Posted on 09/25/2012 7:24:27 PM PDT by billflax
YHAOS, sorry, my intention in Post #76 was to include you, but must have overlooked including in address line. Later, added #80 in response to Slyfox.
Technically we are a secular government that does make a general acknowledgement of a creator. The federal government does not make laws advocating one religion over another. That being said, we are a nation composed of mostly Christians (but that is changing).
Try reading The Great Heresies (scroll down to or search for the words "THE MODERN PHASE").
In the meantime, while looking for that section, here's a quote I just stumbled over which describes the arguments on this thread:
"There is no essential doctrine such that if we can agree upon it we can differ about the rest: as for instance, to accept immortality but deny the Trinity. A man will call himself a Christian though he denies the unity of the Christian Church; he will call himself a Christian though he denies the presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament; he will cheerfully call himself a Christian though he denies the Incarnation."
And here's another quote which describes the OWS / Dem / Communist camp to a T:
"Meanwhile the third element is appearing quite manifestly: the modern world is getting fuller and fuller of men who so hate industrial capitalism that this hatred is the motive of all they do and think. They would rather destroy society than wait for reform, and they propose methods of reform which are worse than the evils to be remedied-they care far more for the killing of their enemy than they do for the life of the world."
And finally, here is a longer selection of quotes which describes the modern attack on reason, relevant to your post:
" There is here a contradiction in reason, but the modern phase, the anti-Christian advance, has abandoned reason. It is concerned with the destruction of the Catholic Church and the civilization preceding therefrom. It is not troubled by apparent contradictions within its own body so long as the general alliance is one for the ending of all that by which we have hitherto lived. The modern attack is materialistic because in its philosophy it considers only material causes. It is superstitious only as a by-product of this state of mind. It nourishes on its surface the silly vagaries of spiritualism, the vulgar nonsense of "Christian Science," and heaven knows how many other fantasies. But these follies are bred, not from a hunger for religion, but from the same root as that which has made the world materialist-from an inability to understand the prime truth that faith is at the root of knowledge; from thinking that no truth is appreciable save through direct experience."
"Being Atheist, it is characteristic of the advancing wave that it repudiates the human reason. Such an attitude would seem again to be a contradiction in terms; for if you deny the value of human reason, if you say that we cannot through our reason arrive at any truth, then not even the affirmation so made can be true. Nothing can be true, and nothing is worth saying. But that great Modern Attack (which is more than a heresy) is indifferent to self- contradiction. It merely affirms. It advances like an animal, counting on strength alone. Indeed, it may be remarked in passing that this may well be the cause of its final defeat; for hitherto reason has always overcome its opponents; and man is the master of the beast through reason."
"When the Modern Attack was gathering, a couple of lifetimes ago, while it was still confined to a small number of academic men, the first assault upon reason began. It seemed to make but little progress outside a restricted circle. The plain man and his common-sense (which are the strongholds of reason) were not affected. Today they are. But reason today is everywhere decried. The ancient process of conviction by argument and proof is replaced by reiterated affirmation; and almost all the terms which were the glory of reason carry with them now an atmosphere of contempt.
See what has happened for instance to the word "logic," to the word "controversy"; note such popular phrases as "No one yet was ever convinced by argument," or again, "Anything may be proved," or "That may be all right in logic, but in practice it is very different." The speech of men is becoming saturated with expressions which everywhere connote contempt for the use of the intelligence.
But the Faith and the use of the intelligence are inextricably bound up. The use of reason is a main part-or rather the foundation-of all inquiry into the highest things. It was precisely because reason was given this divine authority that the Church proclaimed mystery-that is, admitted reason to have its limits. It had to be so, lest the absolute powers ascribed to reason should lead to the exclusion of truths which the reason might accept but could not demonstrate. Reason was limited by mystery only more to enhance the sovereignty of reason in its own sphere.
When reason is dethroned, not only is Faith dethroned (the two subversions go together) but every moral and legitimate activity of the human soul is dethroned at the same time. There is no God. So the words "God is Truth" which the mind of Christian Europe used as a postulate in all it did, cease to have meaning. None can analyse the rightful authority of government nor set bounds to it. In the absence of reason, political authority reposing on mere force is boundless. And reason is thus made a victim because Humanity itself is what the Modern Attack is destroying in its false religion of humanity. Reason being the crown of man and at the same time his distinguishing mark, the Anarchs march against reason as their principle enemy."
Cheers!
Evil can not stand forever. At some point God will offer them a choice and they will prefer to jump into the fire of hell.
With what they have done to our country and around the world I say good riddance to bad rubbish.
Thank you all for commenting. Sorry I can’t reply individually, but this generated more discussion than I anticipated.
Few of you actually read the post. That’s your prerogative certainly - and if the shoe fits wear it - but many of you are accusing me of saying things I specifically refuted, or not saying things that were in fact said.
Read it or don’t, but here is a synopsis:
The secularists are wrong, period. Even the non-Christian founders thought biblical morality essential to liberty. None would countenance the rank secularism employed today in their names.
But to say that because we were a Christian culture that we are a Christian nation is to cheapen the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Lowering the bar on what constitutes Christianity to incorporate Jefferson and other beloved Founders profanes the Gospel to the point of idolatry.
Biblical Christianity is more than a mere system of morals.
Yes the colonies were founded on Christianity. Yes the Declaration has strong religious undertones and the War of Independence was seen as an eschatological culmination of the Great Awakening. The Constitution does not.
But to say we are a Christian nation risks elevating patriotism over faith in Christ.
My response:
“NO.
It was founded on Christian principles by a majority of Christians”
I don’t think we are at odds.
But you invited the discussion
Well said, billflax.
To "lower the bar on what constitutes Christianity" in order to declare our beloved Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, et al., as specifically "Christian Founders" seems a bit of an overreach. Jefferson declared on innumerable occasions his total devotion to Jesus Christ; but one suspects only as the greatest Man who ever lived, not because He was the Son of God. He also recompiled the New Testament, leaving out all the "spiritual" parts. Jefferson's Bible is totally denuded of Spirit.
Jefferson, like Franklin, Madison, others of our Founding generation, were children of the Enlightenment. Newton's (1643–1727) great Principia came out in the preceding century, and subsequently rocked the world. Descartes (1596–1650), Kant (1724–1804), and Leibniz (1646–1716) had published remarkable new theories in natural philosophy, preeminently regarding the "mind–body problem." These Founders were aware of the scientific revolution going on in Europe. I imagine they were deeply sympathetic and interested in its progress. (Indeed, Franklin himself was regarded as a leading scientist in his day.)
But all these men, in addition to being children of the Enlightenment, were children of Judeo-Christian culture. (The "God is dead" movement didn't get going for another century.) These Founders believed that our natural rights cannot be secure unless they are understood to be direct grants of the Creator God that are inseparably parts of our own individual God-given human nature. They declared this understanding to be "axiomatic." (That is, inseparable into lesser constituting logical elements.) All believed in the God of the Judeo-Christian Holy Scriptures (although, as noted, Jefferson tended to omit the supernatural elements — e.g., that Jesus Christ is both the Son of Man and the Son of God — as possibly did Franklin.)
All of these men embraced religious toleration. None of these men saw a role for the federal government in religious matters — they were oh so very wise!
For one thing, the Constitution they made leaves religious matters up to the several States and the People: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Indeed, since many of the original States already had established churches at the time of the Framing of the Constitution, probably the document would not have been ratified, unless it had been made crystal clear that the federal government was prohibited from establishing its own preferred church, and that the free exercise of religious conscience is guaranteed to We the People.
America was then a Christian nation, by shared mores, morals, ultimate world view, as passed down the generations. Christianity was then the great unifying principle of the Body Politic. And our Founders to a man shared in all this, and encouraged the flourishing of religious liberty and religious duty.
Just some thoughts, billflax. Thank you so very much for your wonderfully perceptive and thought-provoking article.
Howdy Bill. Respectfully, I think you are splitting hairs...Christian principles=Christian nation.
Think medieval....think Christendom. Those nations of the Christain culture. France, Spain and Italy are Roman Catholic. Greece Orthodox, etc....the Old USA is a protestant Christian nation with the most developed understanding of liberty and man’s superior standing in the state as opposed to its subject.
Rex Publica....Republic. The people are king. We are a confederation of kings because of Christ in the Calvinistic/Knoxian tradition.
The litany for any believer goes God then country...just like Christ required God before family. To say one belongs to a Christian family does not elevate the family over God....just that the family tries to live by Christ’s teaching and New Covenant.
The old USA however, like Israel of old, has fallen away. Many of the people still hold the faith of Christ and hold to the Christian principles in the Declaration and governed mechanically by the Constitution/Bill of Rights....but much or of leadership has become apostate...even many of those who claim to be our “Christian” leadership.
As it is always noted on FR....keep posting and I am just saying.
“The issue of whether Jefferson was a deist or not doubtless exists because after his public career was over he rejected the deity of Jesus Christ:”
I began my part of this discussion by observing that, if Jefferson was a Deist, he was a most unconventional one (#70, “If Jefferson was a Deist, spirited, he was very unconventional, in blatant defiance of all the usual characteristics defining the term.”), following that with several quotes from various Jefferson letters in support of my observation.
This invited a swarm of dissections of Jeffersonian religious philosophy, all of which I welcome. To merely declare Jefferson a “Deist” without going into specifics, simply allows Christian Deniers the opportunity to declare that America was not founded on Judeo-Christian belief and principles (“The letters and other documents of Jefferson fixes exactly the problem critics face in attempting to deny a Christian influence on the making of America, including The Declaration itself. To tailor the charge of Deism to any of the Founding Fathers, the critics must redefine ‘Deist’ to fit the changing characteristics of the different Founders.) It seems that we might address the same point to the many “friends” of the Founding Fathers.
I’ve seen nothing that disputes my observation in post #70, and a great deal that supports it (most of the material I offered being of a date later than the Jefferson Administration - a letter to William Short, October 31, 1819, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson in 19 volumes, Memorial Edition, edited by Albert Ellery Burgh, a letter to Thomas Jefferson Smith, February 21, 1825, Ibid, a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, November 2, 1822, Ibid.)
I fail to see how attributing the founding of our nation to our Judeo-Christian tradition “cheapens” Christianity. The tail does not wag the dog. To declare that “Biblical Christianity is more than a mere system of morals” does not address at all the fact of a “system of morals” based on Christianity.
“I write with freedom, because while I claim a right to believe in one God, if so my reason tells me, I yield as freely to others that of believing in three. Both religions, I find, make honest men, and that is the only point society has any right to look to. Although this mutual freedom should produce mutual indulgence, yet I wish not to be brought in question before the public on this or any other subject, and I pray you to consider me as writing under that trust. I take no part in controversies, religious or political. At the age of eighty, tranquility is the greatest good of life, and the strongest of our desires that of dying in the good will of all mankind. And with the assurance of all my good will to Unitarian and Trinitarian, to Whig and Tory, accept for yourself that of my entire respect.”
. . . . . Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Smith, December 8, 1822,
Apologies for the tardiness of my reply. The wife and I have been out of state celebrating the accomplishments of our grandson, who is this year a senior in a private high school.
Well said. Our Declaration and Constitution are the product of a unique history and tradition of which a large part is biblically based. I don't see what the big deal is. We were a Christian society without a theocratic government.
Oh, and FWIW, islam has no legitimate place in our society.
This past spring, I was in Santa Fe on business and we were walking around looking for someplace to eat one evening. We walked right by this church. I saw it on the way by, but didn't take notice. I took the time to stop on the way back and read that very sign. Unfortunately it was closed for the day.
Too bad.
Great restaurants there too.
The proper answer (to the title of the thread) is (((( NO ))))..............
The God in the US Constitution is “generic”...
Its is a generic God..
And the truth is God “IS” generic.. since there is only one..
You know............. the real one...
But thats the God in the mentality of the founders..
Many have multiple Gods or even themselves(like atheists)..
But the God in the US Constitution is generic..
Whatever you call god is God.. perfectly OK to the US Constitution..
Some worship the Bible, or their Church or even some Used Jesus Salesman.. or even an Arabic Pedophile..
But thats OK to the US Constitution.. GOD is whatever you say “IT” is..
The genius of it all is amazing..
On this we must remain in disagreement.
Of The Constitution itself there is no “god” therein to be found . . . no religion, or denomination of a religion, may be established . . . no ecclesiastical dignitary is accorded, by right, a constitutional office, or other sinecure . . . the Founding Fathers exercised minimum control over human behavior, and no restraint over thought, being convinced that their charter of government should have nothing to do with issues of conscience
But, I understand you to mean the philosophy which impelled the creation of The Constitution, which is found in our Declaration of Independence. Abraham Lincoln, using a biblical reference (Proverbs 25:11), called The Declaration an “Apple of Gold” adorned by a frame of silver, the frame being the Union and the Constitution. (Abraham Lincoln, “Fragment on the Constitution and the Union,” January 1861, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 4, Roy P. Basler, ed., New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press)
Whether anyone chooses to call the Founding Fathers “Deists” or not, approx156 years of religious freedom and Judeo-Christian Tradition proved sufficient to bring forth the grandest government ever conceived by man.
If this present generation decides to pitch it all in the trashcan, be it upon their heads.
“The genius of it all is amazing..”
Yes, indeed it is amazing.
[ Of The Constitution itself there is no “god” therein to be found . . . ]
If so.. THEN our “Rights” are merely privileges.. granted by givernment..
And the States are not sovereign but instead provinces of a central givernment..
You know...... like Canada..
If no God in the US Constitution then who is the ultimate authority?...
-OR- IS there any authority.?..
No God THEN.... the US Constitution is butt wipe..
exactly like every single other Constitution by any other nation..
that constantly wipes themselves with their charters..
And WHY?... every anarchist(democrat, libertarian, socialist, communist, Rino) HATES the Constitution except as tender to start a populist fire.. hoping praying for mayhem in the streets, flash mobs, and tribal wars..
NOTE: The US Constitution was written down for one reason and one reason ONLY.. To limit the scope and power of the Federal Givernment.. As the Constitution “ERODES” the Federal Givernment increases in scope and power..
NO GOD, No Constitution, less God, less Constitution, a little God, a few privileges, much God, FREEDOM....
If so.. THEN it must be that you’ve read only what you quote to me (“Of The Constitution itself there is no “god” therein to be found”) and have read no further.
Certainly not “no religion, or denomination of a religion, may be established . . .” or that “no ecclesiastical dignitary is accorded, by right, a constitutional office, or other sinecure”
Or do you deny that the Constitution provides that “no religion, or denomination of a religion, may be established”? Or perhaps you insist that the Constitution does provide that an “ecclesiastical dignitary is accorded, by right, a constitutional office, or other sinecure”?
It must be, then, that you did not see where I wrote that “I understand you to mean the philosophy which impelled the creation of The Constitution, which is found in our Declaration of Independence.” Else why would you so take out of context what I have said (for eight years in this forum)?
Nor could you have noticed my remarks on Lincoln and his speaking of the “Apple of Gold,” or that 156 years of religious freedom and Judeo-Christian Tradition have proved sufficient to bring forth the grandest government ever conceived by man.
But perhaps a fuller exposition is required:
Do you recognize the following?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness” . . .
A Creator. A Christian name for God. The product of the KJV Bible of 1611, only recently completed before the founding of America.
But this and the above was just the end of a long process:
It began with the Pilgrims (1620).
The pilgrims were English separatist Christians, fleeing Europe in order to escape religious persecution, and they literally began their stay in a new land with the words, “In the name of God, Amen.”
Determined to live their lives and govern themselves based on Biblical principles, but ignorant of the harsh conditions of a northern wilderness, the Pilgrims lost half their number the first winter when they attempted to install a communist-style system of resource allocation (see William Bradford).
When they overcame their initial mistake by following a more free enterprise form of resource allocation (see 2 Thessalonians 3:10-11) thanks to the judgment of that same William Bradford, the colonists, to celebrate their transition from severe want to a bountiful plenty, chose Leviticus 23:33-34 (The Feast of Tabernacles – see also Deuteronomy 16:13) as their guide. That celebration tradition continues today as Thanksgiving (although some would like to forget to Whom it is we are giving thanks).
The pilgrims were followed to New England by the Puritans, who likewise sought to establish bible-based commonwealths (New Haven and the Massachusetts Bay colonies). Roger Williams founded the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, based on the principle of freedom of conscience. Pennsylvania was established by William Penn as a Quaker colony. Maryland was a haven from Protestant England for Roman Catholics.
These commonwealths, and subsequent ones, practiced the same sort of representative government as their church covenants, and whether or not others can see the cause in the Bible and Christianity, they did see that cause. Those governmental covenants and compacts came to number more than 100, and were the foundation for our Constitution.
Virtually all of the first universities founded in the American Colonies were Christian (see the first Harvard student handbook Rule #1: “Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.” Harvard was surely a different place then than now!)
“Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage(emphasis mine), and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments:” Exodus 6:6 (see also Deut. 26:8).
Our American forebears likened their journey to the New World (“the land of their pilgrimage (emphasis mine), wherein they were strangers”) as unto Exodus and likened their distance from GB to God’s deliverance of Israel from the Egyptians. They were very much students of the OT, fully as much as were they of the NT.
In the New World, being 150 years’ removed from King and homeland, they learned self-reliance and, more importantly, self-governance in their civil affairs and in their religious affairs, and acquired the ability to select their own leaders (leaders, not masters). Having a great measure of independence gave them a huge advantage over their cousins of a French Revolution, that started badly and ended worse.
Being left largely to their own devices, our forebears did not react well to kingly oppression or parliamentary arrogance when it did come down on them. Therefore was the powder keg of independence rather easily lit.
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” Galatians 5:1. “For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.” Galatians 5:13. “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” John 8: 31-32.
“And he (Peter) said unto them, Ye know that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” Acts 10:28.
“Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof:” Leviticus 25:10 (people say they don’t see the connection with our liberty, but the Founding Fathers saw enough connection to put the passage on our Liberty Bell).
“Blessed is every one that feareth the Lord; that walketh in his ways. For thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands; happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee.” Psalm 128:1-2. “The labourer is worthy of his reward.” I Timothy 5:18. (These passages fairly cry out in every part of the Constitution).
“But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.” I Timothy 6:11. (A passage that surely must be detested by our Courageous Young President and all his acolytes).
In defiance of the “fact” that there is supposedly nothing in the Bible to show that God created all men equal, nevertheless, the Founding Fathers (and their forebears) saw themselves as equals in the sight of God. “Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.” Deuteronomy 1:17.
“Ye shall not therefore oppress one another; but thou shalt fear thy God: for I am the Lord your God.” Leviticus 25:17. “Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?” Malachi 2:10. “Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God.” Romans 2:9-11.
If you see fit to question the Founding Fathers’ Biblical judgment in thinking themselves free men and equals, then you will otherwise have to question them for the reasons. Pack for an extended trip.
“TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.” (And later) “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
. . . . . FEDERALIST No. 51, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, February 6, 1788. MADISON
“auxiliary precautions.” What does that mean? We’ve witnessed only now, in the past nearly four years, a party of tyrants who reject the idea of “the governed,” who are determined to control the people, and who are violently determined to tolerate no control of their behavior. They seem convinced the best avenue to their ambitions is to sever any connection with the Judeo-Christian Tradition upon which this nation was founded.
But what does any of this have to do (other than as a sidetrack) with the proposition that the philosophy of government the Founding Fathers developed over some 150 years was inspired by their Christian values? What is it that these Twenty First Century tyrants abhor? Justice? That as you sow, so shall you reap?
Did not the Lord bring the people of Israel out from Egypt and free them from the hand of Pharaoh? Whether these Twenty First Century tyrants approve of the vision, or not, our forebears saw a precise parallel in the Israelites coming out of Egypt and the Pilgrims coming to America. And though they first wished to retain their loyalties to the king of their homeland, did they not see being freed from the hand of a tyrant king as the same as being freed from the hand of Pharaoh? Indeed they did. Nor could they tolerate anymore the hands of the tyrant princes of the Church. Nor would they tolerate the oppression of these Twenty First Century tyrants.
“Oh, we are weary pilgrims; to this wilderness we bring
A Church without a bishop, a State without a King.”
“Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great;” (Deuteronomy 1:17)
“We know no King but Jesus.”
“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:26-29). See also Romans 8:17.
“Proclaim liberty through all the land and to all the inhabitants thereof”
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. (Romans 8:16-17)
“And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”
“Thou shat not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither that a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.” (Deuteronomy 16:19)
“A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree will wither if its roots be destroyed. In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.”
. . . . . Calvin Coolidge, “The Inspiration of the Declaration,” Speech at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 5, 1926.
“I told you before. I tell you again: “And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity (emphasis mine), in which all those sects were united; and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all these young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence.”
. . . . . John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, dated June 28, 1813, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh Editor, in 19 volumes.
I do not demand, nor do I expect, agreement with anything I say, by anyone. I hope that my attitude and my perspective is now at least a little better understood.
[ Certainly not “no religion, or denomination of a religion, may be established . . .” or that “no ecclesiastical dignitary is accorded, by right, a constitutional office, or other sinecure” ]
Simply....... “What has God to do with religion?”... any of them..
I can see no way of escaping that Jesus came to make ALL RELIGION obsolete.. AND DID!...
Religion appears to me to be a Coup D’Etat against the monarchy of the Kingdom of God..
Religion is a democracy with a demi-god... in charge...
All of them purporting to be God’s replacement authority.. until “he” returns -or- shows up.. in some fashion..
except for psuedo religions like Buddhism and Hinduism..
that are just philosophies.. of life style..
They do not even use the word GOD in the western sense..
Like Spiritualism, Theosophy, Echankar, and their more modern denominations..
A generic God in the Constitution is pure genius..
Whatever you call “your God” is indeed your God..
Whether it’s your Poodle or Buddha.. or Barry Half-White.. or a real God..
Incorporates the long the short and the tall the black and the white the stupid and smart the men, women and the strangely gendered into the givernment..
Pretty much everyone is included.. even the atheist..
A republic of the religious and the non religious..
A Republic is NOT a Monarchy.. therefore NOT the Kingdom of God..
Speaking of my concept of what the “real God” is and is NOT..
The Constitution allows me to think this way because of a Generic God..
A more “Branded” God in the Constitution would not most likely allow that..
Religion IS DEAD!... long live the KING..
religion noun the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion.
• details of belief as taught or discussed: when the school first opened they taught only religion, Italian, and mathematics.
• a particular system of faith and worship: the world's great religions.
• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance: consumerism is the new religion.
(from my MAC dictionary which is, I believe, an Oxford Dictionary product. The third example obviously is irrelevant to our discussion)
Communication is the conveying and sharing of ideas and feelings. It is meant for clarification . . . not obfuscation.
Simply put . . . One’s belief in God (or gods) is called “religion.”
“I can see no way of escaping that Jesus came to make ALL RELIGION obsolete.. AND DID!...”
Odd. You scorn “religion” . . . and reference scripture from the Judeo-Christian religion of our forefathers in support.
What I have said about the source and inspiration of our government stands. I take it that your insistence on a “generic” god being the source and inspiration of our government likewise stands. Very well.
On this we shall remain eternally apart.
[ Simply put . . . One’s belief in God (or gods) is called “religion.” ]
That of course is WRONG... it is not their belief it is their practice.. that makes religion..
Belief is just momentary mendation, practiced cyclic action is religious..
It is practice that makes religion.. belief and degrees of belief are momentary..
Its not what you say or think that makes you religious..
It is what you DO(or don’t do) that makes you religious,..
Literally everyone is a Preacher preaching something..
Not by what they say, but by what they DO.. or do not do..
Even Atheists are preachers.. preaching daily moment by moment(something)..
If what you say matches what you do or do not do.. you’re merely efficient.. at preaching..
Not all preachers are religious.. but all of the religious are preachers..
Very well, I am Wrong.
No hard feelings.
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.