The Paganization of America

America as we see it today is not the same nation as the America in which my parents grew up. It is certainly not the America that was founded over 230 years ago by a group of patriots who had just won a war of liberation against the most powerful monarchy in the world at that time. These changes, this degradation of America, has accelerated in the last 40 years, however, as a moral sea change swept over this land, driven by the purposeful rejection of America's Christian foundations and the system of government that was influenced and established under their auspices.

Let us make no mistake — while America was not founded as a Christian nation in the sense of the establishment of Christianity as the state religion, nevertheless America was a Christian nation at her inception. The entire warp and woof of society was permeated with the biblical worldview. Our Founders, realizing the truth of the Christian doctrine of the inherent sinfulness of man, established a government in which power was divided at the federal level between three competing, contrary branches with specifically-defined powers. Further, political power was divided between what was supposed to be a relatively weak federal government and the state governments. The intention underlying this choice was to dilute the ability of any one man or group of people from being able to exercise power, naturally corruptible, over their fellow citizens. This intention, we must understand, was a spiritual and moral one, based upon biblical understandings of the nature of man....

> The Paganization of America
Does this author actually know what paganism is and how it differs from heathen beliefs?
During the early centuries of the Roman Empire when trade with eastern cultures was cultivated. Buddhist merchants came west. Regional heathen religious system that adopted some small part of the Buddhist belief and morals system learned from these merchants and traders were referred to as pagan, taking the term Pagan from the name of the capital or seat of Buddhist influence in the city of Pagan, Burma.

It's not even debatable.

It IS debatable, because the article specifically says,

"Our Founders, realizing the truth of the Christian doctrine of the inherent sinfulness of man, established a government in which power was divided at the federal level between three competing, contrary branches with specifically-defined powers. Further, political power was divided between what was supposed to be a relatively weak federal government and the state governments. The intention underlying this choice was to dilute the ability of any one man or group of people from being able to exercise power, naturally corruptible, over their fellow citizens."

Notice, it speaks of intentions, not results. What is inarguable is that the Founders who crafted our Constitution instituted these checks and balances as a means of diluting power. That was their purpose with it. As such, your whole argument is a rabbit trail.

Whether Patrick Henry thought it would actually work or not is really quite irrelevant to what the article actually said.

Obviously, Henry was correct.

He was correct, but for the wrong reasons, which in this particular case, makes his correctness purely incidental.

He was correct, not in his specific argument against the Constitution, but merely because human nature being what it is, *any* governmental system (even the anti-federalist one that Henry originally favoured before he moved the federalist position later in life) will naturally be bound to degrade as unscrupulous individuals figure out ways to "work the system." Ergo, even in a system which sought to divide power among different branches, there will always be people who figure out how to suborn it, or else who just try to get around it entirely. Same thing happened with the Articles of Confederation - the men in positions of authority under the Articles were no more paragons of selfless virtue than any others.

“This, sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.”

And what would you (or Patrick Henry) replace it with?
I can think of no better plan. Anytime man tries to rule himself it is always subject to the morals of man.
I just think this form of government is “less bad” than the rest.

No, it isn't debatable. What's not debatable? Go back and read---what is not debatable is that Patrick Henry was specifically attacking the so-called checks and balances of the Constitution. You denied it and suggested that Henry wasn't speaking specifically about the Constitutional checks and balances. I provided quotes that conclusively prove you to be incorrect on that point.

The framers and supporters of the Constitution were not limiting government--they were expanding government. They created whole new bodies and offices and powers of national government where there were none before. The "federalists" were for bigger, stronger government.

In a way, the Constitution was the first great American political boondoggle. It was created in secret. It didn't do what it was supposed to do, and once passed, it's impossible to get rid of it.

During the early centuries of the Roman Empire when trade with eastern cultures was cultivated. Buddhist merchants came west. Regional heathen religious system that adopted some small part of the Buddhist belief and morals system learned from these merchants and traders were referred to as pagan, taking the term Pagan from the name of the capital or seat of Buddhist influence in the city of Pagan, Burma.

Incorrect. The term "pagan" comes from the Latin paganus, which originally referred to country rustics in general, but acquired the meaning of those who adhered to the "old ways" (from a later Roman Empire perspective) of belief in the polytheistic system of the old gods, as opposed to the "new fangled" Christianity that was being institutionalised in the Empire. The people who lived in the country were the ones who clung to the old gods, as Christianity was largely an urban religion for its first three or four centuries.

Sorry, but no. None of the quotes you have provided specifically deal with the checks and balances system that is discussed in the article. Henry makes general criticism of the Constitution, but not of the division of powers as it is specifically enumerated in the document. He merely rants about "parts federal and partly national" - which is an entirely different issue. In only one quote you provided does he actually use the terms "checks" and "balances" - and again, he does so in a general way that does not address what the article specifically says.

True - but deceptively so. They were for a "bigger, stronger" government than what was provided for under the Articles of Confederation. The reason they did so was because the Articles had become a manifest failure to all after a little more than a decade. The Federalists were seeking a balance of powers that would secure liberty while also allowing the government o be able to fulfill its legitimate federative and arbitrative roles. Face it - the anti-Federalist document of choice was a failure, and if allowed to continue, would have resulted in an America that was easy pickings for the British to reclaim as state squabbled and warred against state.

In a way, the Constitution was the first great American political boondoggle. It was created in secret. It didn't do what it was supposed to do, and once passed, it's impossible to get rid of it.

I'm unsure as to how you figure it was "passed in secret" when it had to be ratified by 9 of the 13 then-existing states, and that it was common knowledge aropund Philadelphia that a ConCon was going on.

Henry was absolutely correct that the change in FORM of government, from a federal system to a consolidated national system, would result in a loss of liberty.

Well, I think you're misreading PH then, because he himself says that the Constitution still presented a federal system (which is obvious to anyone with half a brain), while instituing aspects of a national system - specifically in the area of national defence and our dealings with foreign powers. These are legitimate federative powers of a national government, and by opposing this, Henry was simply flat wrong. As great as he was, if he really thought that a system whereby some of the states could be suborned into war with others, or into neutrality in the face of a foreign invasion, was a good thing, then he was blinkered on that point.

And what would you (or Patrick Henry) replace it with?

Henry would have kept the weak federative (or perhaps confederal is a better term) system found in the Articles of Confederation. The problem, though, is that the Articles were an abject failure, and nearly brought our infant country to ruin. They were the first great example in American history of beautiful theory failing in practice.

Further, even if the states retained vastly greater power over the federal government, this merely means that the several states would have been the primary agents of tyranny, rather than the federal government. Let us not forget that Henry's real beef was with the notion that any particular system was going to be able to completely overrule the natural proclivities of man to tyranny and oppression of his neighbours. You would have those same proclivities - and the same tyranny - even if you eliminated ALL government and went with the completely anarchic system advocated by some radical libertarians.

These changes, this degradation of America, has accelerated in the last 40 years, however, as a moral sea change swept over this land, driven by the purposeful rejection of America's Christian foundations and the system of government that was influenced and established under their auspices.

Fact: Higher education and religious belief are inversely correlated.
That could be the result of being exposed to ever longer periods of liberal education and/or indocrination OR could be the result of being exposed to knowledge and/or scientific evidence which is incompatible with accepted religious doctrine as to how we got here.
Regardless, we can safely assume that as a greater percentage of Americans achieves higher levels of education, religious beliefs and participation will continue to decline.
Many churches will become more socially active in order to stay relevant, but the decline is inevitable.
Islam may be an exception to the trend because of higher reproductive rates in that community as well as generally lower levels of education.

Well, I think you're misreading PH then, because he himself says that the Constitution still presented a federal system (which is obvious to anyone with half a brain),

Incorrect again.

We are told that this government, collectively taken, is without an example; that it is national in this part, and federal in that part, &c. We may be amused, if we please, by a treatise of political anatomy. In the brain it is national; the stamina are federal; some limbs are federal, others national. The senators are voted for by the state legislatures; so far it is federal. Individuals choose the members of the first branch; here it is national. It is federal in conferring general powers, but national in retaining them. It is not to be supported by the states; the pockets of individuals are to be searched for its maintenance. What signifies it to me that you have the most curious anatomical description of it in its creation? To all the common purposes of legislation, it is a great consolidation of government.
You are not to have the right to legislate in any but trivial cases; you are not to touch private contracts; you are not to have the right of having arms in your own defence; you cannot be trusted with dealing out justice between man and man. What shall the states have to do? Take care of the poor, repair and make highways, erect bridges, and so on, and so on? Abolish the state legislatures at once. What purposes should they be continued for? Our legislature will indeed be a ludicrous spectacle — one hundred and eighty men marching in solemn, farcical procession, exhibiting a mournful proof of the lost liberty of their country, without the power of restoring it. But, sir, we have the consolation that it is a mixed government; that is, it may work sorely on your neck, but you will have some comfort by saying, that it was a federal government in its origin.
I beg gentlemen to consider: lay aside your prejudices. Is this a federal government? Is it not a consolidated government for almost every purpose?

Henry pointing out that the constitutional system is not a federal system, as anyone can see. He rightly mocks this idea of a part-national, part-federal system. You end up with an all-national system.

The problem, though, is that the Articles were an abject failure,

The delegates were sent to Philly to amend the articles. The topic had been much discussed and remedies for what ailed them at the time were well known and agreed upon. We'll never know what would have been had the delegates done their duty and amended the articles, because they were already plotting to form a national government before they got to Philly.

and nearly brought our infant country to ruin.

We weren't an infant country. We were a Union of 13 separate and distinct countries, who formed a confederacy of amity and shared purpose. Brothers and sisters, not one being.

You say that as if it's a bad thing. In fact, that was supposed to be the whole point. You argue for national domination. Well, you got it!

Thanks. Just google Virginia ratification debates. Patrick Henry’s June 5th speech is seminal. Also see the antifederalist papers, especially 32-33, 39, 78-80.

virginia ratification
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_04.htm

antifed papers
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/

they weren’t correct about everything. but they hit enough points to impress anyone with an open mind.

The reason they did so was because the Articles had become a manifest failure to all after a little more than a decade.

That's a straw men. The Articles were open to amendment. In fact, that's what the "framers" were tasked to do, but as we know, they had other ideas. Hamilton brilliantly used Madison as his sock puppet and got the vigorous empire he desired.

I'm unsure as to how you figure it was "passed in secret"

That's because I didn't say that. I said it was "created" in secret. Which it was.

As for your denials regarding Henry's attack on checks and balances, I can't help you if you look at 2+2 and get 5.

In the British government there are real balances and checks: in this system there are only ideal balances. Till I am convinced that there are actual efficient checks, I will not give my assent to its establishment. The President and senators have nothing to lose. They have not that interest in the preservation of the government that the king and lords have in England. They will, therefore, be regardless of the interests of the people. The Constitution will be as safe with one body as with two. It will answer every purpose of human legislation. How was the constitution of England when only the commons had the power? I need not remark, that it was the most unfortunate era when that country returned to king, lords, and commons, without sufficient responsibility in the king. When the commons of England, in the manly language which became freemen, said to their king, You are our servant, then the temple of liberty was complete. From that noble source have we derived our liberty: that spirit of patriotic attachment to one’s country, that zeal for liberty, and that enmity to tyranny, which signalized the then champions of liberty, {166} we inherit from our British ancestors. And I am free to own that, if you cannot love a republican government, you may love the British monarchy; for, although the king is not sufficiently responsible, the responsibility of his agents, and the efficient checks interposed by the British Constitution, render it less dangerous than other monarchies, or oppressive tyrannical aristocracies. What are the checks of exposing accounts? The checks upon paper are inefficient and nugatory. Can you search your President’s closet? Is this a real check? We ought to be exceedingly cautious in giving up this life, this soul, of money, this power of taxation, to Congress. What powerful check is there here to prevent the most extravagant and profligate squandering of the public money?

Patrick Henry, June 9th, 1788

Not a federal system:

And here I would make this enquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late Federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated Government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated Government is demonstrably clear, and the danger of such a Government, is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration of those Gentlemen,—but, Sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, We, the People. My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask who authorised them to speak the language of, We, the People, instead of We, the States? States are the characteristics, and the soul of a confederation. If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated National Government of the people of all the States.

Patrick Henry, June 4th, 1788

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.