Happy Birthday Ben

"None preaches better than the ant, and she says nothing."

Given the current wiretaping issue:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

I've seen that second one expressed as follows as well, and I like this version better - it's more to the point

"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

It is worth mentioning that Franklin was a deist,and made the statement "When a religion is good,I conceive it will support itself,and when it does not support itself,and God does not take care to support it so that it is obliged to call for help of the civil power, Tis a sign I apprehend,of its being a bad one.
How true that statement is.

Beer? Heh. How about Gin....?

"None preaches better than the ant, and she says nothing."

"The only President of the United States who was never President of the United States."

Thank you, Firesign Theatre.

"God helps those who help themselves."

Usually misinterpreted. He didn't mean that god ALSO helps those who are already helping themselves. He meant that the ONLY help you're going to get is whatever you do for yourself.

Mr. President The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other---our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances. In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.-Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service

P. Ghost,

That's a bit of creationist quotemining. Have a look here: http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=19

OK. I went to that site, and came across the following quote from Franklin:

Who is wise? He that learns from everyone. Who is powerful? He that governs his passions. Who is rich? He that is content. Who is that? Nobody

Except for the last line, this is right out of the Talmud (Pirke Avot). What gives?

Poppers, Not wishing to," split hairs",but according to his autobiography
Franklin quit the Presbyterian church in 1793 and became a deist in the mode of the Enlightenment,retaining only a belief in a God and future life

Rick:

This was political, don't forget. People say things in the context of political debates. You can't pluck one little incident out of a lifetime like Franklin's and expect it to tell you everything you need to know.

That's a bit of creationist quotemining.

but according to his autobiography Franklin quit the Presbyterian church in 1793 and became a deist in the mode of the Enlightenment,retaining only a belief in a God and future life

This was political, don't forget. People say things in the context of political debates. You can't pluck one little incident out of a lifetime like Franklin's and expect it to tell you everything you need to know.

PG-

Why do you assume that I am basing my contention on the tiny bit of evidence immediately at hand? There's absolutely no reason you should take my word for it, and I frankly don't know if Franklin was a deist or not. Read and make up your own mind.

Am I crazy in thinking that everyone is missing the point of Franklin's Talmud quote? Isn't he saying that religion makes demands of people that no one of us is capable of fulfilling.

Why do you assume that I am basing my contention on the tiny bit of evidence immediately at hand?

Am I crazy in thinking that everyone is missing the point of Franklin's Talmud quote?

... You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. ...

On the Providence of God in the Government of the World ... Agreeing then that the World was at first made by a Being of infinite Wisdom, Goodness and Power, which Being we call God; The State of Things ever since and at this Time must be in one of these four following manners, viz. 1. Either he unchangeably decreed and appointed every Thing that comes to pass; and left nothing to the Course of Nature, nor allow'd any Creature free agency. or 2. Without decreeing any thing, he left all to general Nature and the Events of Free Agency in his Creatures, which he never alters or interrupts. or 3. He decreed some Things unchangeably, and left others to general Nature and the Events of Free agency, which also he never alters or interrupts; or 4. He sometimes interferes by his particular Providence and sets aside the Effects which would otherwise have been produced by any of the Above Causes. I shall endeavour to shew the first 3 Suppositions to be inconsistent with the common Light of Reason; and that the 4th is most agreeable to it, and therefore most probably true. ...

Deist or not, he did indeed help write "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

That's all that counts.

And, I'm pretty sure that--if he didn't actually invent pizza--he was the first to use a kite for pizza delivery.

Deist or not, he did indeed help write "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

That's all that counts.

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."

I think it's nearly impossible to understand someones religious or spiritual stance. This is true of living people, whom you can ask questions of, and it's especially true of those who lived 300 years ago. It's rare for anyone to have a theology that makes sense to others in their own lifetime, much less one that remains coherent centuries later. Trying to situate Franklin's religious views in the framework of modern thought is an exercise in futility.

In Franklin's time, there WERE no naturalistic explanations for many of the phenomena he would have observed. There is no way to know if his religiosity corresponded to what we now think of as "deism", or to something else entirely. And I don't think it matters much. Franklin is an emblem of the scientific spirit. His religious beliefs (whatever they were) don't affect that.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is like to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure. -- (letter of March 9, 1790)

You can ask Ben's ghost to be sure, but that request for a prayer Franklin made at the Philadelphia convention was one of the best and most useful practical jokes in history.

So Franklin, the world's most famous non-Christian, made a motion to pray.

It might be judg'd an Affront to your Understandings should I go about to prove this first Principle, the Existence of a Deity and that he is the Creator of the Universe, for that would suppose you ignorant of what all Mankind in all Ages have agreed in. I shall therefore proceed to observe: 1. That he must be a Being of great Wisdom; 2. That he must be a Being of great Goodness and 3. That he must be a Being of great Power. That he must be a Being of infinite Wisdom, appears in his admirable Order and Disposition of Things, whether we consider the heavenly Bodies, the Stars and Planets, and their wonderful regular Motions, or this Earth compounded of such an Excellent mixture of all the Elements; or the admirable Structure of Animal Bodies of such infinite Variety, and yet every one adapted to its Nature, and the Way of Life it is to be placed in, whether on Earth, in the Air or in the Waters, and so exactly that the highest and most exquisite human Reason, cannot find a fault and say this would have been better so or in another Manner, which whoever considers attentively and thoroughly will be astonish'd and swallow'd up in Admiration.

If you say he has in the Beginning unchangeably decreed all Things and left Nothing to Nature or free Agency. These Strange Conclusions will necessarily follow; 1. That he is now no more a God. 'Tis true indeed, before he had made such unchangeable Decree, he was a Being of Power, Almighty; but now having determin'd every Thing, he has divested himself of all further Power, he has done and has no more to do, he has ty'd up his Hands, and has now no greater Power than an Idol of Wood or Stone; nor can there be any more Reason for praying to him or worshipping of him, than of such an Idol for the Worshippers can be never the better for such Worship. Then 2. he has decreed some things contrary to the very Notion of a wise and good Being; Such as that some of his Creatures or Children shall do all Manner of Injury to others and bring every kind of Evil upon them without Cause; that some of them shall even blaspheme him their Creator in the most horrible manner; and, which is still more highly absurd that he has decreed the greatest Part of Mankind, shall in all Ages, put up their earnest Prayers to him both in private and publickly in great Assemblies, when all the while he had so determin'd their Fate that he could not possibly grant them any Benefits on that Account, nor could such Prayers be any way available. Why then should he ordain them to make such Prayers? It cannot be imagined they are of any Service to him. Surely it is not more difficult to believe the World was made by a God of Wood or Stone, than that the God who made the World should be such a God as this.

Now if tis unreasonable to suppose it out of the Power of the Deity to help and favour us particularly or that we are out of his Hearing or Notice or that Good Actions do not procure more of his Favour than ill Ones. Then I conclude, that believing a Providence we have the Foundation of all true Religion; for we should love and revere that Deity for his Goodness and thank him for his Benefits; we should adore him for his Wisdom, fear him for his Power, and pray to him for his Favour and Protection; and this Religion will be a Powerful Regulater of our Actions, give us Peace and Tranquility within our own Minds, and render us Benevolent, Useful and Beneficial to others.

In Franklin's time, there WERE no naturalistic explanations for many of the phenomena he would have observed. There is no way to know if his religiosity corresponded to what we now think of as "deism", or to something else entirely. And I don't think it matters much. Franklin is an emblem of the scientific spirit. His religious beliefs (whatever they were) don't affect that.

PG, when you cite that story, you need to be careful that you know what was really going on.

Mr. HAMILTON & several others expressed their apprehensions that however proper such a resolution might have been at the beginning of the convention, it might at this late day, bring on it some disagreeable animadversions & lead the public to believe that the embarrassments and dissensions within the Convention, had suggested this measure.

APRIL 8, 1788 Farrand's Records--CXCV. Benjamin Franklin to the Editor of the Federal Gazette. To conclude, I beg I may not be understood to infer, that our general Convention was divinely inspired when it form'd the new federal Constitution, merely because that Constitution has been unreasonably and vehemently opposed; yet I must own I have so much Faith in the general Government of the World by Providence, that I can hardly conceive a Transaction of such momentous Importance to the Welfare of Millions now existing, and to exist in the Posterity of a great Nation, should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenc'd, guided and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent R beneficent Ruler, in whom all inferior Spirits live & move and have their Being.

Somebody immediately moved to adjourn for the day. I've seen two different reports on how the motion was handled the next day --- one says it failed for lack of a second, the other that it was voted down, both agreeing that the delegates thought prayer unnecessary, and too expensive to hire a preacher (a made-up excuse, clearly). In any case, no prayers were said at the Constitutional Convention.

Mr. WILLIAMSON, observed that the true cause of the omission could not be mistaken. The Convention had no funds.

I took Ben Franklin's word for it. He wrote after the convention of his intent. No one disputes it.

You can continue to believe Franklin wanted to create Christianity, but you believe that contrary to the testimony of the man himself, all observers, and all historical documents. You're free to do that, of course -- in this nation the First Amendment protects your right to believe foolish things. Please do not be disappointed if no one follows.

Madison reported the debate, and the statements that the convention had no funds to hire a preacher.

But you ignore history. The Continental Congress opened with prayers from volunteer preachers. Every preacher in Philadelphia would have done the job for free.

Plus there were preachers among the delegates.

Plus non-clergy prayer was acceptable among most colonists.

Look, you can hold your beliefs. But Clinton Rossiter, Pauline Maier, and a (heavenly) host of other historians have reported the facts and the conclusions of those present and others. If you can find a reputable historian who disputes that the excuse was made up, cite them.

In the meantime, I'll take Ben's word over the ghost of someone named Popper any time.

So Franklin, the world's most famous non-Christian, made a motion to pray.

Major strawman. Of course Franklin was not a Christian. But he did believe in God, and in "God's Providence". That you babble about him not being a Christian when no one said otherwise, but when I have already posted his essay on providence that displays his concept of an active God, a God that responds to prayer, shows how wedded you are to an idée fixe. When Franklin wrote "He sometimes interferes by his particular Providence and sets aside the Effects which would otherwise have been produced by any of the Above Causes", he wasn't joking or disarming political factions.

I will simply point out once again that, despite all the current fundie arm-waving about how the Founding Fathers really wanted to establish a Christian state, those Founding Fathers only mentioned "religion" twice in the entire Consitution --- and both times, it was to ban government support for it.

Game over.

(shrug)

"PG, you claim Franklin wanted to instill Christian belief"

Uh, no, I didn't. Your reading comprehension is as poor as your intellectual integrity.

"Your misinterpreting Franklin's motives makes the point: You don't know the purposes of actual, documented intelligent designers, and you fail to recognize design when it occurs, especially when the design contradicts one of your cherished myths."

Whoa, are you assuming that I'm a proponent of intelligent design? If so, you're more whacked than I supposed. Perhaps you've confused me with "Ghost of Paley", and assumed, by the mere fact that "ghost" appears in both names, that we are the same person or hold the same views -- yet, our views about ID are diametrically opposed. Perhaps you missed where I wrote that I'm an atheist, as well as my other posts on (against) ID. You've certainly missed a lot.

popper's right, he isn't an IDer Ed.

However, popper is deflecting the substance of the argument by focusing on Ed's mistake in this particular factoid.

Popper; your contention that Ed might have mistaken you for GOP sounds logical, so... get over it already.

the presentation of conflicting quotes and the few actual references presented were interesting.

If popper has direct counters to Ed's argument, that's what i would personally like to see, rather than a breakdown into who said who is an IDiot.

let's get to actually primary sources. How does popper counter the historical consensus Ed presented?

wait! before you go all wiggly and start spouting that all historians but yourself are wrong on this, don't. Please provide references where direct evidence is presented (by a historian with at least some credibility) that counters those whose consesus view was presented by Ed.

let's get to actually primary sources.

I will simply point out once again that, despite all the current fundie arm-waving about how the Founding Fathers really wanted to establish a Christian state, those Founding Fathers only mentioned "religion" twice in the entire Consitution ---- and both times, it was to ban government support for it.

Game over.

still reading your response, but just a quick point...

could you possibly do more to break up your response into paragraphs in future posts?

hard reading it as one big block, but I'm workin' on it.

I find it bizarre someone would claim to know the faith of one of the founders contrary to the writings and life of the man himself.

4. He sometimes interferes by his particular Providence and sets aside the Effects which would otherwise have been produced by any of the Above Causes. I shall endeavour to shew the first 3 Suppositions to be inconsistent with the common Light of Reason; and that the 4th is most agreeable to it, and therefore most probably true. If you say he has in the Beginning unchangeably decreed all Things and left Nothing to Nature or free Agency. These Strange Conclusions will necessarily follow; 1. That he is now no more a God. 'Tis true indeed, before he had made such unchangeable Decree, he was a Being of Power, Almighty; but now having determin'd every Thing, he has divested himself of all further Power, he has done and has no more to do, he has ty'd up his Hands, and has now no greater Power than an Idol of Wood or Stone; nor can there be any more Reason for praying to him or worshipping of him, than of such an Idol for the Worshippers can be never the better for such Worship....

I must own I have so much Faith in the general Government of the World by Providence, that I can hardly conceive a Transaction of such momentous Importance to the Welfare of Millions now existing, and to exist in the Posterity of a great Nation, should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenc'd, guided and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent R beneficent Ruler, in whom all inferior Spirits live & move and have their Being.

hard reading it as one big block

the comment by "Mr. SHERMAN & others" that "the past omission of a duty could not justify a further omission"

... back tommorrow after i parse the latest.

cheers

It's the danger of claiming to know when one does not know, even if one does have hopes. Franklin's purpose was accomplished without prayer. He intended to, and succeeded, in tweaking the Christians at the convention. Typical of historical revisionists to try to cover up the fact that sometimes even Christians must be called to act like Christians.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was in dire straits and in danger of dissolution when Benjamin Franklin made an appeal and a motion for public prayer within the Convention in an eloquent speech on the floor of the Convention on June 28, 1787. David Barton, in his book The Myth of Separation, assumes that the motion passed as a matter of course and asserts: Franklin's admonition-and the delegates' response to it-had been the turning point not only for the Convention, but also for the future of the nation. While neglecting God, their efforts had been characterized by frustration and selfishness. With their repentance came a desire to begin each morning of official government business with prayer . . . After returning God to their deliberations, were they effective in their efforts to frame a new government? However, as James Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention demonstrate, dissension and debate broke out over Franklin's motion! Alexander Hamilton and others expressed misgivings that the motion might bring on "some disagreeable animadversions" (heated disputes) and cause the public to believe that "embarrassments and dissension" within the Convention had brought on the motion. One of the delegates pointed out that the Convention had no funds with which to pay a minister to offer prayers, even though, if David Barton is correct, local clergymen had volunteered to offer such prayers at no charge. Edmund Randolph proposed an alternative motion that a special service be held on the Fourth of July at which time prayers would be offered. Franklin seconded Randolph's motion recognizing, as he later acknowledged, that the Convention "except for three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary." James Madison recorded in his notes that "after several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing the matter by adjourning, the adjournment at length carried, without any vote on the matter." On July 2, following the purported (but non-actual) institution of official, public prayer in the Convention's proceedings that supposedly took place on June 29, the dissension within the Convention was still as heated and the division as deep as ever. Roger Sherman declared that "we are now at a full stop" and recommended that a committee work on the resolution of the issue of Senate representation. On the same day Gouverneur Morris, one of the most influential delegates to the Convention, stated, "Reason tells us we are but men, and we are not to expect any particular interference from heaven in our favor." (What a revealing statement this is, in contrast to the sentiments of Franklin and the assertions of David Barton!) The dissension and impasse within the Convention continued long after the Convention rejected Franklin's call to prayer and after the observance of the Fourth of July religious service. On July 10 George Washington wrote to Alexander Hamilton: Our councils are now, it is possible, at a worse train than ever; you will find but little ground on which the hope of a good establishment can be formed. In a word, I almost despair of seeing a favorable issue to the proceedings of the Convention. On July 15 Caleb Strong summarized the Convention's situation: "The Convention has been much divided in opinion .... It is agreed on all hands [that] Congress [is] nearly at an end. If no accommodation takes place, the union itself must soon be dissolved." Not until July 16 was the report of the committee, the so-called "Great Compromise," adopted, and only then was the impasse within the Convention broken -not on June 28 with Franklin's call and the Convention's nonexistent return to prayer and to God.

Dr Franklin exhibits daily a spectacle of transcendent benevolence by attending the Convention punctually, and even taking part in its business and deliberations. He says "it is the most august and respectable Assembly he ever was in in his life, and adds, that he thinks they will soon finish their business, as there are no prejudices to oppose, nor errors to refute in any of the body." Mr. Dickinson (who is one of them) informs me that they are all united in their objects, and he expects they will be equally united in the means of attaining them. Mr. Adams's book has diffused such excellent principles among us, that there is little doubt of our adopting a vigorous and compounded federal legislature. Our illustrious minister in this gift to his country has done us more service than if he had obtained alliances for us with all the nations of Europe.

Sorry for the screwup of McCloskey's statement about "Presbyterian views". If you want to know what he really said, just follow the link to his statement.

I will simply point out once again that, despite all the current fundie arm-waving about how the Founding Fathers really wanted to establish a Christian state, those Founding Fathers only mentioned "religion" twice in the entire Consitution ---- and both times, it was to ban government support for it.

Yes, Lenny, but this thread is about Benjamin Franklin, not about fundies. And Franklin was more sympathetic to prayer (but not to fundieism or religious intolerance) than many of the other Founding Fathers. As he wrote, "The Convention, except three or four persons, thought Prayers unnecessary."

Game over.

Broken record.

I've learned that the letter that I referred to in #73021 as being written by Benjamin Franklin to Thomas Paine was not in fact addressed to Thomas Paine -- yet more of David Barton's fractured history. However, there isn't any doubt that it is from Franklin (http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/franklin_paineletter.html), and its significance is the same, demonstrating Franklin's views about providence, prayer, and the necessity of religion as a basis for morality.

Forgive me for being blunt, but ... so f'ing what? What difference do Franklin's religious opinions make to anyone but Franklin?

you play into the creationist game by suggesting that the question of whether or not Franklin was a deist has any bearing on whether or not he was a scientist, or on the value of his scientific work, or on the validity of evolution or creationism.

Okey dokey. Sorry to interrupt your academic debate about the beliefs of a guy who's been dead for two centuries.

You can't be 47363 serious?!?