Posted on 10/23/2002 3:28:57 PM PDT by gubamyster
I believe it would be more accurate to say "a culture that is virtuous or religious..." Without virtue, the culture will inevitable sway toward corruption, as indeed it has. John Adams said our Constitution was "written for a moral and religious people and it is inadequate for the governmentof any other." It is now inadequate for our people and this can be clearly seen in the absolute perverse reinterpretation of its precepts. When corrupt Men ("darwinian gods")interpret this noble document, they invariably adjust it to their bankrupt and godless worldviews (i.e. the Supreme Court). America in the 1700s was a Christian nation with Christian founders. Today, it is a pagan nation with pagan leaders.
The missing part of the equation is TIME. Power wielded over long time TENDS TO CORRUPT. Persons of great moral stature require longer for the process to work, and might, in the cases of some VERY RARE individuals (like George Washington), have the process of becoming corrupt be longer then the individual's lifespan. Less moral individuals become corrupt more rapidly.
This process is why TERM LIMITS would be effective in limiting corrpution in government
The President of the United States is one of the most powerful men on the planet Earth. To say that anyone who has been elected to that office either has failed to grab power, or is not a power grabber, is equally wrong.
Something I've noted on various threads that discuss Islam is that Moslems seem to think that they'll be justified before Allah by their actions, whereas in Christianity, faith alone justifies you. I wonder what the actual consensus among Moslem leaders/theologians is on the issue.
Yes, I do mean that Americans were Christians - fully 98% of them. I do not mean that our govt. was a theocracy. The Founders purposefully established a civil government, but one that is grounded in judeo-christian moral principles and laws. This can clearly be seen in their reliance on Christian thinkers like Locke ("life, liberty and property"), Blackstone (God is the ultimate lawgiver), and Montesquieu (separation of powers). It can also be seen in their writings and speeches, and at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 when they prayed for hours (to Allah? nope) for God's guidance and wisdom (do deeists do that? nope).
I find it sad and infuriating that public schools (even universities!) are teaching kids that our founders were diests - this is a bald-faced lie and the evidence is overwhelming that it is a lie.
Here in the Chicago area, Carol Marin, working for one of the major networks, put together an evening newscast that was mercifully short on "if it bleeds, it leads". Fires, murders, etc., were given short shrift. More analysis, etc. Instead of "Here's another high-rise burning down", it was "Why are all these high-rises burning down? Lack of law enforcement? Corrupt landlords?".
A tremendous critical success. A ratings failure. I don't think it lasted a year. Don't blame the media; they're selling you what you want to buy.
Second place goes to partisanship. Congressmen need to be their own men (or women as the case may be). Why should the perceived good of the party be put above the good of the nation? Why should Congressmen be punished for standing up for what they believe in?
Who rises to the top of a party, but someone who puts party above all else? And once there, he sees his job as perpetuating the institution that has fed him and expects him to run it well.
Here in the great state of Illinios, few candidates raise their own money. They get it from the party. So, there are few independent voices in the State legislature, outside of the party leaders in both branches. I'll give Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill), who by sheer coincidence is at my workplace about 20 feet from me as I type this. He spent his own money and has defied the state party structures, putting some independent U.S. Attorneys who for the first time in a long time have no ties to either party, or to the local money interests, and are putting people in jail. Fitzgerald has his faults, but he also has my vote (he's not up in this cycle, though).
The other main problem is the fact that when the country was founded, the concept of professional politician didn't exist. You could and would vote your conscience because you didn't expect public service to be your main source of income; you had your farm or business for that. It also helped that being an elected official wasn't a full time job. Finally, it helped that it didn't take a fortune to get elected to office. Handbills are a lot cheaper than TV time, and thus you didn't spend all your waking hours not dedicated to doing your job to raising money so that it could continue to be your job.
Name the deists - otherwise drop it. And you are wrong about the difference. I think you should look up the definition of deism.
These are (1) a belief in the existence of the Deity, (2) the obligation to reverence such a power, (3) the identification of worship with practical morality, (4) the obligation to repent of sin and to abandon it, and, (5) divine recompense in this world and the next.
Further readings on the page lead to the rejection of any particular revelation of supernatural origin.
According to this site, we have:
Deism is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1941, as: "[From Latin Deus, God.Deity] The doctrine or creed of a Deist." And Deist is defined in the same dictionary as: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason."
A prime proponent of Deism in the U.S. in the 18th century was Thomas Paine, of Common Sense fame. Read here for what he himself said on this. I believe that everything you can read in these sources is consistent with the statement I made. If you have something to the contrary, please cite it and I'd be glad to review it.
Here's a site that treats both sides of the question as to whether any of the founding fathers (Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, etc.) were Deists. I've read sources where Washington, while invoking the teachings of Christ, didn't necessarily accept that they had a supernatual origin. And while he attended church services with his wife, he didn't take communion. If you didn't take communion at least twice a year in the Anglican church of that time, you weren't considered a member of the Church. And given that he deliberately avoided communion, he probably didn't consider himself one.It can be debated back and forth, but it would appear that while almost all the Founding Fathers accepted the existence of God, a 100% committment to a belief in any given supernatural origin for teachings and philosophies is questionable.
These are (1) a belief in the existence of the Deity, (2) the obligation to reverence such a power, (3) the identification of worship with practical morality, (4) the obligation to repent of sin and to abandon it, and, (5) divine recompense in this world and the next.
Further readings on the page lead to the rejection of any particular revelation of supernatural origin.
According to this site, we have:
Deism is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1941, as: "[From Latin Deus, God.Deity] The doctrine or creed of a Deist." And Deist is defined in the same dictionary as: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason."
A prime proponent of Deism in the U.S. in the 18th century was Thomas Paine, of Common Sense fame. Read here for what he himself said on this. I believe that everything you can read in these sources is consistent with the statement I made. If you have something to the contrary, please cite it and I'd be glad to review it.
Here's a site that treats both sides of the question as to whether any of the founding fathers (Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, etc.) were Deists. I've read sources where Washington, while invoking the teachings of Christ, didn't necessarily accept that they had a supernatual origin. And while he attended church services with his wife, he didn't take communion. If you didn't take communion at least twice a year in the Anglican church of that time, you weren't considered a member of the Church. And given that he deliberately avoided communion, he probably didn't consider himself one.It can be debated back and forth, but it would appear that while almost all the Founding Fathers accepted the existence of God, a 100% committment to a belief in any given supernatural origin for teachings and philosophies is questionable.
Secondly, there are only 2 founders that I have ever found that can be considered deists - Franklin, Wilson, and there may be one other I missed. That's it! The rest are Christians, except Jefferson who called himself a Christian but was not orthodox in any sense.
Thirdly, deism as practiced in the 18th century revolved around a deity that is not involved in the day to day operaiton of the world or universe. He created, then stepped back and thereafter takes no part at all in life. This deistic god wound up the universe like a clock and backed off. Since he is not involved, and since deists do NOT believe miracles or divine revelation are possible, there is also no need for prayer since God does not intervene in the affairs of men. I'm afraid you need something better than Webster's which gives you a modern defintion.
Further, I can cite many sources (not the least of which are Washington's own 97 volumes) that clearly indicate the man was a Christian.
Jefferson and Franklin were not - so what. Jefferson was not even involved in the Constitutional process.
You would be hard pressed to name any others because the rest of the founders (except Ethan Allen) are Christians.
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.