"A Christian Nation"
Two excellent commentaries in the last week deserve attention. The first is "A Christian Nation" by Jeremy D. Boreing at Big Hollywood. The second is Bill Whittle's video commentary, "The Great Liberal Narrative" at PJTV.
Boreing's post is in response to readers who took exception to his claim that America is a Christian nation. The argument goes like this: America can't be a Christian nation, since our government is not explicitly Christian; in fact, there's a wall between church and state. Boreing points out the flaw in this argument: the government is not the nation, the people are the nation. The people at the time of the founding were overwhelmingly Christian, and the Founding Fathers, irrespective of their individual beliefs, recognized this. We're still largely Christian, despite a claim to the contrary by our ill-informed President.
Boreing goes on to explain the origin and meaning of the oft-cited "wall between church and state," which I excerpt in full to make a point later:
It is not well known that secular humanists sought and won recognition as a "godless religion" by the Supreme Court of the United States at least as early as the 1950s, and possibly as early as the 1930s when John Dewey issued The Humanist Manifesto. This has been confirmed in later rulings, most notably the 1961 Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins in which Justice Hugo L. Black observes in his decision, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others."
But humanists are sneaky. They are religious when it suits their purposes, as when they seek the first amendment protection of the Constitution or the benefit of tax-exempt status, but they conveniently forget about this when it doesn't suit their purposes. This has allowed humanism to slip under the radar of church/state separation to establish itself as the de facto state religion. It has infiltrated our government, schools, universities, and media. The humanist religion replaces God as the measure of all things with man, i.e. the state, as the measure of all things. Its Bible is the Narrative. The secular humanist religion has many offshoots -- environmentalism, animal rights, feminism, and so on -- differing only in their interpretation and emphasis on certain aspects of the Narrative. However, to deviate significantly from the teachings of the Narrative is heresy, punishable by demonization, harrassment, excommunication, fines, and even imprisonment. Most disturbing is that there is no wall between the secular humanist religion and the state -- they are one and the same -- and we know from the example of Henry VIII what happens when that wall does not exist.
We ought to have learned by now that there is no such thing as a religious vacuum. If an established religion disappears or is killed off, another moves in to fill the void. In the secular parts of the West where God is no longer recognized as the moral authority, the Earth is revered and worshipped under the auspices of the Green movement, even to the degree that violence is committed in the name of Mother Earth. And in places as bleak and godless as North Korea one observes worship of the leader with as much passion and reverence as in any God-centered religion.
It appears to come down to a choice. One can either choose to reclaim the Christian roots of America with its built-in defense of freedom and individual rights or one can abandon it to the godless religion of humanism and a life centered, not on the lessons of the Bible, but on the lessons of the Narrative. We know from the example of Jefferson that one need not be Christian to accept the Christian foundation of this nation and support it. And support it we must or find ourselves in compulsory worship of the state.
Boreing's post is in response to readers who took exception to his claim that America is a Christian nation. The argument goes like this: America can't be a Christian nation, since our government is not explicitly Christian; in fact, there's a wall between church and state. Boreing points out the flaw in this argument: the government is not the nation, the people are the nation. The people at the time of the founding were overwhelmingly Christian, and the Founding Fathers, irrespective of their individual beliefs, recognized this. We're still largely Christian, despite a claim to the contrary by our ill-informed President.
Boreing goes on to explain the origin and meaning of the oft-cited "wall between church and state," which I excerpt in full to make a point later:
The original European settlers of what would become the United States of the Revolution were almost exclusively British. They were also immensely religious. That’s why they were here. After a millennia of state-religion mandated by Rome, Henry VIII had rejected the authority of the Pope in Britain and created a state-religion of his own. The Church of England made the king not only the ultimate political power in the land, but the ultimate religious authority as well. A violation of Henry’s religious positions was a violation of the law, and a violation of the law was heresy. The punishment was severe: Beheading, hanging, burning at the stake… Terrible things happen when civil and religious authority are mingled together.And Boreing issues a warning
The problem for Henry, and for Rome, was that a Reformation was also taking place. Men like Martin Luther and William Tyndale (who Henry had strangled and burned) had begun translating the Bible into common languages, giving the people the opportunity to explore God for themselves. What they discovered surprised them. In the Book of Exodus, God establishes a civil leader for his people in Moses. He also establishes a religious leader in Aaron. Then he does something really interesting: He commands that they remain separate forever. If the king tries to supersede the religious authority of the priesthood, God will destroy him, as he does in 2 Chronicles, cursing a king named Uzziah for conducting a religious rite in the temple. Of course, God was God of the state, as well as the religion. He gave guidance to Moses just as surely as he did to Aaron. He just precluded the civil leader from also being the religious leader. Undoubtedly, God understood that without that distinction, all kings would be like Henry VIII. Separation of church and state, then, is actually a Biblical principle.
When Jefferson’s own American forefathers, the Pilgrims, took sanctuary from religious persecution in this new world, they sought to be true to the Biblical teachings that their former rulers had violated. In America, as in Israel thousands of years before, government and religious authority would be forever separated, though just as in Israel, God would be God of both. God and religion, after all, are not the same thing. One is the Supreme Being over all, and the other is the institution by which he is taught and worshiped. Jefferson understood this distinction, which is why he could assure the Danbury Baptists that there was a “wall of separation between church and state,” ensuring that the government would never dictate or enforce religious decrees, while at the same time he also recognized God though the government, and based the legitimacy of both on him.
Since God no longer exists in government, and his history there is no longer taught, is it any wonder that millions upon millions of Americans believe, in utter opposition to the founding philosophy, that our rights come from the government? Where else would they come from? And should it be any surprise if those same Americans desire that the government give them other things as well? After all, if our rights are not by the grace of God but by the grace of government, then whoever controls the government has the ultimate authority over man. Government by definition can do no wrong. This is precisely the kind of thinking our Founders literally warred against. It is also precisely why Americans of all faiths should be proud to own America’s Christian Heritage, and why without it, America is lost.Now let's put this in context with Bill Whittle's Afterburner commentary, The Great Liberal Narrative. Watch the video.
It is not well known that secular humanists sought and won recognition as a "godless religion" by the Supreme Court of the United States at least as early as the 1950s, and possibly as early as the 1930s when John Dewey issued The Humanist Manifesto. This has been confirmed in later rulings, most notably the 1961 Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins in which Justice Hugo L. Black observes in his decision, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others."
But humanists are sneaky. They are religious when it suits their purposes, as when they seek the first amendment protection of the Constitution or the benefit of tax-exempt status, but they conveniently forget about this when it doesn't suit their purposes. This has allowed humanism to slip under the radar of church/state separation to establish itself as the de facto state religion. It has infiltrated our government, schools, universities, and media. The humanist religion replaces God as the measure of all things with man, i.e. the state, as the measure of all things. Its Bible is the Narrative. The secular humanist religion has many offshoots -- environmentalism, animal rights, feminism, and so on -- differing only in their interpretation and emphasis on certain aspects of the Narrative. However, to deviate significantly from the teachings of the Narrative is heresy, punishable by demonization, harrassment, excommunication, fines, and even imprisonment. Most disturbing is that there is no wall between the secular humanist religion and the state -- they are one and the same -- and we know from the example of Henry VIII what happens when that wall does not exist.
We ought to have learned by now that there is no such thing as a religious vacuum. If an established religion disappears or is killed off, another moves in to fill the void. In the secular parts of the West where God is no longer recognized as the moral authority, the Earth is revered and worshipped under the auspices of the Green movement, even to the degree that violence is committed in the name of Mother Earth. And in places as bleak and godless as North Korea one observes worship of the leader with as much passion and reverence as in any God-centered religion.
It appears to come down to a choice. One can either choose to reclaim the Christian roots of America with its built-in defense of freedom and individual rights or one can abandon it to the godless religion of humanism and a life centered, not on the lessons of the Bible, but on the lessons of the Narrative. We know from the example of Jefferson that one need not be Christian to accept the Christian foundation of this nation and support it. And support it we must or find ourselves in compulsory worship of the state.
31 Comments:
Brava!
Bill Whittle is amazing, though my blood boils at what a hash those Marxists have made of the USA and are still making of it.
We need a new spiritual revival.
Making the State to be God is demonic, it inverts the sacred order and brings man down the the level of animals, or worse.
Again, brava!
Thanks, Rus.
Although I'm heartened by surveys that show traditional religion isn't diminishing in terms of numbers, I'm dismayed by the timidity of my Christian brothers and sisters. It's as though they've lost the courage of their convictions.
You're right, we need a spiritual revival.
me and The Lord think you're all fuckin' nuts (and, yes, He just forgave me for swearing)
That should be "The Lord and I." Write it out 100 times and submit it in the morning.
Secular Humanism emerged (especially in Europe) as a reaction to centuries of religious violence, primarily between Protestants and Catholics. After so much enmity and bloodshed, a philosophical alternative seemed necessary.
For Whittle to argue that freedom and individual rights are inherent to the 'Christian roots of America,' is misleading and, dare I say, absurd. Slavery and the ceaseless decimation of Native Cultures was, more often than not, rooted in a Christian ethos (however misguided it may seem to us now). That is not to say that, therefore, Christianity lacks a sufficient morality, but to emphasize the fact that any and all ideologies/belief systems can be manipulated to create tyranny and authoritarian rule (read Machiavelli).
And let's not forget that so many elements of laissez faire Capitalism run completely counter to basic Judeo-Christian ethics. Without the seemingly 'Socialist' laws that passed during the Progessive era of our beloved country (i.e., labor laws that established workers' rights among so many others) one has to seriously doubt that a solid, stable Middle Class would have emerged in America.
As a side, Buddhism and Taoism are not 'godless' though they do not believe in a personal god, per say, but believe in what could be considered a philosophical Godhead (though no faith is monolithic and generalizations tend to only promote ignorance).
"No one wants advice, only corroboration."
Take Care.
Dear Anonymous,
Was there an overarching point to your comments? If so, I missed it.
As to the few salient points:
Secular Humanism emerged (especially in Europe) as a reaction to centuries of religious violence...
And yet the totality of those centuries of religious violence (often political/territorial violence coinciding with religion) pales in comparison with the tens of millions slaughtered as a result of communism, an ideology wholly wedded to atheism.
As regards slavery, virtually every culture at every time has had slavery, including Christian cultures. What is important is that the only people who effectively put an end to it were Christians, not humanists.
Lastly, I think you will be hard pressed to prove that the middle class in America emerged because of socialist policies. Observe that India only developed an appreciable middle class once it began to depart from its socialist ways.
P.S. What is it with humanists and anonymity? Can't you at least come up with a clever handle?
"Secular Humanism emerged (especially in Europe) as a reaction to centuries of religious violence..."
Uh, my history must be rusty because as far as I remember, the concept of Secular Humanism started with the Greeks (the Stoics and Epicureans). Their writings were lost to the west during the dark ages and recovered during the Renaissance through Latin and Greek texts.
Some of the earliest humanists were simply scholars studying the texts. Later, such thinkers as Aquinas worked on synthesizing systems of thought from the Greek, notably Aristotle with current form of Catholicism. The melding of Athens and Jerusalem, an on going process because it works with things worldly and spiritual.
Still later on, as the thinkers of the time worked on increasing understanding of the text and worked on harmonizing Church teachings with Greek thought, many senior leaders in the Church supported them. They continued to support them over the years, even when the goals started to diverge.
The current form of Secular Humanism didn't show up until the later half of the 1800s (though their roots started with thinkers like Voltaire). The modern form of Humanism started in the 1930s and gained the anti theist tones in the 60s and 70s.
So your assertion that Secular Humanism was a reaction to "centuries of religious violence" doesn't really square up with history.
"Slavery and the ceaseless decimation of Native Cultures was, more often than not, rooted in a Christian ethos."
Really? Chapter and verse, please, on that. The Christian ethos is contained in the New Testament, the Golden Rule, the Two Great commandments and the Beatitudes. I must have missed Christ's teachings on having European settlers in the New World having to engage the native populaces with sword and blunderbuss.
"And let's not forget that so many elements of laissez faire Capitalism run completely counter to basic Judeo-Christian ethics."
Again, chapter and verse, please.
I haven't the time to delve in the history of the principles of laissez-faire and capitalism, but suffice to say that the roots of the modern form of it start in the Puritan work ethic and Biblical teachings (e.g. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet)
(But here too we have ancient Greek influences. The early Greek colonies (apoikia) quite often engaged in free trade with their mother city (metropolis).)
With the strict laws arising from British Mercantilism, it is no wonder that "Let it be!" was such a wildly received sentiment!
Traditional Buddhism, as taught by Buddha, has no gods. It is godless. The closest idea is the Ishta-deva, the enlightened being, but that's a far cry from the Judeo-Christian Godhead.
Taoism is polytheistic in nature, the organization of the gods mirror the Chinese form of government at the time. Again, not really the same thing as the Judeo-Christian Godhead.
Excellent, Russell, thank you.
An addendum to my previous comment, as it pertains to something I'm reading at the moment:
Secular Humanism emerged (especially in Europe) as a reaction to centuries of religious violence...
It's true that religious violence spanned several centuries. I'm reading Vox Day's intriguing book, The Irrational Atheist, wherein he cites the Encyclopedia of War as claiming that during the period approximately spanning the 7th - 17th centuries, there were 123 wars categorized as religious in nature. Impressive, until one notes that this 123 represents 7% of all the wars listed in the encyclopedia.
After so much enmity and bloodshed, a philosophical alternative seemed necessary.
Indeed. The godless philosophical alternative not only produced the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, but also spawned no less than 52 mass-murderers, each of whom personally presided over the snuffing of anywhere from 20,000 to millions of their own people in the previous century alone.
After so much enmity and bloodshed, it seems we are greatly in need of an alternative to your alternative.
I'll respond in kind shortly. I do find it odd, however, that it's assumed that I'm an atheist. Actually, faith is an integral part of my life. Suffice it to say, I seriously doubt any ideology, religious or otherwise, can maintain it's profundity and idealism when it becomes a part of the political landscape, Christianity included.
Anon,
Yes, I assumed you are a secular humanist, aka atheist. Apologies if that is not the case.
I seriously doubt any ideology, religious or otherwise, can maintain it's profundity and idealism when it becomes a part of the political landscape, Christianity included.
Here's the problem. While I don't believe that religion should be politicized, and I don't believe in state-sponsored religion, politics has to be based on underlying philosophical principles. So what does one do, pull these principles out of the air? Have one set of principles for six days of the week and save one's Christianity for one hour on Sunday?
P.S. Presumably you're not the first Anon, who made the pithy observation above?
I had assumed you weren't Christian, but nothing else.
"Suffice it to say, I seriously doubt any ideology, religious or otherwise, can maintain it's profundity and idealism when it becomes a part of the political landscape, Christianity included."
Er, what? Does that mean the political landscape is something different from any other ideology?
That it is some separate thing that corrupts anything that comes into contact with it?
Are you saying that mankind has these pure ideologies that only are corrupted when there is contact with society?
Wait, that sounds like Rousseau!
Perhaps my overarching point is that both Boreing’s and Whittle’s articles are bereft of any real, substantive value especially when comparing their arguments to actual history and philosophy. My initial comment meant to point out the rather strange, revisionist ideas that Whittle put forth regarding freedom and individual rights being inherent to the ‘Christian roots of America’ and to point out (albeit briefly) logical inconsistencies in Whittle’s arguments.
Boreing, in his essay, ‘A Christian Nation,’ tries to recast the Founding Fathers as decidedly Christian in intent and purpose. He goes on to state, “The tired argument that the Founders were not Christians but Deists is not only false . . . Whatever the nuances of their personal faiths, the Founders . . . were . . . believers in God, and the Christian tradition.” This is simply not true. The philosophies the Founding Fathers incorporated to form their ideas and judgments were rooted Enlightenment philosophies.
Has Boreing never heard of John Locke? Locke is not even mentioned in his essay! That’s astounding! The self-evident nature of individual rights and freedoms, according to the Founding Fathers, was rooted in Natural Law (echoing the sentiments of much of Enlightenment philosophy a la Locke and Montesquieu among others-the latter being a strong influence on Madison). Natural Law, rooted in Aristotelian thought, suggests that laws are set into motion by the Unmoved Mover i.e., The Godhead. The Unmoved Mover is, therefore, the First Cause for all subsequent things in the universe but does not actively participate in the world or universe at all. By extension, ‘rights’ are an inherent aspect of existence in much the same way as, say, gravity. This is in keeping with the principles of Deism and Enlightenment philosophy (including aspests of Humanism) NOT Christianity. Christ is an active participant in the world according to Christianity. This differs in kind from Deism (unless you want to discuss, perhaps, Process Theology).
Furthermore, Jefferson’s own words echo the thoughts (as that of Franklin) of, not only Deism, but to some extent, a certain amount of agnosticism: “To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise.” In fact, Jefferson’s own revision of the Bible removed all accounts of miracles. By his own admission, Jefferson attempted to adhere to the moral code of conduct of Jesus AS WELL AS the moral codes of Epictetus and Epicurus. Again, this is in keeping with DEISM not Christianity.
As for Boreing’s quote of Obama and the end of his blog, he should at least have the decency to quote Obama in full, otherwise it sounds like schoolyard sophistry unless, of course, his intentions are to mislead or incite: “Whatever we once were, we’re no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.” (Some may have a problem with religious pluralism, but it is one of the many things that makes our nation truly great).
As for some of the comments my initial post received, here are some responses:
Sorry Russell, Secular Humanism did not begin with the Greeks. Humanism may have, but Secular Humanism did not and there is a substantial difference between the two. Enlightenment philosophers paved the way for Secular Humanism with the advent of science as the emerging paradigm in Western thought (as opposed to faith) and the need for empirical proof regarding the nature of Truth or truths. The trend away from any sort of theism occurred as the scientific method became the sole methodology for establishing truth and/or fact (however in error this may seem to some of us). ‘God’ or ‘gods’ no longer seemed self-evident. Hence, we have such seemingly outlandish notions as Kant’s noumena and his is/ought dichotomy regarding moral behavior and, of course, the Kiergaardian ‘leap of faith.’
As for slavery and the decimation of Native Cultures, let’s begin with the words of Hernan Cortes: “ . . . we fight for the cause of Christ when we fight against idol worshippers[the Aztec people] who, as such, are enemies of Christ since they worship demons instead of the God of kindness . . .”
Slavery and Christianity in America is no easy feat to tackle. However, many slave owners argued that Africans were the descendents of Ham and, therefore, deserving of enslavement based on Noah’s curse (Genesis 9:25-27). Take, for instance, Jefferson Davis’ little gem of a quote: “[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God . . . it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation . . .”
Paul’s letter to Philemon was often used to justify slavery as well. Remember: Onesimus was never set free. Paul simply insists that Philemon accept Onesimus as a Christian brother. However, Paul does not demand that Philemon set Onesimus free. Slave owners often forced Christianity upon their slaves and then twisted the Christian ethos to maintain their slaves’ subservience.
While I don’t find Rousseau all that compelling, my point, as always, is that any ideology, religious or otherwise, is prone to corruption once it is politicized. Faith is about ideals and the recognition of ideals. Faith gauges existence on a vertical axis while politics is decidedly horizontal.
For example, Martin Luther galvanized the German princes to ‘smite, slay, and stab, secretly and openly the ‘mad dog’ peasants who were simply demanding more rights from a feudal system of governance. Luther employed a very nuanced and manipulative sort of exegesis to ‘justify’ the slaughter of thousands of peasants for a political end.
To paraphrase Dostoevsky, if Christ were to return today, most Christians would lock him up and throw away the key.
Thanks for the response, Anon. May I call you Anon?
Let's start looking at your interesting reply:
"Perhaps my overarching point is"
Waitaminute. Perhaps? Is that your main point or not? I am going to assume it is and proceed.
" that both Boreing’s and Whittle’s articles are bereft of any real, substantive value especially when comparing their arguments to actual history and philosophy."
Ooh, inflammatory! I can assume I can adopt the same tone without you having an issue? I kid! I kid!
"My initial comment meant to point out the rather strange, revisionist ideas that Whittle put forth regarding freedom and individual rights being inherent to the ‘Christian roots of America’ and to point out (albeit briefly) logical inconsistencies in Whittle’s arguments."
But, you didn't do that. Let's see what you said at first : "For Whittle to argue that freedom and individual rights are inherent to the 'Christian roots of America,' is misleading and, dare I say, absurd. Slavery and the ceaseless decimation of Native Cultures was, more often than not, rooted in a Christian ethos"
Er, here you are arguing against a premise, and not doing much of a job except to say 'Nuh-uh'.
"Boreing, in his essay, ‘A Christian Nation,’ tries to recast the Founding Fathers as decidedly Christian in intent and purpose. He goes on to state, “The tired argument that the Founders were not Christians but Deists is not only false . . . Whatever the nuances of their personal faiths, the Founders . . . were . . . believers in God, and the Christian tradition.” This is simply not true. The philosophies the Founding Fathers incorporated to form their ideas and judgments were rooted Enlightenment philosophies. "
Gack! The Founding Father were rooted in Christianity, specifically Protestant Christianity. The early documents and constitutions of the colonies and thirteen states contained references to God by name. They were farmers and preachers, merchants and ministers, all walks of life infused and informed by the Christian tradition. The idea you are espousing, that all these Christians somehow divested their spiritual upbringing and only relied on Enlightenment philosophies to construct the Constitution, isn't supported by the writings of these men. Besides, Enlightenment philosophies were intimately tied to Christian thinking. The Founding Fathers were seeped in the traditions of Western Christian civilization.
"Has Boreing never heard of John Locke? Locke is not even mentioned in his essay! That’s astounding! "
What's astounding is that you are positing that the lack of evidence in one essay is evidence of that Boreing never heard of Locke. More so when Boreing said "There is far more to say on this subject than could possibly be explored in one sitting[.]"
"The self-evident nature of individual rights and freedoms, according to the Founding Fathers, was rooted in Natural Law (echoing the sentiments of much of Enlightenment philosophy a la Locke and Montesquieu among others-the latter being a strong influence on Madison). Natural Law, rooted in Aristotelian thought, suggests that laws are set into motion by the Unmoved Mover i.e., The Godhead. The Unmoved Mover is, therefore, the First Cause for all subsequent things in the universe but does not actively participate in the world or universe at all. By extension, ‘rights’ are an inherent aspect of existence in much the same way as, say, gravity. This is in keeping with the principles of Deism and Enlightenment philosophy (including aspests of Humanism) NOT Christianity. Christ is an active participant in the world according to Christianity. This differs in kind from Deism (unless you want to discuss, perhaps, Process Theology)."
Then, except for maybe Jefferson and couple of others, none of the Founding Fathers were deists since they believed God was active in the world.
(continued)
Whitehead was a fascinating man! Principia Mathematica is outstanding and lead to Gödel's brilliant two theories of incompleteness. And this has as much bearing on the Founding Fathers as Process Theology.
"Furthermore, Jefferson’s own words echo the thoughts (as that of Franklin) of, not only Deism, but to some extent, a certain amount of agnosticism: “To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise.” In fact, Jefferson’s own revision of the Bible removed all accounts of miracles. By his own admission, Jefferson attempted to adhere to the moral code of conduct of Jesus AS WELL AS the moral codes of Epictetus and Epicurus. Again, this is in keeping with DEISM not Christianity. "
Jefferson was awesome! He held different views on the rights and roles of the government depending on what was going on at the time. Not a man afraid of making changes or changing his mind. He also believed that just by adhering to Christ's teachings he was a Christian, although he refused to believe in anything that hinted at the miraculous. Here's some John Adams and John Hancock: "We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!" So who matters more? Old Red, or those other two minor fellows? Remember, there were, by some counts, 250+ men actively engaged in the creation of America and the majority of them were Christians, and the ones that weren't still believed in a Greater Power. Franklin's religion was a changing thing for him, he held different views during his life, at one time he was a professed Deist, but later on his beliefs evinced a different theological tone. For example: "God governs in the affairs of man. 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 in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel" –Constitutional Convention of 1787. Hardly a strict Deist, then!
"As for Boreing’s quote of Obama and the end of his blog, he should at least have the decency to quote Obama in full, otherwise it sounds like schoolyard sophistry unless, of course, his intentions are to mislead or incite: “Whatever we once were, we’re no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.” (Some may have a problem with religious pluralism, but it is one of the many things that makes our nation truly great)."
I'd say something about missing the point, but I think you are doing a bang up job of that on your own.
(continued)
"Sorry Russell, Secular Humanism did not begin with the Greeks. Humanism may have, but Secular Humanism did not and there is a substantial difference between the two."
I have to believe you are familiar with the Stoics and Epicureans, you referenced Epictetus and Epicurus as support to Jefferson being a Deist. There is direct philosophical linage from Greek humanists to modern humanists "Though different from atheism and religious humanism, secular humanism owes a great deal to both traditions. In fact, secular humanism is best understood as a synthesis of atheism and freethought, from which it derives its cognitive component, and religious humanism, from which it derives its emotional/affective component. Atheism and freethought trace their roots to ancient Greek philosophy, with its emphasis on rational inquiry and curiosity about the workings of nature. Other sources included early Chinese Confucianism, ancient Indian materialists, and Roman Stoics, Epicureans, and Skeptics." (From http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=sh_defined2)
I must be dense, then, and if you could elucidate and delineate the differences between the two, it might help me understand what I am missing here.
"Enlightenment philosophers paved the way for Secular Humanism with the advent of science as the emerging paradigm in Western thought (as opposed to faith) and the need for empirical proof regarding the nature of Truth or truths."
Isn't that what I said? If it wasn't clear, my apologies. My reference to the "melding of Athens and Jerusalem" was aimed right at that.
"The trend away from any sort of theism occurred as the scientific method became the sole methodology for establishing truth and/or fact (however in error this may seem to some of us). ‘God’ or ‘gods’ no longer seemed self-evident. Hence, we have such seemingly outlandish notions as Kant’s noumena and his is/ought dichotomy regarding moral behavior and, of course, the Kiergaardian ‘leap of faith.’ "
I don't know what to do with these sentences. Clearly you are writing from a position I am not familiar with, using Kant and Kierkegaard in that manner.
"As for slavery and the decimation of Native Cultures, let’s begin with the words of Hernan Cortes: “ . . . we fight for the cause of Christ when we fight against idol worshippers[the Aztec people] who, as such, are enemies of Christ since they worship demons instead of the God of kindness . . .”"
I asked for scriptural reference and you quote Cortes? Really?
"Slavery and Christianity in America is no easy feat to tackle. However, many slave owners argued that Africans were the descendents of Ham and, therefore, deserving of enslavement based on Noah’s curse (Genesis 9:25-27). Take, for instance, Jefferson Davis’ little gem of a quote: “[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God . . . it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation . . .” "
A little better, but then you quote Davis. But the teachings of the Bible has to maintain consistency one with another, and build upwards. Davis and the other slave holders are misconstruing the scriptures and ignore the Two Great Commandments. Slavery has been defended by men claiming to be Christians, but there isn't support in the Christian ethos as defined in the New Testament.
"Paul’s letter to Philemon was often used to justify slavery as well. Remember: Onesimus was never set free. Paul simply insists that Philemon accept Onesimus as a Christian brother. However, Paul does not demand that Philemon set Onesimus free. Slave owners often forced Christianity upon their slaves and then twisted the Christian ethos to maintain their slaves’ subservience."
So it isn't part of the Christian ethos if it was twisted and forced, was it? A small point in a letter twisted doesn't compare to what Christ Himself taught.
(continued)
"While I don’t find Rousseau all that compelling,"
And yet you are defending his position.
"my point, as always, is that any ideology, religious or otherwise, is prone to corruption once it is politicized. "
I think you need to define 'politicized' for us, if you please? All polity (Greek, polis) arises from ideology. Do I understand this correctly: what you are saying is any ideology is prone to corruption once it meets any other ideology?
"Faith is about ideals and the recognition of ideals. Faith gauges existence on a vertical axis while politics is decidedly horizontal. "
Ok, I can see what your point is there, but to my way of thinking, faith is what guides the politics.
"For example, Martin Luther galvanized the German princes to ‘smite, slay, and stab, secretly and openly the ‘mad dog’ peasants who were simply demanding more rights from a feudal system of governance. Luther employed a very nuanced and manipulative sort of exegesis to ‘justify’ the slaughter of thousands of peasants for a political end. "
So bad things can done based on bad ideology? That given a sharp enough mind anything can be twisted to met a mad desire?
"To paraphrase Dostoevsky, if Christ were to return today, most Christians would lock him up and throw away the key. "
Probably, but then they aren't Christians if they don't recognize Christ. By the way, what quote are you paraphrasing?
So, after all that and setting aside tangents, is it fair to say that you object to Whittle and Boreing because you don't believe that the Founding Fathers were Christian and intended that the Constitution reflected Christian beliefs? You are positing that they based the Constitution solely in Enlightenment philosophies, correct?
I am trying to understand your position here. I know this isn't a formal debate, rather a discussion in a comments thread, but I am having trouble grasping what you are trying to say and how you are supporting it.
hmmm Russell, I actually like some of your counter arguments, though I don't agree with much of it. Regardless, perhaps you're being a bit too defensive. I'm not attacking Christianity. I am pointing out, however, that the idea that we need to 'go back to our Christian roots' is a loaded statement bereft of any real historical value except as, maybe, some kind of rallying cry. Our country's origin is a lot more heterogeneous than my devoutly conservative brethren would like to admit.
Personally, much of Enlightenment philosophy stinks. Deism is a bore and yawn. However, I'm not about to revise history with baseless statements that verge on comedy (Whittle and Boreing).
"Probably, but then they aren't Christians if they don't recognize Christ. By the way, what quote are you paraphrasing?" This is begging the question! Anyway, I'm paraphrasing parts of 'The Grand Inquisitor' from "Brother's Karamazov."
Take Care.
Anon, I can't make heads or tails of your beliefs.
I will comment on the Dosteovsky parable, however. I have not read The Brothers Karamazov, but I read the parable of the Grand Inquisitor on Wikipedia. It's misapplied in the context of this discussion. In that parable, Christ is condemned by the Inquisition, sentenced to death, but ultimately released. The Grand Inquisitor thought that people could not handle the freedom given them by Christ, and therefore Christ was excluding most people from redemption.
Not only does the Inquisitor demonstrate an astonishingly un-Christian lack of faith and obedience, as Russell correctly pointed out, but the parable itself has little bearing on this discussion. The Christian roots of America are largely Protestant, and the parable illustrates a decidedly un-Protestant point of view. Protestantism holds that most of humanity can handle the freedom accorded us by God and Christ. In fact, that freedom is necessary in order for each of us to have a personal relationship with God, and it is here that the notion of individual rights originates.
Sorry, but your argument, what sense I can make of it, just doesn't hold water.
"hmmm Russell, I actually like some of your counter arguments, though I don't agree with much of it."
You appreciate it for my witty turn of phrase, no? :)
" Regardless, perhaps you're being a bit too defensive."
I think you do both of us a disservice by dismissing my comments as being 'defensive', you attribute a motive to me that isn't true and you close yourself off from thinking about what I wrote.
" I'm not attacking Christianity."
I never thought you were.
"I am pointing out, however, that the idea that we need to 'go back to our Christian roots' is a loaded statement bereft of any real historical value except as, maybe, some kind of rallying cry."
Ok, but you haven't offered any thing that supports that. In fact, Whittle and Boreing supported their cases admirably well for the format.
The country was founded by Christians. Their faith and learning informed the shape and content of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The majority of them clearly stated that the Christian Ethos is the foundation of the country.
Here are few quotes from the Founding men themselves --
Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
John Adams: "The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
Samuel Adams: "Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity... and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system."
Charles Carrol (signer of the Declaration of Independence): "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure... are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments"
James Madison: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
There are many, many more, and they all point the same picture, this is Christian nation, founded on the Christian Ethos. These are not just one offs, by men on the side lines, these are from the men in the middle of it all.
"Our country's origin is a lot more heterogeneous than my devoutly conservative brethren would like to admit."
How so? If you mean different Protestant Christian denominations, I'd agree, but I think you mean something else.
"Personally, much of Enlightenment philosophy stinks."
Let's agree to disagree over the matter of taste, ok?
"Deism is a bore and yawn."
I can't defend Deism, I don't believe in it.
"However, I'm not about to revise history with baseless statements that verge on comedy (Whittle and Boreing)."
But, see, here's the problem, Whittle and Boreing are not making baseless statements trying to revise history, they are making statements rooted in documented history.
(continued)
"Probably, but then they aren't Christians if they don't recognize Christ. By the way, what quote are you paraphrasing?" This is begging the question!"
No, it's not. Nor is it the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
If you claim to follow a code set by a leader and do not recognize that leader, you can't actually be following the code.
We can break this down into this logical form:
P. One is a follower of Christ.
Q. One will recognize Christ.
One doesn't recognize Christ, therefore one isn't a follower of Christ.
If P then Q, but not Q, therefore not P. This is known as modus tollens, and is a valid form.
One will be a follower of Christ if one recognizes Him. One doesn't recognize someone he doesn't follow.
There are a number of scriptures to support this, but I think this one works well -- John 10:27 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:"
So it isn't begging the question at all.
"Anyway, I'm paraphrasing parts of 'The Grand Inquisitor' from "Brother's Karamazov."
Stickwick answered this far better than I could.
As Stickwick pointed out, the story actually supports the claim that freedom has roots in Christianity. Why did the Grand Inquisitor jail Christ? Because Christianity provided freedom to choose, and that allowed people to make the wrong choice. The Inquisitor wanted to force humanity into doing the right thing led by only a few that could choose.
That's the opposite of America, the Founding Fathers wanted freedom, and they based that freedom in the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Aside from the historical evidence that this is true, I believe it is true, I feel it is true that God poured His Spirit over the Found Fathers and they responded by grounding the creation of this nation in the Christian Ethos. I know as long as we heed His words, regardless of how imperfectly we do so, He will bless us. Failure to even try, failure by too many Americans to listen to God and follow Him the best they can, well, He will remove His matchless power and cease to protect this nation.
"Take Care."
You too.
Here's a nice little volley back:)
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." -- James Madison
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" -- John Adams .
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." -- John Adams
"Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself.” – Thomas Jefferson .
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." .
-- Thomas Jefferson
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law."
--Thomas Jefferson
"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
-- George Washington
. . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist." – Benjamin Franklin
Honestly, just a cursory gleaning produces an abundance of sources and quotes that refute Boreing’s essay.
And Last, but, certainly not least, we have Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli (1797-1797) signed by President Adams:
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Of course, it goes without saying, that we’re not going to get anywhere in this debate. We might as well start pushing boulders up a hill and watch them roll back down at this point.
In the context of Stickwick Staper’s analysis of ‘The Grand Inquisitor’ it may not have been fallacious, but in the greater context of the novel and Dostoevksy’s work it seems somewhat faulty. Regardless, I enjoyed your thoughtful response deconstructing the argument. As a side, the Inquisitor reminds me of the likesof Limbaugh and Coulter with their vitriolic hoodwinking of many Christians even though most of their diatribes run completely counter to the Gospel ( Yes yes I know ‘provide quotes please,' but, really there’s just so many to choose from!)
Russell said: “Failure to even try, failure by too many Americans to listen to God and follow Him the best they can, well, He will remove His matchless power and cease to protect this nation. ”
This statement seems antithetical to Christ and the Gospel. America, great nation that it is, is not endowed with any particular blessing by Christ. And we, as Christians, should not feel exceptional about where we live, but, rather humbled and thankful. The freedom and transformation Christ offers to us has nothing to do with nations or civil liberties or the ephemeral allegiances to oh so many things that have no bearing in the afterlife. Rather, even if shackled to a wall in the deepest dungeon one, ideally, can take refuge in his Love and Grace and find a freedom there that no human being can offer another.
Christ, in his Grace and Majesty, is here for all the world. His Death and Resurrection is an unequivocal redemption for ALL of humankind.
Best,
Anon Anonymous :)
"Here's a nice little volley back:)"
I think, Anon, that you are still missing the point, this isn't a tit for tat quote-a-thon. Context, I feel, is missing. Let me see if I can provide. Caveat, I have the flu and am not at my best, if I come across brusque or rough, I apologize.
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." -- James Madison
Right, the Founding Fathers didn't want a State run Church, or a Church run State. This supports that and doesn't detract from Whittle and Boreing's position.
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" -- John Adams ?.
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." -- John Adams
John Adam was a devout Christian, his belief was the the core of Christianity is eternal and unchanging but anything not pertaining to the essence of it should be removed. He was opposed to the Catholic Church on those grounds and these quotes are aimed at the structure and practices of the Catholic Church.
"Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself.” – Thomas Jefferson .
"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
-- George Washington
Sigh. President Washington did not attend any denomination, but he was a firm believer in God.
"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian." – General Orders (2 May 1778); published in Writings of George Washington (1932), Vol.XI, pp. 342-343
He was opposed to having religious practices be codified in the tenants of the government, but many times he voiced his opinion about the importance of basing society on the tenants of Christianity.
Washington’s adopted daughter, Eleanor Parke Custis Lewis, had this to say about the General:
"Is it necessary that any one should [ask], 'Did General Washington avow himself to be a believer in Christianity?' As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic devotion to his country. His mottos were, 'Deeds, not Words'; and, 'For God and my Country.'"
(continued)
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." ? .
-- Thomas Jefferson
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law."
--Thomas Jefferson
I already addressed Jefferson earlier. Did you miss that?
. . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist." – Benjamin Franklin
I already addressed Franklin earlier. Did you miss that?
I did recall another quote from him: "God governs in the affairs of man. 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 in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel" –Constitutional Convention of 1787
This is the opposite of a Deist, so it cannot be said he was a Deist his whole life.
"Honestly, just a cursory gleaning produces an abundance of sources and quotes that refute Boreing’s essay. "
Honestly, you haven't shown you know what you are talking about. You've made generalizations with no support, you've pulled out 'gotcha' quotes that with a bit of historical knowledge and understanding shows their proper place.
(continued)
"And Last, but, certainly not least, we have Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli (1797-1797) signed by President Adams:
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
I was waiting for a reference to the Treaty of Tripoli. This isn't my first time encountering this. I did a lot of research into this, found the scanned documents, read about the political climate, read the lives of the men present, the history of the situation, and everything else I could find or dig up. I can say that this is a non sequitur, a phrase aimed at smoothing over the bumps of diplomacy and not in any way indicative of the Founding Father's core beliefs. Also, this wasn't part of the Arabic translation of the Treaty of Tripoli document for reasons unknown, and was dropped 8 years later when the Treaty was renegotiated. It is in no way, shape or form a core belief of the Founding Fathers. But it fits right in with the idea that the Founding Fathers didn't want to have a State approved Religion.
"Of course, it goes without saying, that we’re not going to get anywhere in this debate. We might as well start pushing boulders up a hill and watch them roll back down at this point."
You are intentionally finding quotes that appear to support your position but ignores everything else said by the same men and doesn't even begin to address the historical context and beliefs. You, are in effect, trying to prove that the beaches of California are black by combing the sand for just the black sand and filling up a jar of just those. I'm not saying there aren't black pieces of sand, but I look at your jar and have to point at the beaches themselves to show that the jar doesn't represent the reality.
The quotes I had referenced are placed in the proper context and support my position. I see no attempts to recreate the story of Sisyphus on my part, yet.
The Founding Fathers fully intended that America would be grounded in Christian Ethos. They also didn't want a State controlled by a Religion, they wanted to do away with the Divine Right of Kings. They set up a government that reflected those ideals. What they wrote, said and did supports what I just said. Whittle and Boreing's argument still stands.
(continued)
"In the context of Stickwick Staper’s analysis of ‘The Grand Inquisitor’ it may not have been fallacious, but in the greater context of the novel and Dostoevksy’s work it seems somewhat faulty. Regardless, I enjoyed your thoughtful response deconstructing the argument. As a side, the Inquisitor reminds me of the likesof Limbaugh and Coulter with their vitriolic hoodwinking of many Christians even though most of their diatribes run completely counter to the Gospel ( Yes yes I know ‘provide quotes please,' but, really there’s just so many to choose from!)"
Then it should have been easy. And this is not germane to the discussion at hand, nor am I interested in defending Limbaugh and Coulter who I neither listen to nor read.
"Russell said: “Failure to even try, failure by too many Americans to listen to God and follow Him the best they can, well, He will remove His matchless power and cease to protect this nation.?”
This statement seems antithetical to Christ and the Gospel. America, great nation that it is, is not endowed with any particular blessing by Christ."
Did I say that this nation was the only nation to ever have God's Hand supporting it? Did I say that this nation, and only this nation, is worthy to receive God's help when following His commandments? No. You've misconstrued what I said, and you are speaking for Christ. The Founding Fathers certainly felt that the Lord's Hand was involved.
"And we, as Christians, should not feel exceptional about where we live, but, rather humbled and thankful."
Humbled and thankful about what, exactly, if not for the awesome opportunity to live here and now? I know I certainly am. Or for the fact Christ died for our sins so we may be forgiven? I am for that, too, but there is nothing mutually exclusive in those two things.
"The freedom and transformation Christ offers to us has nothing to do with nations or civil liberties or the ephemeral allegiances to oh so many things that have no bearing in the afterlife. Rather, even if shackled to a wall in the deepest dungeon one, ideally, can take refuge in his Love and Grace and find a freedom there that no human being can offer another."
Is this in counter to anything I said? I fully agree with you said, but it isn't germane to the topic.
"Christ, in his Grace and Majesty, is here for all the world. His Death and Resurrection is an unequivocal redemption for ALL of humankind."
Amen to that, but again, doesn't address the topic at hand.
"Best,
Anon Anonymous :) "
To you as well.
Honestly, Russell there's nothing that you've stated that seems to effectively counter what I've said though we're BOTH pushing the proverbial boulder, so to speak. My reference to Sisyphus was meant to be a self-criticism as well. You provided a series of quotes to support your position and I did the same. To be critical of my doing so is the veritable Pot-Kettle-Black don't you think?
The Treaty of Tripoli (including Article XI) was read aloud in congress and signed by Adams. We can deconstruct it all we want but it is what it is.
My point regarding Christ is that our nation's prosperity (any nation, for that matter) is not contingent upon our collective faith in Him (at least, that is what I understood by your initial statement). Rather, his Grace is wholly free of contingencies. But this is, perhaps, another debate.
I believe we're at loggerheads on this debate. I'll say it again though, I really appreciate the responses I've received and I especially appreciate the elevated level of debate we've been able to engage each other in (I hope I have, at least). Thank you Stickwick, Thank you Russell.
Vaya Con Dios.
My point regarding Christ is that our nation's prosperity (any nation, for that matter) is not contingent upon our collective faith in Him (at least, that is what I understood by your initial statement). Rather, his Grace is wholly free of contingencies.
Can there be acceptance of that Grace where there is no faith in the Giver?
Allow me to use a scientific analogy. God didn't grace only the people of one nation with senses and reason with which to understand nature -- we all receive these gifts. If we choose to utilize these gifts, if we choose to acknowledge the laws of nature and act in accord with them, all is well. If we choose to dismiss these gifts and act contrary to the laws of nature, things tend to go very badly. It's an obvious fallacy to argue that God was exclusively on the side of those who acted in accord with nature, and this is not what Russell was arguing. Rather, I believe he was stating (analogously) that those who respect the laws of nature are on the side of God, and that's why they reap the benefits. To fail to listen to God is akin to rejecting reason and sense, and thus losing the protective power of God.
So why doesn't everyone enjoy God-given prosperity and protection? God gives Grace freely, but He does not foist it on people. We are free to refuse the gift. Those who accept enjoy the blessings.
"Honestly, Russell there's nothing that you've stated that seems to effectively counter what I've said though we're BOTH pushing the proverbial boulder, so to speak. My reference to Sisyphus was meant to be a self-criticism as well. You provided a series of quotes to support your position and I did the same. To be critical of my doing so is the veritable Pot-Kettle-Black don't you think?"
I'm sorry you see it that way. Let me see if I can explain my purpose and efforts better.
You are tossing out quotes that seem to support your position. However, you are ignoring historical context, the reasoning behind the quotes, the history of the men making the quotes, the context in which the quotes were made, the various philosophical and theological motivations behind the quotes, and quotes to the contrary by not only the same men but also their peers and subsequent generations.
I'm supporting the premise by using quotes that support it, and I've offered further analysis, as light as it may be, to the meaning behind the intent of the quotes. Whittle and Boreing did the same.
"The Treaty of Tripoli (including Article XI) was read aloud in congress and signed by Adams. We can deconstruct it all we want but it is what it is."
I never said it wasn't that. What I was trying to point out is that it is, at most, an outlier and in no way, shape or form indicative of the majority of the Founding Father's beliefs, based on their own words and documents they wrote over the years. And, like I said, the phrase didn't show up in the Arabic translation and it was dropped eight years later when the treaty was renegotiated. I'm not attempting to deconstruct, but rather provide context.
I'm not sure on your background in the sciences, so forgive me if this comes across as simplistic. When you have a theory, you look for as much data as you can find and start seeing if the data supports the theory. In that data set you will find outliers, things that don't fit the theory. Those outliers can fall into two basic categories, something that is just an anomaly and doesn't affect the overall theory at all, or something that destroys your theory. Historical research hews to those principles, but is rarely as neat and tidy as something like Newtonian physics. My theory is that the Founding Fathers designed the Constitution based on Christian Ethos and the learning from the Enlightenment. The documents for the various charters, state constitutions, writings by the men themselves, various quotes made by the men at the core and those supporting them all support this theory in the main. There are things like the small section in the Treaty of Tripoli that do not fit this theory neatly. Further study and investigation has convinced me that this is an outlier of the first sort, an anomaly. There isn't enough supporting evidence but there is much that does counter it.
(continued)
I have done all that I could to understand the intent of the Founding Fathers, and based on the research and supporting evidence, I believe my theory is sound and answers most, if not all, of the available evidence. Other people have arrived to the same conclusion, independent of my efforts, and what they have found supports the theory. I have read countless websites supposing to refute that theory but the bulk of them merely cherry pick quotes that appear to support their anti-theory, offer no analysis of the quotes they use, and ignore anything that is contrary to their position. The few that have offered some explanation are only slightly better than those that don't, but their research is thin and ignores history that they don't like. No attempt is ever made to square up the evidence that doesn't support their position. I feel that their position is untenable and based on a faith that they are right more than anything else. Granted, you can find many websites supporting my theory that do the same thing, but all the solid research and reasoning I have found have been on the side that supports my theory.
In other words, I chose the quotes because I knew the history behind them, either at an individual level or in the greater scheme of things, and I tried to provide a bit of explanation and context as to why. Clearly, I haven't done a good enough job if you think all I am doing is tossing out quotes. I hope this clarifies what I am attempting to do a bit better.
"My point regarding Christ is that our nation's prosperity (any nation, for that matter) is not contingent upon our collective faith in Him (at least, that is what I understood by your initial statement). Rather, his Grace is wholly free of contingencies. But this is, perhaps, another debate. "
I'm not talking solely of temporal prosperity, but also of spiritual growth and temporal protection. Also, what Stickwick rephrased for me "Rather, I believe he was stating (analogously) that those who respect the laws of nature are on the side of God, and that's why they reap the benefits. To fail to listen to God is akin to rejecting reason and sense, and thus losing the protective power of God."
Grace is something beyond just mere mortal grubbing about and is a whole other topic. But aligning oneself and one's nation with nature and nature's God opens the doors to receive the benefits. I don't think we are talking cross purposes here.
"I believe we're at loggerheads on this debate."
There really hasn't been much of a debate, but it has been an interesting discussion.
"I'll say it again though, I really appreciate the responses I've received and I especially appreciate the elevated level of debate we've been able to engage each other in (I hope I have, at least). Thank you Stickwick, Thank you Russell."
It has been civil, thank you :)
Post a Comment
Testing ...
<< Home