Posted on 11/22/2004 8:39:41 PM PST by AVNevis
I was doing reasearch this evening for a debate tournament I am participating in a couple of weeks when I came upon this quote:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams
It seems to me this just nails the aclu argument about separation of church and state. Here we have a founding father stating that the constitution does not work if the people are not moral and religious. It seems to me we should be using this quote much more often in debates with liberals.
Western Europe is but a shell of its former greatness. And how many Muslims are living amongst them now, is it eighteen million or more?
Secularism cannot recognize the evils of the cult of Islam until it's very late, because it 'tolerates' and 'embraces' sacrilage like sodomy, public lewdness, pornography, prostitution, socialism, and every other form of anti-Christian behavior there is, including the corruption of the Islamic cult. Islam is but one of the many consequences Western Europeans are reaping from their ever-growing deficiency of Christian wisdom and virtue.
Another great consequence of their growing secularism is the decimation of their population due to abortion, while Islam grows and spreads like a cancer in their bowels.
Unfortunately there are many who are not decent, and many who use the line of reasoning (if it can be called "reasoning") that each person should just think up their own moral guidelines, if they want some.
I don't know why these people don't see that by each person depending on his/her own mind, we wind up with skin lampshades, cattle cars full of Jews, and extermination camps.
And 40+ million babies killed before breathing air.
Vlaams Blok.
They were banned on the grounds that they are "racist", primarily because they want to reverse Belgium's insane immigration policies.
It seems to me this means we can strike Belgium from the list of the world's democracies...
I've spoken with a few Flemings, and to a man, they aren't too happy with the Walloons, and though not all of them support dividing the country in two, most of them did...
Your assertion of these "facts" does not make them true. You offer only scattered citations to show any of this, while the vast body of works by the founding fathers shows it to be just the opposite of what you claim.
That 15% figure I think may be from an historial similar to Michael Belisle, who claimed that most early Americans did not own guns. It doesn't pass the smell test. There were no 'evangelicals' per se, amongst the founders. And although they professed belief in a 'higher power' they did not publicly espouse a personal belief in a living Savior, for the most part, as we who are evangelicals do today.
No, they were from what would today be considered "mainline" churches. The "evangelical" movement was a late development with its roots in the 19th century, so of course there were no evangelicals among the founding fathers. Since 93% of the Founding Fathers were members of congregations that required a public confession of faith in the tenets of that religion, then your claim that they did not do so is false.
Saying so does not demean the limited faith of our Fathers. They did the best the could with what light they had. But it does put the lie to the light... that we are a Christian nation... which is the goal of certain political-religious movements in the united states notably the chalcedonians and wall builders...
Today, more than 85% of the population claims to be Christian. That makes us a Christian nation... but we have a secular government. YOU may want to claim that the mere presence of non-Christian citizens trumps the overall nature of the populace, but that is the tail wagging the dog. What we are NOT is a nation that requires its citizens to be one or the other.
The government of this nation is to be TOLERANT of all religion, including the NON religious beliefs of agnostics, athiests and pratitioners of cults (as long as they do not harm their followers or the social order at large.)
That does not mean that the government is to be INTOLERANT of religion. It certainly does not mean the government should be HOSTILE to religion. It means that the government should not be involved at all.
That is the price nations which absolve abortion must pay.
The problem with moral absolutes is that there are so many to choose from! On the other hand, you can explain in plain, rational English (without resorting to religion) why you think abortion is immoral and destructive to society. Why not have both your moral absolutes and your faculties for reason?
I'm only relating my experiences not promoting someone else's.
I apologise, I misunderstood,I took No Sir, Thank You
as other than an aproval of the message.Perhaps it's something in my coffee?
Even John Adams can have a change of heart and mind.
"One great advantage of the Christian religion is that it brings the great principle of nature and nations - Love your neighbor as yourself, and do unto others as you would that others should do to you, - to the knowledge, belief, and veneration of the whole people...No other institution for education, no kind of political discipline, could diffuse this kind of necessary information, so universally among all ranks and descriptions of citizens". (from Adams' diary, entered on August 14, 1796).
>>over-indulgence bears a tremendous penalty.<<
I have seen many a family of which I was thankful that I was not a part of because of the over-indulgence in religious beliefs expressed therein.
Over-indulgence can starve a person of other needed wealths also.
No problem. Glad we were able to resolve it quickly.
There are some basic moral absolutes which are common to all monotheist religions, and even some which aren't like Buddhism.
I'd list the basics as:
No murder.
No fornication. (Which includes other sexual vices such as sex with children, incest, same sex acts, bestiality, and so on.)
No adultery.
No theft.
No lying (especially in court or as a public statement.)
And then there's ones such as:
Respect the elderly.
Protect the helpless.
THese are off the top of my head. I am naturally familiar with the 10 Commandments; I am also famliliar with the Yamas and Niyamas of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, the Vedic system of morality, and have a passing knowledge of Buddhist ethics. Judaic morality as written in the Torah is the same as Christian morality.
Abortion? It's wrong to murder. But if someone rejects moral absolutes as given in the religions of the world, there's nothing at all with which to refute Peter Singer. If you aren't familiar with him, do a FR search.
I'm not advocating that all the above should warrant jail sentences when not followed. But if the "don'ts" are encouraged and glorified, and the "do's" are disparaged, then everything goes to hell in short order.
In rereading this
>>I don't know why these people don't see that by each person depending on his/her own mind, we wind up with skin lampshades, cattle cars full of Jews, and extermination camps.<<
Each of us depending on his/her own mind to determine what track in life we should follow. We are constantly making changes of a few degrees one way or the other. Occasionally, we will do a complete 180 when we see we have been following the wrong track.
This is what personal liberty and freedom is all about. We have the choice to decide for ourselves which track to follow.
The last thing I want is for a religious leader to demand that I follow his chosen track. I refuse to live in a dictatorship.
If some one in power wants me to make skin lampshades for him, I'll do my utmost to annihilate him, not honor him. But this is my choice. I have seen the beauty of personal liberty and freedom and refuse to allow it to be taken from me.
The founding fathers would have been happy to debate you on the existence of God, or anything else; and they they would have been quite comfortable communicating on a rational basis.
But the post-structuralists, who by the way dominate our educational system, are brilliant at turning logic on its ear. Without logic, intelligent men have no purpose. While the uber post-structuralists make the case that their reasoning does not neglect logic, they represent an infinitesimal minority of those who use it. Its frequent companion is Marxism, and they complement one another well.
Why the "especially in court or as a public statement"?
When the justice system fail the people, why should we continue to honor it? Our Court system no longer seeks justice, just legal controls of the people.
Is this the type of court you mean?
Have you ever read this White Paper?
I can see that you haven't thought this out clearly.
Maybe you're rather young. Determining one's track in life has nothing to do with the moral absolutes I listed above. Nothing at all. Unless one's track in life consists of engaging in murder, rape, theft, embezzelment, lying, and so on.
You are equating theocracy with a government informed by non-sectarian moral absolutes. The two are wholely different. There are other choices than dictatorship and anarchy.
What you're describing - post structuralism - is actually a kind of cult. A belief system to which people swear fealty, but cannot be explained rationally, nor understood intelligently. Unless the cult beliefs are accepted first, as a kind of background.
That's why they hate conservatives. We're apostate heretics. Even though we're not monolithic.
When I said "in a court or as a public statement" I meant in terms of legality. Obviously people shouldn't lie even at home, generally speaking, unless they need to in order to protect themselves and those around them.
For instance, if a thief breaks into your house and asks where your guns are, it would be stupid to tell him the truth.
But lying in a court of law or as a public statement should be illegal.
Whether the courts currently are full of crap or not is not my point.
You are absolutely right, on some things however answer these questions with the truth so I can understand your righteousness
on an evil extreem Islamic faction.
Where did you get your facts about what it tolerates and embraces?
How many kids have you adopted, fed, or provided medical assistance to? Do you believe God wants the other many millions to starve to death or die for lack of medical assistance.After suffering in ways you can not imagin.
Help me understand. Your simply stated but complex views.
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.