Posted on 06/22/2019 11:02:15 AM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
WOW! That is something.
As we have begun, of late, to react to the abhorrent movement, first begun in the late 1800's, and then self-identifying as a "liberal" movement (though not of the classical liberal interpretation), which now has become the driving force in American politics under its new and self-preferred moniker, "Progressive," we have been compelled to recognize it for what it always has been, a deliberate and contrived effort to undermine and overthrow the great principles underlying the philosophy of America's Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Such a "Liberal/Progressive" undertaking was initiated and has been led by many in the so-called "academic" community from the start, as can be documented easily for any whose interest and concern for preservation of the Constitution and its protections for religious liberty motivates them.
Removing any vestiges of religion from the "public square," or any vestiges of so-called "political speech" from religious spaces seems to have been a pet cause for radical "progressives." Why?
Are such ideological cultists so threatened by ideas conveyed by Judeo/Christian communities that they would exclude them from participation in our Republic's matters of state?
This thread aims at another facet of the discussion. For more perspective on the topic of this thread, readers might wish to review Professor Ellis Sandoz's Volumes on Political Sermons of the American Founding Era . . . ." - here.
Query: if sermons from the pulpit are dangerous to the Constitution, and if they are to be excluded from appropriate political debate, then why were these Sermons which pre- and post-date the Constitution, as published by Professor Sandoz, not criticized by the Founders themselves and/or subsequent Supreme Court decisions?
Just asking.
IIRC, preachers and ministers who served as chaplains in the Continental Army so inspired the soldiery through their sermons to fight for the Revolution as an instrument of God’s will, that the British called them “the black robed brigade” and threatened to execute any man of the cloth captured while serving in an American regiment.
In other words, if the NFL and NASCAR had started around 1700, the revolution would never have occurred?...
John Witherspoon?
http://www.adherents.com/people/pw/John_Witherspoon.html
He signed the Declaration of Independence and he tutored James Madison for a long time.
Only a fool would discount the clergies impact on the American Revolution.
A facet of this that few are aware of is that in much of the American colonies, and for many years thereafter, very small towns and settlements were everywhere. Typically, over unimproved trails, a day’s walk by foot from each other.
Some traces of this density can still be seen in very “backwoods” areas. A big hint is that each tiny settlement has its own cemetery.
In any event, these settlements were kept connected with itinerant preachers, typically on horse, mule or donkey. They came to preach and sermonize, and were vital in spreading the news, and sometimes even the mail. In exchange, each settlement would put them up for a night or two, and feed them. Certainly there were not enough of them to provide a preacher at their church every week, so worship services were at almost random intervals.
Baptisms, marriages, funerals, etc., were also when the opportunity presented itself. But these preachers kept society knit together.
Something to ponder indeed...Not sure if they would have found these activities to be pagan or too 'Roman gladiatorial' in nature...Most especially on Sundays...
There no use crying about it — Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson, and that is the end of it.”
— Horace Walpole
bump for later
Ordered one for myself and one for my pastor.
Great post; ping. Thanks. BUMP!
Thanks for the ping!
And very good post. And contrary to the secularist, it was the effects of Christianity even enabled this.
To which can be added Alexis de Tocqueville (1805—1859. French political thinker and historian; best known for his two volume, “Democracy in America”) — The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God...Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same...
In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth...
There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated, In Europe almost all the disturbances of society arise from the irregularities of domestic life. To despise the natural bonds and legitimate pleasures of home is to contract a taste for excesses, a restlessness of heart, and fluctuating desires. Agitated by the tumultuous passions that frequently disturb his dwelling, the European is galled by the obedience which the legislative powers of the state exact. But when the American retires from the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace...
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live...
Thus religious zeal is perpetually warmed in the United States by the fires of patriotism. These men do not act exclusively from a consideration of a future life; eternity is only one motive of their devotion to the cause. If you converse with these missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be surprised to hear them speak so often of the goods of this world, and to meet a politician where you expected to find a priest.
They will tell you that "all the American republics are collectively involved with each other; if the republics of the West were to fall into anarchy, or to be mastered by a despot, the republican institutions which now flourish upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean would be in great peril. It is therefore our interest that the new states should be religious, in order that they may permit us to remain free." (Democracy in America, Volume I Chapter XVII, 1835; http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/religion/ch1_17.htm)
• There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equaled by their ignorance and their debasement, while in America one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world fulfills all the outward duties of religion with fervor.
Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country. (Democracy in America, [New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), pp. 331, 332, 335, 336-7, 337; http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/religion/ch1_17.htm)
A quote often attributed to Tocqueville but which is not documented by any early sources, states,
• Not until I went into the churches of American and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
However, in Catholicism it is stated,
The entire encyclical [of Pope Leo XIII in Diuturnum] is worth reading in full, but these selections should put to a definitive end any idea among Catholics that a repeat of our revolutionary war may be justified. This becomes even clearer when we take seriously the fact that our initial Revolutionary War was illegitimate and cooperation with it immoral; although patriotic feelings often cloud this plain fact, the “social contract” justification for revolutionary war espoused in the Declaration of Independence was seriously flawed. The bloodshed that followed from it was blood shed in a deplorably immoral way. Any thought of repeating this war must be vehemently rejected among Catholics as engaging in serious sin. -https://catholicexchange.com/121409
So, the Pope fought many times against Muslims and Anglicans, but Americans fighting lawless Anglicans run amok is morally reprehensible.
bump
Thank you for posting this excellent piece.
Actually there is a difference btwn a church as a theocracy - which Rome wrongly established itself as - fighting to regain land or to defend itself, versus rebelling against leadership to form a new entity , which is how the NT church began.
Yet what Catholicism means by stating that the "Revolutionary War was illegitimate and cooperation with it immoral" is that it was so since she, as the self-proclaimed supreme power, did not sanction it. For she herself sanctions rebellion to authority, requiring secular RC rulers to,
exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church ... But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics , who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. (Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215 (emphasis mine); http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)
Scripturally, obedience to authority is required - the powers that be being ordained of God (Rm. 13:1-7) - except in instances when such would clearly be contrary to the laws of God. (Acts 4:19; 5:29) However, it seems to me that when a government fundamentally opposed to the latter, so that its subjects cannot live in peace and freedom even though they obey the just laws of the government (Scripture being the basis for this), then God can manifestly raise up an another authoritative entity, religious or secular, for the people to obey. Or God can even allow another government to replace one irregardless in accordance with His eternal purposes.
1st. century Jews had no authority to follow (what those who sat in the seat of Moses considered to be) an itinerant Preacher from Galilee, nor the apostles whom He appointed, but as Gamaliel wisely judged (in the light of Scripture and history),
And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. (Acts 5:38-39)
And in another case, we have the arrogant but rightful (by inheritance) successor to king Solomon, Rehoboam, "answered the people roughly, and forsook the old men’s counsel that they gave him," then 10* of the tribes responded. "What portion have we in David..." "For the cause was from the Lord," (1 Kings 12:13,16) as prophesied, to give all but one tribe* to the industrious but future idolator Jeroboam (whom Solomon had made ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph) "Because that they [the one nation overall, under Solomon] have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians..."(11:11,29-38;
God also promised Jeroboam,
And it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command thee, and wilt walk in my ways, and do that is right in my sight, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did; that I will be with thee, and build thee a sure house, as I built for David, and will give Israel unto thee. And I will for this afflict the seed of David, but not for ever. Solomon sought therefore to kill Jeroboam. And Jeroboam arose, and fled into Egypt, unto Shishak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon. (1Ki 11:38-40)
Both kingdoms were idolatrous under their respective leaders, however, even though this split of the kingdom was by rebellion to a despotic man, resulting in a divided kingdom (Israel, or "Ephraim" and Judah), yet as the powers that be are of God, then the subjects of each were bound to obey their respective leaders insofar in instances when it required disobedience to God or conscience.
The issue is whether the 10 tribes that rebelled against the despotic king Rehoboam were were acting illegitimately and that cooperation with this revolution was immoral, as Catholicism charges the colonialists with regarding the Revolutionary War.
Meanwhile, all you hear from some Catholics is how Catholics discriminated against by the colonialists, despite the above position and the requirement for RC rulers to exterminate all she pointed out to be heretics.
Also related to this is how Rome treated the modern state of Israel, which statehood it refuse to acknowledge for a long time?
*the twelve tribes did not so divide themselves, that Jeroboam really received ten tribes and Rehoboam only one or only two. In reality there were three tribes that fell to the kingdom of Judah, and only nine to the kingdom of Israel, Ephraim and Manasseh being reckoned as two tribes, since the tribe of Levi was not counted in the political classification. The kingdom of Judah included ( Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament)
That's what happens when you give the Presbyterians too much beer. Never would have happened if they were Baptists. :O)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.