violent commotions. To have foreseen the happiness of posterity &#038; to have prepared it by irreproachable means, suffices for our felicity. The tranquility of our consciences is not troubled by the reproach of aiming at the ruin or overthrow of states or thrones.&#8217;</p>
<p>As Wishaupt lived under the tyranny of a despot &#038; priests, he knew that caution was necessary even in spreading information, &#038; the principles of pure morality. He proposed therefore to lead the Free masons to adopt this object &#038; to make the objects of their institution the diffusion of science &#038; virtue. He proposed to initiate new members into his body by gradations proportioned to his fears of the thunderbolts of tyranny.</p>
<p>This has given an air of mystery to his views, was the foundation of his banishment, the subversion of the masonic order, &#038; is the colour for the ravings against him of Robinson, Barruel &#038; Morse, whose real fears are that the craft would be endangered by the spreading of information, reason, &#038; natural morality among men.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/25/jefferson-freemasonry-the-illu/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Universalists On Elihu Palmer</title>
		<link>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/24/the-universalists-on-elihu-pal/</link>
		<comments>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/24/the-universalists-on-elihu-pal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Dec 2010 20:29:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon Rowe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Church and State]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/24/the-universalists-on-elihu-pal/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Elihu Palmer was a notable Founding Father who veered more towards the &#8220;Deist&#8221; side than any of the &#8220;key Founders&#8221; including Jefferson. The text notes Palmer became head of the &#8220;Columbian Illuminati.&#8221; Pretty cool. Or perhaps pretty cool name for a band. A book about Universalism published in 1884 details some of his theological journey&#8230;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Elihu Palmer was a notable Founding Father who veered more towards the &#8220;Deist&#8221; side than any of the &#8220;key Founders&#8221; including Jefferson.  The text notes Palmer became head of the &#8220;Columbian Illuminati.&#8221;  Pretty cool.  Or perhaps pretty cool name for a band.</p>
<p><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=_X4AAAAAYAAJ&#038;pg=PA303&#038;dq=benjamin+rush+universalist&#038;lr=&#038;cd=13#v=onepage&#038;q=benjamin%20rush%20universalist&#038;f=false">A book about Universalism published in 1884 details some of his theological journey from Christianity to Unitarianism to Deism</a>:<br />
<span id="more-11469"></span></p>
<blockquote><p>The Articles of Faith, although couched in language that may seem to be designedly ambiguous, making allowance for a large diversity of opinion to be entertained by those who should accept them as a common platform, were no doubt intended as a statement of the Trinitarianism of the Convention. This is evident from the subsequent action of the Philadelphia church, organized by the union of the Murrayites and Winchesterians, in July, 1790, which at once accepted the Articles, in ruling out the application of an avowed Unitarian for membership, on the ground that their creed would not allow them to accept him. The Philadelphia church, writing to George Richards, March 14,1792, said: &#8211;</p>
<p>&#8220;No doubt Brother Gordon mentioned to you a Mr. Palmer who was preaching with us when he left this city for Boston. This young man offered himself to become a member of our church, but before the time for admitting him his sentiments were Buspected of being Socinian, if not Deistical. He was accordingly examined, and confessed that he did believe Jesus to be the natural son of Joseph and Mary, begotten by ordinary generation. This made his membership with us inadmissible at that time. He still continues the same, and hath withdrawn from us, and hath gotten other places to preach in, where he can preach that sentiment freely, and that to crowded audiences.&#8221;</p>
<p>The person thus referred to was Elihu Palmer, a native of Canterbury, Conn., born in 1764. He has been called a deist, and probably was so later in life; but in 1792 his disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity would have been likely to have gained him the reputation of being a deist, even if he had professed unwavering faith in revealed religion. Denied the fellowship of the Universalists, Mr. Palmer, with a few followers, obtained a room in Church Alley, and commenced preaching there in March, 1791. Somewhere in 1788 or 1789, John Fitch, the inventor of the steamboat, and Henry Voight, his associate in that enterprise, who were avowed deists, believing, as they claimed, only in &#8220;the God of Nature,&#8221; discovered from conversation with others that there were a sufficient number of persons in Philadelphia in sympathy with their views to justify an attempt at an organization. It was not, however, till February, 1790, that they succeeded in perfecting their plans, and organized what they called &#8220;The Universal Society.&#8221; In order to separate themselves and their society as much as possible from all Christian influences, it was resolved among the members to cease the use of Anno Domini, and to date their era from the establishment of &#8220;The Universal Society.&#8221;</p>
<p>The announcement that Mr. Palmer was to preach on the date above mentioned, and the circumstances under which his meeting was held, attracted much attention throughout Philadelphia; and &#8220;The Universal Society,&#8221; which at that time numbered forty members, especially interested themselves to give the persecuted man, as they styled him, all the aid in their power, and, if possible, win him over to themselves. The room where the meeting was held was. therefore crowded, &#8212; &#8220;The Universal Society,&#8221; it may be supposed, being present in full strength. Mr. Palmer preached from Micah vi. 8 : &#8220;Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God.&#8221; In the sermon he combated the dogma of the deity of Christ; and the success of the effort was such that notice was given that on the succeeding Sunday he would preach again. This announcement, with the attendant circumstances, excited much feeling, remonstrance, and heated opposition on the part of the leading Christian people in the city. Bishop White was prominent in the crusade against the movement; and although the owner of the room in which the meetings were being held was a member of &#8220;The Universal Society&#8221; he could not resist the pressure brought against him, but closed his doors against the people on the day fixed for the second sermon. &#8221; The Universal Society &#8221; soon ceased to exist.1</p>
<p>Vol. i. &#8212; 20</p>
<p>Mr. Palmer then went to New York for a while, and afterwards returning to Philadelphia, Was attacked by the yellow fever in 1793, and became totally blind. He again removed to New York, where he became the head of the &#8220;Columbian Illuminati,&#8221; established in 1801. He died in Philadelphia in 1806.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/24/the-universalists-on-elihu-pal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fingers</title>
		<link>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/24/fingers/</link>
		<comments>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/24/fingers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Dec 2010 17:35:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon Rowe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Comedy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/24/fingers/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This was a good movie. The whole movie was not, alas, as good as the below scene. But, how could it have been? The movie, in addition, features a lot of character actors &#8220;before&#8221; you knew them. An aside, the nerve of that guy; did he really think &#8220;Summertime, Summertime&#8221; didn&#8217;t go with his shrimp?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This was a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Fingers-Harvey-Keitel/dp/B00006FDBU">good movie</a>.  The whole movie was not, alas, as good as the below scene.  But, how could it have been?  The movie, in addition, features a lot of character actors &#8220;before&#8221; you knew them.</p>
<p><object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ReuQzCo9fxw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ReuQzCo9fxw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object></p>
<p>An aside, the nerve of that guy; did he really think &#8220;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jamies">Summertime, Summertime</a>&#8221; didn&#8217;t go with his shrimp?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/24/fingers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bones Grow Together!</title>
		<link>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/24/bones-grow-together/</link>
		<comments>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/24/bones-grow-together/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:21:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon Rowe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fisking Absurdity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religious Extremism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/24/bones-grow-together/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[And start thankin&#8217; God. Seriously, check out the 35 second mark in this video of a Robert Tilton &#8220;faith healing&#8221; (part of the Prime Time Live debunking I alluded to last post). After pastor Bob commands the fellow&#8217;s broken bones to &#8220;GROW TOGETHER,&#8221; he tells the guy to move his arms around and thank God.&#8230;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And start thankin&#8217; God.  </p>
<p>Seriously, check out the 35 second mark in this video of a Robert Tilton &#8220;faith healing&#8221; (part of the <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/before_he_was_the_farting_prea.php">Prime Time Live debunking</a> I alluded to last post).  After pastor Bob commands the fellow&#8217;s broken bones to &#8220;GROW TOGETHER,&#8221; he tells the guy to move his arms around and thank God.  You see the guy thank God in, apparently, a state of horrible pain, judged by the grimace on his face.</p>
<p><object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WL9dteoISt0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WL9dteoISt0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/24/bones-grow-together/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Before He Was the Farting Preacher</title>
		<link>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/23/before-he-was-the-farting-prea/</link>
		<comments>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/23/before-he-was-the-farting-prea/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:02:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon Rowe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religious Extremism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/23/before-he-was-the-farting-prea/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Robert Tilton made a LOT of $$ conning people. That is until Diane Sawyer and ABC&#8217;s &#8220;Prime Time Live&#8221; took him down circa 1991. I remember it when it all went down (I was about 18). It was very amusing and YouTube kindly reproduces much of the drama. My favorite was Tilton&#8217;s one hour mea&#8230;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robert Tilton made a LOT of $$ conning people.  That is until Diane Sawyer and ABC&#8217;s &#8220;Prime Time Live&#8221; took him down circa 1991.  I remember it when it all went down (I was about 18).  It was very amusing and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=robert+tilton&#038;aq=f">YouTube kindly reproduces</a> much of the drama.</p>
<p>My favorite was Tilton&#8217;s one hour mea culpa; you could tell he knew the ship was sinking fast.  Check out the very end of this video where some producer literally has to push his then wife Marte into camera range and Bob says to her &#8220;you are so sweet and obedient.&#8221;</p>
<p><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YKv686_apyo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YKv686_apyo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/23/before-he-was-the-farting-prea/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
