Dick, I thought I'd keep the references such that I might avoid having the current venomous climate blind the reader. Currently the mere mention of the name 'Bush' seems to addle brains on both sided of the ideological schism – before they have a chance to think. When it’s too close to home, it’s more difficult to see the forest for the trees. Good point though.

Uh, David, the actual quote is exactly as I listed it. Perhaps you could like, um, look it up. It's the negation of the word 'only' that makes the difference - not the 'extension'. Hence the "...". Kudos Andy.

Uh, that's NOT the quote. The ACTUAL quote is as follows: Liberty of Conscience is now-a-days not only understood to be the Liberty of believing what Men please, but also of endeavouring to propagate the Belief as much as they can, and to overthrow the Faith which the Laws have already established...

It's the tribal instinct toward spouting the party line - the same instinct that impels the insecure towards religion or towards following someone like Hitler or to imagine, in the case of some tribes, that cannibalism is a perfectly natural part of life. Are YOU in the 'in' crowd?

Only half?

Well Du-uhhh!

Hear, hear, like maybe eavesdropping on the population for their own good without benefit of having to follow the law?

Ditto Fort Worth. The antithesis of Political Correctness.

It seems the Taliban, the Christian Fundamentalists, the Scientologists and the like have caught on to this one quite nicely.

It's a sweet sentiment and may be valid in some cases where it's not thwarted by some ideology or doctrine like tribalism, nationalism, theism (or belief system), fascism, socialism, capitalism, etc., ad nauseam. I'm sure it seemed a sensible philosophy at Walden Woods within a relatively homogeneous mind set.

I'd like to know what this quote, in its original tongue, actually says. I imagine that the translation of 'friendship' may have had a broader intended reference than it usually does in English today.

A. Schweitzer put his philosophy into action and was recognized for it. I agree that our focus on the misery of people, in places we don't 'relate' to easily, is, in large measure, woefully absent.

Good ole' Martin - pragmatic as always.

To our 'one star general' - bafflegab! - and everyone knows it. This quote is the flip side of the old saw: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".

Dear "Ann C, Coventry"; the phrase is "the pot calling the kettle black" and the proverb no more attempts to 'trod on' anybody's beliefs than does any utterance in the PROMOTION of one's philosophy (like, for instance, 'the spreading of the good word'). Let's hope that we're not advocating Christianity to the EXCLUSION and censorship of other views. Are we?

Kudos to Bob! I would, however, probably thank Remington and Winchester et. al.. Oh, BTW, a comment for 'Anonymous, Atlanta': Just exactly WHO ... brought Christmas into the discussion of THIS proverb? - WHO? And what on earth would Christmas have to do with this quote or any other Islamic quote or proverb anyway? It strikes me that this is the pot trying desperately to find a kettle, any kettle, even anything a blind person might mistake for a kettle at 20 yards, to call black. GREAT TASTE on display again!

Einstein was careful in his wording. I fear the lesser person might read the word 'myth' as meaning 'truth' and forget the usefulness of myth as metaphor. It's easy to forget that it's the metaphor that applies just as it does in fairy tales.

PS: John Jay was elected President of The CONTINENTAL CONGRESS in 1778 - BEFORE there were any 'United' States. What zealots won't stoop to!

I'm sorry, . . . someone has their head up their ... $$$. John Jay was an "American diplomat and jurist who served in both Continental Congresses and helped negotiate peace with Great Britain (1782-1783). He was the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1789-1795) and negotiated a second agreement with Great Britain, Jay's Treaty (1794-1795)." - (AHD) George Washington was still the first president of the US., wishful thinking and foolishness aside.

I guess it's not enough that most wars have been fought in the name of some ideology or other ("precepts contained in the Bible" being among the foremost in recent history). More people have been killed in 'HIS' name than under any other banner. It's OK though because 'god' is on our side (always true for all 'sides').

It might help to read the AHD definition of 'moral'. I don't think it's widely recognized that BY DEFINITION 'moral' is subjective and contextual to the 'accepted' standards of a society and thus, invariably refers to a 'local' definition: mor·al - adj. 1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. 2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. 3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. 4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation. 5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support. 6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty. --mor·al n. 1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event. 2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim. 3. morals. Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong.

I agree with Reston, VA. You may notice though that even this 'quote' says nothing about Washington's belief in a god. It does say that "God and the Bible" are indispensible tools in the hands of those who would govern effectively. In stating it in this way it says more about the governed than it does about the governing. It's a guide for attaining 'political prosperity'. In other words, a guide for success for politicians.

This statement, in and of itself, means nothing in particular except insofar as it illuminates and illustrates the narrow, selective view and philosophical predilections of Milton Friedman not to mention his romantic view of economic history. I submit that MF's "most unresolved problem" characterization of this issue demonstrates what a blindered view of the world he has.

Well, Ovid was, after all, exiled by Augustus to a distant fringe of the Roman Empire for his free thinking. He was a 60s kind of guy - admirable in a way but, in the end, not well tolerated by the moralizers.

Uh, ... can you spell 'dumb'? How about 'simple'.