Despite the well-known fact that almost all the first presidents of u.s. were Episcopalians christians, well known because preserved in the Almanac, people try to play games by association. this is not any assumption nor "conventional to assume" but well-known fact.
the fact is: founders opposed organized Christianity of the Anglican and pope but were Christian. specifically Episcopalian including george washington.
dawkins did not lie when he called them, the broader term deist; i will explain his lack of accuracy. "deist" includes christian so dawkins, who could not bear to call them Episcopalian, but also not get caught lying, so he used a broader term deist that is true and includes presbyter christians, while hiding the painful truth that good freedom is credited ASSOCIATed to christians. ouch.
so dawkins played on the "precious personal American freedom" linked to the founders and claimed "the greatest of the founding fathers [no lady?] might have been atheists." did you notice the word might? it is just an association trick. many steps away from accuracy and all depending on the maybe. the ones who were not athiests were the minor ones? how about john adams? and Episcopalian washington? not the greatest?
those founders who might have been atheists, dawkins considers the greatest... serving the purpose of association technique, atheists will follow the chain: feel like they are "with" the "greatest" of founders who "provided precious personal" freedom. tadda. but...
even he did not want to get caught lying so safely added the word "might"... but the ones who might be greatest were the christian founders, including john adams, but were they against christianity? were they secular? both i mean they wanted personal freedom from the organized christianity, as above.
he also used the formula "WOULD" they would be athiests now. but would they? the word would itself indicated that they were NOT atheist so no justification to claim now they would be DIFFERENT only a trick, but since it was a "would" formula he plays the game to mislead his readers who are happy to be associated with those they respect. unquestionably.
he cherry picks one candidate who protested religious pressure and interpreted as secular despite the guy never mentioned secular. the opposite even that "secular" wrote "quoting god is a powerful ally" gasp! that is neither secular nor modern atheist who say bible is Cinderella with her fairy god mother.
that speech whined about "factions" each one claiming "our god guided a different direction" that was his complaint the word "factions" that he DID say, but not the word secular that he never said , but opposite of secular , as above he did say god is a powerful ally page 60. far from secular. but dawkins needed association so he added a word secular not even there but opposite as above.
such desperation indicated he was grasping for straws trying to stifle his natural faith in god even he believed but his mind struggled to the point of these blunders or deceptions.
he quoted a treaty with muslims to prove that the presidents were not presbyter christians which they were... but it was a treaty with muslims in that context they stretched the truth of separating church from state for the purpose of muslim treaty needed to protect shipping in the Mediterranean. so the truth is separate church stretched for the treaty but not "truly not founded on christian ideas."
maybe people protested? dawkins adds imaginary stuff for his bias: "would" again using the would technique to allow lying. they would protest but maybe not... considering separated church from state and for the sake of a critical treaty. no conflict then nor now, but his propaganda HINGED and relied on woulds and mights for what? just to imagine association. at the time noone complained as i explained, they needed the treaty, so no reason to claim now "would differ" but he needs these two pages of false propaganda so people will feel good and recommend buying his "brilliant" and munificent? book.. yes clever but due to use of imaginary would and might techniques not real quality nor content.
i remind the fact: john adams and more were presbytarian christians. almost all including george washington were either Episcopalians or Presbyterians the two most prevalent faiths of presidents. that refers to the two groups with the most total 19 of 43. that is meaning of most but more were presbytarian if we do not split hairs. george washington was a christian not among the 3 unaffiliated. so was jefferson despite unaffiliated still christian and among his fellows. the "poor lonely rejected atheist" rejected by hostile christians" in his fake dramatized history but truly among his fellow christians.
Almost all U.S. presidents= commander-in-chiefs have been Protestant Christians. Forty-three presidents (Grover Cleveland held two non-consecutive terms) were Protestant Christians. and one more catholic. even lincoln considered unaffiliated due to "doubted the divinity of Jesus Christ" still matched unitarian christian. like both john adams+s presidents in the later chart.
No comments:
Post a Comment