On Good and Evil by Albert Einstein

This short essay taken from Albert Einstein's book The World as I See It p. 7.

---

It is right in principle that those should be the best loved who have contributed most to the elevation of the human race and human life. But, if one goes on to ask who they are, one finds oneself in no inconsiderable difficulties.

In the case of political, and even of religious, leaders, it is often very doubtful whether they have done more good or harm. Hence I most seriously believe that one does people the best service by giving them some elevating work to do and thus indirectly elevating them. This applies most of all to the great artist, but also in a lesser degree, to the scientist.

To be sure, it is not the fruits of scientific research that elevate a man and enrich his nature, but the urge to understand, the intellectual work, creative or receptive. It would surely be absurd to judge the value of the Talmud, for instance, by its intellectual fruits.

The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained to liberation from the self.

 

Read More

Bogus Quotes Attributed to the Founders

 

Introduction

Quotes that were never made by the Founders, but refuse to die, especially on the Internet, are discussed.

 The "Liberty Teeth" Speech by George Washington

 Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon, and citizen's firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place with all that's good. When firearms, go all goes; we need them every hour.

         --- Falsely attributed to George Washington, address to the second session of the first U.S. Congress.

 This quotation, sometimes called the "liberty teeth" quote, appears nowhere in Washington's papers or speeches, and contains several historical anachronisms: the reference to "prairie wagon" in an America which had yet to even begin settling the Great Plains (which were owned by France at the time), the reference to "the Pilgrims" which implies a modern historical perspective, and particularly the attempt by "Washington" to defend the utility of firearms (by use of statistics!) to an audience which would have used firearms in their daily lives to obtain food, defend against hostile Indians, and which had only recently won a war for independence.

 The "99 99/100 percent" is also an odd phrase for 18th century America, which tended not to use fractional percentages. It's clear that "Washington" is addressing "gun control" arguments which wouldn't exist for another couple of centuries, not to mention doing so in a style that is uncharacteristic of the period, and uncharacteristic of Washington's addresses to Congress, both of which exhibited a high degree of formality.

This is a false quote, but bits and pieces of it still continue to crop up from time to time. Even national publications, such as Playboy magazine, have been snared by it. (Playboy published the "quote" in December 1995 as part of an article entitled "Once and for All: What the Founding Fathers Said About Guns". After consulting with an assistant editor of the George Washington Papers at the University of Virginia, Playboy published a lengthy correction in March 1996.)

 The above analysis (by Clayon Cramer) was taken in part from a "talk.politics.guns" usenet FAQ. (Original source: Cramer, Clayton, Firing Back, 1995. Used by permission of the author.)

 The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) also comments (excerpted with permission) on the liberty teeth speech as follows: "This has several variations including 'hour' for 'moment' and sometimes added as part of an actual Washington quote 'A free people ought not only to be armed...' The various citations are even more numerous than different wordings: Address to the Second Session of the First U.S. Congress; Speech to Congress of January 7, 1790, printed in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790; the Federalist No. 53; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1785."

 SAF mentions another fabricated George Washington quote:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

 SAF's analysis from the same page follows:

 While this quote is often attributed to George Washington in his Farewell Address, this quote cannot be found there. Many people have tried to verify its origin, but cannot confirm its authenticity.

 Dan Gifford tried to track this quote down but was unsuccessful for his article. See: "The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason", The Tennessee Law Review: A Second Amendment Symposium Issue, Page 801, footnote 201. This issue of the Tennessee Law Review is part of the SAF bookshelf.

 Perhaps the American Freedom Library available from Laissez Faire Books features the best history of this alleged quote on their Version 3.1 CD-ROM. The searchable CD-ROM notes that the above statement is:

 "Attributed to George Washington.--Frank J. Wilstach, A Dictionary of Similes, 2d ed., p. 526 (1924). This can be found with minor variations in wording and in punctuation, and with 'fearful' for 'troublesome,' in George Seldes, The Great Quotations, p. 727 (1966). Unverified. In his most recent book of quotations, The Great Thoughts (1985), Seldes Says, p. 441, col. 2, footnote, this paragraph 'although credited to the 'Farewell' [address] cannot be found in it. Lawson Hamblin, who owns a facsimile, and Horace Peck, America's foremost authority on quotations, informed me this paragraph is apocryphal [fake].'"

 And yet another bogus Washington quote:

 A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government

 The actual quote:

 A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.

          ---George Washington's First Annual Message to Congress (January 8, 1790)

 More Bogus Quotes

 The following quotes from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are likewise fictional. The quotes are not to be found in their speeches, personal correspondence, or diaries. Nor have the quotes ever been cited in law journals by Second Amendment legal scholars.

 The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

          --- Falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson.

 Occasionally the Jefferson quote is given with the following citation: Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950). The publication exists, but the quote does not. The editor's correct name is Julian P. Boyd, not C.J. Boyd.

 Sometimes the quote appears with Jefferson's, "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms", which is taken from his proposal for Virginia's constitution of 1776. The bogus quote has appeared both before the "No freeman..." sentence and after it. However in reality, the "tyranny" portion of the quote is absent from Jefferson's draft.

 The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

          --- More bogus Thomas Jefferson.

 

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.

          --- Falsely attributed to James Madison.

 The false Madison quote, less frequently seen, does crop-up, so far never with a reference. The exact words appear in Pennsylvania's Constitution of 1790 and is probably the source (or inspiration) of this erroneous attribution.

 Although not directly related to the Second Amendment or gun control issues these two quotes are fake as well:

 The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first..

          --- Falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson.

 If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.

          --- Falsely attributed to James Madison.

 Jumbling John Adams

 Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense.

The quote above was even mistakenly cited by the NRA-ILA in 1996, and was on the NRA's Web site until at least early 1998 (and has spread to many personal Web pages). (Original NRA page preserved here. The erroneous Adams quote appears near the bottom of the page.)

 Less common, and worse:

 Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self defense.

 The correct quote:

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

          ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

 As David Hardy explains, "Adams was thus mindful of the uses of arms (i.e., legitimate self-defense and militia duty) and concerned about misuse for mob action or anarchy." (The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights, 1987)

 

Read More

Godless Constitution Constitutional Law without Gods or Religion

God, the Constitution, and the Christian Right:
The Christian Right regularly claims that America is a “Christian Nation” and was founded on Christian principles. If this is the case, then those principles should be identifiable in America’s founding legal document, the Constitution. If the Constitution explicitly reflects Christian principles and doctrines, then the Christian Right is correct that America was founded on Christianity; otherwise, their claims are wishful thinking at best. So where are God and religion in the Constitution?

 

No Religious Tests:
Article VI says: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." In practice this prohibition was often violated, and even today there are unenforceable prohibitions in state constitutions against atheists holding public office. If America is a Christian Nation, why weren't public offices limited to Christians, or even particular types of Christians? Why weren't public offices limited solely to monotheists or to theists?

 

Sundays Excepted Clause:
Some take hope from Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2 which gives the president an extra day to deal with a bill from Congress if the 10th day falls on Sunday — known as the "Sundays Excepted Clause." Is this an establishment of the Christian sabbath and thus of Christianity? No, it was a recognition of the fact that many Christians wouldn't work on this day and that an extra day may be needed. It must be noted that at this time, the government continued to deliver mail on Sundays.

 

In the Year of Our Lord?:
At the end of the Constitution, the date is prefaced with "in the year of our Lord." Is this an expression of the fundamental role played by Jesus and Christianity in the Constitution? No, this was just the standard dating convention. It's no more significant than using BC and AD when writing dates now. At most, it's an example of the cultural importance of Christianity at the time; it's not a sign of the political or philosophical importance of Christianity to the Constitution. Read More...

Oaths and Affirmations:
The Constitution requires elected official take oaths or affirmations before serving; was this understood as an example of the importance of swearing an oath to God? No — if it was meant to get people to swear an oath to God because only theists could be trusted, the Constitution would have said so (and would not have banned religious tests for public office). Oaths can be taken on more than the Bible and God; the choice of using an affirmation signals that religious oaths were not privileged.

First Amendment: Free Exercise:
The first amendment to the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion. It does not protect just the free exercise of Christianity nor does it suggest that Christianity and Christians should be have special protections and privileges. The authors used the term "religion," meaning that all religions have exactly the same status before the law and the government. If they had thought that Christianity were special, they'd have said so; instead, they treated it like every other religion.

First Amendment: No Establishment:
The first amendment to the Constitution also prohibits the government from "establishing" any religion. The meaning of "establishment" is hotly debated and some insist that it merely means that the government can't create a national religion. This reading is too narrow and would make the clause all but meaningless. To have relevance, it must mean that the government can't favor, endorse, promote, or support any religions just as it can't hinder any: it must remain as neutral as possible.

We the People:
The Ameican Constitution begins with the phrase "We the People," and its significance cannot be overlooked. This establishes that sovereign power rests with the people and that all government power and authority derives from the consent of the people. It's a repudiation of older Eurpean ideas that governments are established by God and derive their power or authority from God (for example, the divine right of kings). It's also thus a repudiation of the Christian Right's arguments today.

The American Constitution is Godless, Religionless:
No matter how hard conservative apologists for the Christian Right try, they cannot locate endorsements of religion, God, theism, or Christianity in the Constitution. At no point does the Constitution exhibit anything less than a fully secular, godless character. The American Constitution was a novel experiment in the creation of a secular government on the basis of popular sovereignty and democratic principles. All of this would be undermined by the Christian Right.

God, Deism, and the Authors of a Secular Constitution:
The authors of the American Constitution were not atheists, though some might be regarded as little more than atheists by self-righteous religious moralizers today. Many of the authors were deists. Among those who were Christian, few seem to have held same sort of religious beliefs common with conservative evangelicals in America today. The Christian Right would claim them as religious brethren, but the two groups are far too dissimilar for that.

 

Why does the Christian Right seek to make a big deal out of the religious beliefs of the authors of the Constitution, though? They seem to think that if these men can be identified as devout Christians, then it follows that the Constitution is a Christian document which embodies Christian principles and doctrines (as defined by the Christian Right, of course). This does not follow, however. A Christian is every bit as capable of creating a godless, secular document as an atheist is.

 

Indeed, the fact that many of these men were devout Christians (even if not in the way that the Christian Right imagines) bolsters the case of contemporary secularists because it makes the absence of overt religious and Christian language all the more glaring. If they had mostly been atheists, the non-religious language would be expected and unremarkable. Yet because they were religious and steeped in Christian education, the absence of Christian language and references must be read as both deliberate and purposeful.

 

What might that purpose have been? To establish a secular government, untainted by the many problems which sectarian divisions, religious violence, and Christian bigotry had inflicted on European nations. For the most part the authors of the Constitution succeeded. Why does the Christian Right work so hard to undermine and undo what America's founders accomplished?

 

http://atheism.about.com/od/godlessliberals/p/Constitution.htm

 

Read More

Andrew Dean Wrote Thomas Paine a Letter and His Response Is Perfect

This Letter Offers a Rare Glimpse Into the Brilliant Mind of One of the Founding Founders of Deism

Respected Friend,

I received your friendly letter, for which I am obliged to you. It is three weeks ago to day (Sunday, Aug. 15,) that I was struck with a fit of an apoplexy, that deprived me of all sense and motion. I had neither pulse nor breathing, and the people about me supposed me dead. I had felt exceedingly well that day, and had just taken a slice of bread and butter for supper, and was going to bed. The fit took me on the stairs, as suddenly as if I had been shot through the head; and I got so very much hurt by the fall, that I have not been able to get in and out of bed since that day, otherwise than being lifted out in a blanket, by two persons; yet all this while my mental faculties have remained as perfect as I ever enjoyed them. I consider the scene I have passed through as an experiment on dying, and I find that death has no terrors for me. As to the people called Christians, they have no evidence that their religion is true. There is no more proof that the Bible is the word of God, than that the Koran of Mahomet is the word of God. It is education makes all the difference. Man, before he begins to think for himself, is as much the child of habit in Creeds as he is in ploughing and sowing. Yet creeds, like opinions, prove nothing.

Where is the evidence that the person called Jesus Christ is the begotten Son of God? The case admits not of evidence either to our senses or our mental faculties: neither has God given to man any talent by which such a thing is comprehensible. It cannot therefore be an object for faith to act upon, for faith is nothing more than an assent the mind gives to something it sees cause to believe is fact. But priests, preachers, and fanatics, put imagination in the place of faith, and it is the nature of the imagination to believe without evidence.

If Joseph the carpenter dreamed, (as the book of Matthew (i) says he did,) that his betrothed wife, Mary, was with child by the Holy Ghost, and that an angel told him so, I am not obliged to put faith in his dreams; nor do I put any, for I put no faith in my own dreams, and I should be weak and foolish indeed to put faith in the dreams of others.

The Christian religion is derogatory to the Creator in all its articles. It puts the Creator in an inferior point of view, and places the Christian Devil above him. It is he, according to the absurd story in Genesis, that outwits the Creator in the garden of Eden, and steals from him his favorite creature, Man, and at last obliges him to beget a son, and put that son to death, to get Man back again; and this the priests of the Christian religion call redemption.

Christian authors exclaim against the practice of offering up human sacrifices, which, they say, is done in some countries; and those authors make those exclamations without ever reflecting that their own doctrine of salvation is founded on a Human Sacrifice. They are saved, they say, by the blood of Christ. The Christian religion begins with a dream and ends with a murder.
As I am now well enough to sit up some hours in the day, though not well enough to get up without help, I employ myself as I have always done, in endeavoring to bring man to the right use of the reason that God has given him, and to direct his mind immediately to his Creator, and not to fanciful secondary beings called mediators, as if God was superannuated or ferocious.

As to the book called the Bible, it is blasphemy to call it the word of God. It is a book of lies and contradictions, and a history of bad times and bad men. There are but a few good characters in the whole book. The fable of Christ and his twelve apostles, which is a parody on the Sun and the twelve signs of the Zodiac, copied from the ancient religions of the Eastern world, is the least hurtful part. Every thing told of Christ has reference to the Sun. His reported resurrection is at sunrise, and that on the first day of the week; that is, on the day anciently dedicated to the Sun, and from thence called Sunday -- in Latin 'Dies Solis,' the day of the Sun; as the next day, Monday, is Moon-day. But there is no room in a letter to explain these things.

While man keeps to the belief of one God, his reason unites with his creed. He is not shocked with contradictions and horrid stories. His bible is the heavens and the earth. He beholds his Creator in all his works, and everything he beholds inspires him with reverence and gratitude. From the goodness of God to all, he learns his duty to his fellow-man, and stands self-reproved when he transgresses it. Such a man is no persecutor.

But when he multiplies his creed with imaginary things, of which he can have neither evidence nor conception, such as the tale of the garden of Eden, the Talking Serpent, the Fall of Man, the Dreams of Joseph the Carpenter, the pretended Resurrection and Ascension, of which there is even no historical relation, -- for no historian of those times mentions such a thing, -- he gets into the pathless region of confusion, and turns either fanatic or hypocrite. He forces his mind, and pretends to believe what he does not believe. This is in general the case with the Methodists. Their religion is all creed and no morals.

I have now, my friend, given you a 'fac simile' of my mind on the subject of religion and creeds, and my wish is, that you make this letter as publicly known as you find opportunities of doing.

Yours, in friendship,

Thomas Paine

Read More