Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I found a link to this Chuck Baldwin article on Pat's blog. Pat, naturally, approved of it -- but the article is nonsense from the word go.
As we approach the celebration of Christ's birth, I am reminded of the words of John Quincy Adams. On July 4, 1837, he spoke these words:"Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? ... Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth. That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?"
Adams was exactly right: America's birth is directly linked to the birth of our Savior. In fact, the United States of America is the only nation established by Christian people, upon Biblical principles, and dedicated to the purpose of religious liberty. This truth is easily observed within America's earliest history.
Where to begin? I suppose we could start with a quote from John Adams, the father of John Quincy Adams, who actually was one of the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He says quite the opposite:
The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature;* and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses...
Then there is the treaty with Tripoli, which Adams signed into law, which bluntly declared that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
It is, of course, absurd to claim that the Declaration of Independence had given the world "the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior" when that document was written by one man and edited by two others who did not believe that Jesus was the savior or was divine at all (though Adams may have been a bit wishy washy on that particular claim).
Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration, not only rejected the divinity of Jesus but rejected the notion that he had ever claimed to be divine. As for those alleged Old Testament prophecies of Jesus, Jefferson rejected those who claimed such things, like the author of the gospel of Matthew, as "dupes and imposters." Somehow JQ Adams would have us believe that the Declaration was based upon ideas that the men who wrote it rejected entirely. That should seem rather silly to anyone with an IQ over room temperature.
America's forebears first established a written covenant with God as early as November 11, 1620, when they penned The Mayflower Compact. It states in part:"In the name of God, Amen. ... Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience."
And where, pray tell, was that "religious liberty" in the Mayflower Compact or in the society those who wrote it built in Plymouth and later Massachusetts? Yes, they certainly had a Biblical society in mind and set out to build one, but that society had nothing even remotely resembling religious liberty.
Not only were non-Christians given no right to believe or advocate their religion, even the wrong kind of Christians were not allowed to do so. To be a Quaker or a Baptist in Massachusetts -- forget about a Jew, a Muslim or an infidel -- was to find oneself jailed, exiled and sometimes even killed.
Indeed, one must wonder where that alleged connection between the Bible and religious liberty was to be found in any nation with an explicitly Christian establishment, either before or after our nation was founded. They simply do not exist. Jefferson and Madison, the two most staunch advocates of church/state separation, both defended separation on the grounds that history did not provide a single example of an officially Christian nation that had religious liberty. Every single example is to the contrary. As Jefferson put it:
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."
Indeed, the Bible contains no support at all for the notion of religious liberty. In many places in the Bible, God (allegedly) commands his followers to put to death those who openly advocate other religions. The entire slaughter of the Midianites was commanded because two Midianite women had supposedly "tempted" Israelite men to worship other gods. There is not one verse in the Bible that advocates the notion that any government should protect religious liberty -- which is perhaps why no nation that used the Bible as a source of law has ever had anything like religious liberty.
And as for the claim that the Constitution was "based on" Biblical or Christian principles, this should be quite easy to prove. All one has to do is point to the various provisions in the Constitution and then to analogs in the Bible or in Christian theology. Good luck with that. The founding fathers certainly did not find any, or at least did not manage to mention any such connections.
This argument was definitively put to rest by the Christian historian Gregg Frazer when debating someone who had made an identical claim:
The fact that some parts of the Declaration and/or Constitution are not in conflict with verses in the Bible does not mean that the Bible was the source. This is especially important when -- as in the case of the Declaration and the Constitution -- the authors claim other sources, but do not claim the Bible as a source!In a May 8, 1825 letter to Henry Lee, Jefferson identifies his sources for the Declaration's principles. He names as sources: Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and (Algernon) Sidney -- he does not mention the Bible. Then again, the terminology in the Declaration is not specifically Christian -- or even biblical, with the exception of "Creator." The term "providence" is never used of God in the Bible, nor are "nature's God" or "Supreme Judge of the world" ever used in the Bible.
In the hundreds of pages comprising Madison's notes on the constitutional convention (and those of the others who kept notes), there is no mention of biblical passages/verses in the debates/discussions on the various parts and principles of the Constitution. They mention Rome, Sparta, German confederacies, Montesquieu, and a number of other sources -- but no Scripture verses.
In The Federalist Papers, there is no mention of biblical sources for any of the Constitution's principles, either -- one would think they could squeeze them in among the 85 essays if they were, indeed, the sources; especially since the audience was common men who were familiar with, and had respect for, the Bible. The word "God" is used twice -- and one of those is a reference to the pagan gods of ancient Greece. "Almighty" is used twice and "providence" three times -- but neither is ever used in connection with any constitutional principle or influence. The Bible is not mentioned.
As for freedom and liberty in the Bible, it is always SPIRITUAL freedom/liberty -- as a look at the verses you've listed IN CONTEXT shows. That is NOT to say that political liberty is an anti-biblical concept -- it's just not a biblical one. Arguing that it is a "Calvinist" concept does not make it a biblical one, either. The "disciples" of Calvin did not write inspired revelation.
The key Founders (J. Adams, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Wilson, & G. Morris) -- those most responsible for the founding documents -- were religious, but not Christians. They believed that religion was essential to produce the morality that a free society required, but that any religion would suffice. Their religious belief was a mixture of Protestantism, natural religion, and rationalism -- with rationalism as the trump card and decisive factor. They retained elements of Christianity, but rejected the elements of Christianity (and of natural religion) that they considered irrational. However: of the ten CORE beliefs of Christianity (those shared by all of the major Protestant denominations of the day (and by the Catholics), they held to only one (or two, in some cases). Their belief system was, as I have termed it, theistic rationalism.
If the view of Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin that any/all religions were valid paths to God and that any/all religions would suffice to produce the morality needed was a "minority opinion" among the Founders, why were they chosen to write the philosophical (you say religious) document (Declaration)?
And let me add one more irony here. Baldwin keeps claiming that religious liberty flows from Biblical Christianity, yet he himself is an enemy of religious liberty. Baldwin is the leader of the Constitution Party, which is openly theocratic, for crying out loud.
Politics
Comments
Nicely done. After a little debate on this issue over the holidays (yep I said it), I was sent a propaganda DVD by relatives about this "Christian Nation". The odious title eludes me at the moment. I am currently collecting sources for a reply and this is helpful. Any more ideas would also be appreciated.
Posted by: CrookedTimber | December 29, 2009 10:27 AM
Hey, Ed, can I get a cite on that Gregg Frazer section? Seems like it would be useful for future reference.
Danke.
Posted by: Geds | December 29, 2009 10:44 AM
I'm convinced that social conservatives conceptualize "freedom" in ways that are nearly the converse of everyone else's conceptions. I think that, for these conservatives, "freedom" simply means the political and public sanctioning of bending laws and society to their will.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 29, 2009 11:35 AM
You can get to Gregg's original writing by following the links.
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/10/frazer-on-the-bible-and-founding-documents.html
Note, he more or less paraphrased what he wrote in his PhD thesis.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | December 29, 2009 11:40 AM
People often confounded the DoI & the Constitution, probably because they are lumped together as "founding documents", but they actually served two separate functions. The DoI is the "Mission Statement" of the USA, the Constitution is the policy manual. Only the DoI makes any reference to god - "..all men are endowed by their Creator.."
The DoI was written as an open letter to all nations of the world, stating the American colonies intent to separate from Britain and form an independent, self-governing country.
At that time all nations were governed by some form of hereditary kingship - a belief that God(s) had chosen a small, select group to rule over all men. (Even warrior kings could claim they won their throne by "the will of God".)
Inserting the word "Creator" in the DoI was a deliberate denial of the claim that the nobility ruled by Divine Providence and in the name of God. Even using the term "Creator", rather than "God", served to deny the claim of any rulers who claimed to rule by the authority of other, non-Christain Gods.
So, actually, the DoI was the strongest statement that the new country was denying any Divine authority for its inception or governing.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | December 29, 2009 1:12 PM
Justice David Brewer (1837-1910), Supreme Court Justice appointed by President Benjamin Harrison, disagrees with your position Mr.Brayton. He writes,
"We classify nations in various ways: as, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, another an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great Britain is an Anglo-Saxon nation, France a Gallio, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a Slav. And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian nations. This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, 143 U.S. 471, that Court, after mentioning various circumstances, added, “these and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”
I understand that the name of Jesus Christ divides because the Bible explains that phenomenon (Luke 12:51; Matthew 10:34). God's truth, unto which this nation's founders predominently adheared, is a sword which divides truth from falsity, right from wrong, good from evil. It confronts us and requires us to make decisions about Jesus Christ. He can either be a rock on which we stand or a stone that causes us to stumble.
Take my hand Mr. Brayton and let me help you up.
John
Posted by: John | December 29, 2009 1:27 PM
Uh, okay. You know that Justice is referring to unofficial declarations that we're a Christian Nation, which is nothing new, right? It happens every day when a pastor feels maligned.
Posted by: Rutee | December 29, 2009 1:35 PM
John - Are you really saying that I have to be Christian to be a good American? Because I beg to differ.
Posted by: Taz | December 29, 2009 1:39 PM
I might have asked this before when the excerpt came up (like any 'Barton' quote, this isn't the first time it has been referenced in Dispatches), but is the JQA quote even accurate? if so, then what was the source and context?
Posted by: Joe Shelby | December 29, 2009 1:39 PM
In case anybody wants to see the whole text of JQ Adams' speech, it is "An oration delivered before the inhabitants of the town of Newburyport".
Posted by: Ahcuah | December 29, 2009 1:43 PM
Taz,
I am not saying you have to be a Christian to be a good American. I am saying that it is impossible to be neutral about Jesus Christ. Jesus said, "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division." (Luke 12:51) He is the reason we have so much divsion about Christian "anything".
Posted by: John | December 29, 2009 2:04 PM
Or Santa Claus. Or the Easter Bunny.
Damn you Easter Bunny! Damn you all to hell!!!!!
Posted by: NJ | December 29, 2009 2:08 PM
What about people who've never heard of him?
I personally have nothing against Jesus Christ. I think some of the ideas attributed to him in the gospels are laudable. Some others are sick and twisted. I'm sure if he were to drop by my house for coffee we'd get along just fine. The only problem with that is despite the protestations of his followers he died a long, long time ago and stubbornly refuses to come back. Tell me, am I for him or against him?
Posted by: DaveL | December 29, 2009 2:22 PM
NJ,
Equating Jesus with the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus is ridiculous. Even the most uninformed atheist would agree that Jesus Christ was a real person. There are too many historically verified eyewitness accounts. However, I can see how the depth of your hatred Jesus' message has blinded your eyes. Perhaps someday He will remove the scales and you will see the Truth.
Posted by: John | December 29, 2009 2:30 PM
I was vacillating for a bit, but I'm going to take a chance and call Poe on John.
Posted by: Adrian W. | December 29, 2009 2:33 PM
Um, you are aware that Santa Claus was a real person, too, but heavily mythologized. Sound familiar?
There are, in fact, none. The gospels are of unknown provenance, and what meager contemporary references exist are not eyewitness accounts.
Posted by: DaveL | December 29, 2009 2:34 PM
Not to get into one of these historicity arguments again, but even if he did exist, John, your religion would still be foolish nonsense that is wholly unacceptable (as Jefferson and Madison said) as the basis of a government.
Posted by: Kyorosuke | December 29, 2009 2:37 PM
Ummm...no. The sources I've read seem to indicate that a god struck young rabbi around that time ticked off some people. His name might have been Yeshua.
But to the best of my knowledge, we don't have a whole lot of actual historical records of his existence. I'm not a historian, though, and I'm certainly no expert on the region or the time period.
Whereas we do have historical records of St. Nicholas, AKA Santa Claus. I just don't think either one of them had magical powers.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 29, 2009 2:39 PM
You wouldn't want to place a small wager on that one, eh? But even if that were the case, it is a very long jump from existence to deity. You have simply assumed it.
Skepticsm != hatred, except in your mind. You have been robotically programmed to treat anyone who is skeptical, indifferent, or believes differently as if they hate a message. If you are simply trolling here, well, eventually, you will get tired. If you want to seriously discuss this with people who have a lot of background, head over to PZ's place.
Posted by: NJ | December 29, 2009 2:39 PM
Hypatia's Daughter @ 5 stated:
Uh, no. The Declaration of Independence was the thirteen American colonies' Second Continental Congress's collective statement announcing our independence from the British Empire. It also served to rationalize the position of this Congress that they had just cause for committing what King George III obviously perceived as treason. That rationalization is of course arguable from a number of perspectives.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 29, 2009 2:39 PM
John, do you know who wrote the opinion Justice Brewer is citing in that quote? It was Justice Brewer. He's citing himself as a source. This guy managed to work the phrase "Christian nation" into a decision. He then spent the rest of his life citing it as if one of the founding fathers had risen from the grave and nailed it to the courthouse doors, even though it was something he had created himself. Holy Trinity Church vs. United States wasn't even a case about religion, but rather a labor law. He just used it to build the myth anyway. It did not hold water then and it still doesn't today.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 29, 2009 2:45 PM
Ed stated:
"which is perhaps why no nation that used the Bible as a source of law has ever had anything like religious liberty."
It depends what you mean by this. Common Law is filled with references to old Canon law and both have Christian ideas based on the Bible in them. Now if you mean that any nation that has tried to reproduce the Law of Moses I agree. Not all of Christianity is the same. Rutherford, Locke, and Sidney used the Bible to make a case that all men are created equal because they are the workmanship of God that promoted inalienable rights.
In fact, in an earlier post I quoted the first few sentences of Locke's Second Treatise where he expounds on Love of God, Love of self based on knowledge that one is God's workmanship, and love of neighbor based on the same. This was his prelude to his whole talk on Life, Liberty, and Property. These ideas no doubt made it into the Declaration of Independence. I also think there is credible evidence that the Declaration itself is a document of Interposition which is a historically Christian idea that goes back to Pre-Aquinas days.
Jeff Morrison also gives credible evidence that the last two God references in the Declaration that were added by the Congress were added to appeal to Calvinists and then shows several sermons that use the same God language that many consider Deist. Finally, the "Godless Constitution" argument is not that convincing because even Jefferson readily admitted that religion was left to the states.
This whole topic is more complex than a lot of people make it out to be. By the way "Supreme Judge of the World" was taken right out of a Jonathan Edward's sermon. I am not a David Barton fan nor a "Christian Nation" advocate. I do believe the political theology that created a Big Tent that many different sects could feel at home under was historically Christian political theology. Posts like these seem to ignore those nuances.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 29, 2009 2:49 PM
This nation was founded on Christian principles. I don't understand why people like Mr. Brayton ignore evidence to that effect. Here is James Madison himself at the Constitutional Convention:
If you can't accept that evidence, then leave my country. I will not accept your liberal, communist, anti-Christian nonsense anymore.
Posted by: Bruce Davidson | December 29, 2009 2:51 PM
John: I am not saying you have to be a Christian to be a good American.
In fact, you're saying exactly that:
God's truth, unto which this nation's founders predominently adheared, is a sword which divides truth from falsity, right from wrong, good from evil. It confronts us and requires us to make decisions about Jesus Christ.
Making the "right" decision will put you on the side of "God's truth" and the nation's founders, correct? It appears you don't even understand the implications of your own statement.
Posted by: Taz | December 29, 2009 2:54 PM
Michael Heath stated:
"Uh, no. The Declaration of Independence was the thirteen American colonies' Second Continental Congress's collective statement announcing our independence from the British Empire. It also served to rationalize the position of this Congress that they had just cause for committing what King George III obviously perceived as treason. That rationalization is of course arguable from a number of perspectives."
One of which from the argument that it was an Interposition.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 29, 2009 2:57 PM
Can you provide a citation to actual primary sources for this claim?
It seems odd to use a bible verse where the same entity is proclaimed as king, lawgiver, and judge to argue for a separation of these same powers.
Posted by: DaveL | December 29, 2009 2:58 PM
Mr. Davidson,
When you say "See also", do you mean to attribute the quoted text to the book named thereafter? Because if you did, it's confusing as "See also" is generally used to indicate other works not directly quoted. If you didn't, where did that quote come from?
I found one verbatim instance here:
http://www.eadshome.com/JamesMadison.htm
It includes no attribution. I have yet to find any other source on the 'net that would show its provenance.
Posted by: DaveL | December 29, 2009 3:03 PM
This is an absurdly false statement. The issue of an historical Jesus has been discussed, at some length, on this very blog, during this very month. And not everyone has been in, shall we say, agreement.
Are you in the habit of writing things that are demonstrably untrue?
Posted by: Josh | December 29, 2009 3:04 PM
John @ 6 impotently attempts to refute Ed's historically accurate and empirically validated sample summarization regarding the role of Christianity in our nation's founding by supposedly quoting (no citation provided) a 19th Century Justice's mere opinion.
Let's see, Ed's stands on history, John quotemines one person who isn't even a founder, a framer, or even a contemporary. And then John has the temerity to state:
John - From my perspective you lack both the historical knowledge and the critical thinking skills to even begin to debate in this forum.
If you want to make assertions here, frame them in a manner equal to or greater than your opponent; not vastly more narrow as you do @ 6. In addition, if you're going to support your argument with assertions which are not collectively agreed upon by historians that specialize in our nation's founding, then link to a citation supporting such. This is consistent with the law we use here, 'extrordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. I assure you that the best of this forum's historians and students of history consistently meet this standard.
Personally I don't think you are even remotely capable of meeting this standard. I should warn you that Ed and many of us that hang out in this forum can easily meet this standard and in fact demand it of ourselves.
John @ 14 stated:
Thanks for my daily dose of projectionism (your ignorance regarding the historicity of Jesus). There is no empirical evidence that the Jesus described in the New Testament, even the non-magical parts, ever existed. One can rationalize such a human-only existed and there is some claims that appear decades after his supposed life on earth ended that argue that a human-only Jesus existed, but again, no empirical evidence let alone actual empirical evidence sufficient to make the claim. And such a position has nothing to do with whether one is an atheist or not as you argue , many Christian historians and scholars concede this reality. Lastly, if we discover evidence of the historicity of Jesus, that is still a vast distance from validating claims he was/is God; equal to the distance that I'm God given that mere human claims while lacking empirical evidence means exactly squat.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 29, 2009 3:04 PM
Ahcuah (@10) is quite correct about the source of the quotation; it is found on pp. 5-6 and is part of the opening of JQA's speech. However, JQA is not saying anything like "the United States of America is the only nation established by Christian people, upon Biblical principles, and dedicated to the purpose of religious liberty."
This speech was given on Independence Day and JQA was expounding on the significance of the event some sixty-one years later. One of his main points is that the action of independence was undertaken by an action of the people of the thirteen colonies, not by the thirteen colonies individually, and so the result was that a new people was created rather than thirteen new states.
He continued:
Note: not a "Christian nation" like those of Europe, but "an independent Nation of Christians." I'm not saying that JQA is right in his reading of the Declaration of Independence; merely that he says nothing to support the Christian Nation claims.
There are other sections of the address that are possibly relevant to the issue at hand, and make quite interesting reading, but this comment has already gone on too long. I'll leave it as an exercise for anybody who is interested in checking it out.
Posted by: sbh | December 29, 2009 3:05 PM
Thanks for the link @ 4 Jon Rowe.
Bruce Davidson @23: If you can't accept that evidence, then leave my country. I will not accept your liberal, communist, anti-Christian nonsense anymore.
That, um, that doesn't count as evidence. Go back to the big chunk of text from Gregg Frazer in the original post. The overwhelming evidence is that there was no Christian basis for the laws of the United States.
Furthermore, of the Founding Fathers James Madison was the least likely to make comments like the ones you quoted. While Jefferson and Adams weren't particularly fond of organized religion and said so, Madison never made any statements about any personal belief. But he did have a few things to say about the negative effect religion could have on society. To wit:
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
and
What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.
From the Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html
Moreover, using anything by Rosalie Slater is pretty much a non-starter. Considering that her entire thing is creating educational materials about the religious basis of the United States I would suggest taking anything from her books with a grain...hell, an entire salt mine.
Posted by: Geds | December 29, 2009 3:15 PM
Mr. Davidson. From the quote which you supplied, it reads to me as if Madison was saying that the way the LORD did it was a bad idea, because all the power was concentrated into one place. Madison, on the contrary, was arguing these powers needed to be SEPARATE.
So, following your own words, perhaps you should leave this country, because you provide evidence against that which you seek. BTW: it is my country just as much as it is yours. You have no right to claim ownership of the USA.
Posted by: Joe Daneil | December 29, 2009 3:16 PM
Taz,
God's Truth divides right from wrong. The Founders largely based all that they did and wrote on this fact. However, one can be a "good American," (that is be patriotic, uphold the Constitution, be lawful, love freedom, etc.) and still be "wrong" with respect to the Word of God. There will be "good American's" in hell because they fail to put their faith in Jesus Christ. (See John 3:5-21)
Posted by: John | December 29, 2009 3:17 PM
If you can't accept that evidence, then leave my country. I will not accept your liberal, communist, anti-Christian nonsense anymore.
Why, Mr. Davidson, I do declare I think you're threatening me. What, pray tell, do you plan on doing to enforce your demand that those who think like me must "leave my(your) country?"
Posted by: trog69 | December 29, 2009 3:18 PM
Bruce Davidson - I've got a better idea: You get the fuck out of MY country. I won't accept your pig-ignorant bullshit any more.
(Damn I'm sick of right-wing assholes who think they can kick anyone who disagrees with them out of the country.)
John - Hell is a myth, the founder's based what they did on a lot of sources, and I would guess some of them had far different interpretations of "god's truth" than you do. Your religious beliefs count for zero with me in a political discussion.
Posted by: Taz | December 29, 2009 3:26 PM
I have never read Isaiah 33 in anything Madison said. I know Barton uses this as one of his verses for the separation of powers. But I agree with the comment above that says this verse put all the power in the hands of the King.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 29, 2009 3:31 PM
Bruce Davidson @23
All the evidence, or perhaps I should say the absence of evidence, indicates that was made up. Don't feel bad. You're far from the first person deceived by someone telling you pretty lies that you wanted to hear. You're welcome to stay in my country anyway. In fact if you'd like to learn more about our nations actual history I would encourage you to do so. The truth is infinitely more interesting than the crap David Barton pitches.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 29, 2009 3:32 PM
Bruce Davidson wrote:
Except that it isn't. Here is what you cite, which is not from Madison but is someone else (who?) writing about Madison:
Virtually every word of this is utter bullshit. First of all, we have Madison's notes from the convention. We also have his numerous essays in the Federalist Papers explaining the origin of the various ideas in the constitution. As is correctly noted by Gregg Frazer in the quote in the post above, neither of them ever mentions any Bible verse at all. And of course, the Bible verse you cite actually says the opposite of what is in the constitution and what was advocated by Montesquieu and Madison. I'd love to know the actual source of the quote you offered; it is an absolute distortion.
Okay, seriously, just go fuck yourself.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 29, 2009 3:33 PM
Taz,
Political discussions will not matter in an eternity of gnashing teeth. Like I said at the beginning of this discussion, Jesus is a divider and it is apparent that He has divided us. Happy New Year, sir!
Love,
John
Posted by: John | December 29, 2009 3:37 PM
What I don't understand is the people who boast of being slaves of an arbitrary, unreasonable sadist, and insist that this is a source of morality.
If they were saying "the universe is ruled by a powerful and unreasonable being, and I choose to obey its arbitrary rules for 70 years instead of being tortured for eternity," I wouldn't follow their lead, but I would understand the argument. No. What they say is that ethical behavior is to imitate such a torturer.
Some of us have higher standards. Non serviam.
Posted by: Vicki | December 29, 2009 3:53 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
But they also didn't have religious freedom. Much of that common law based on the Bible was explicitly anti-liberty, like blasphemy laws. Yes, there have been nations that based many of their law on the Bible; no, none of them have had religious freedom.
Yes, they do, but it's a pretty weak argument given that the Bible itself doesn't say anything in favor of political or religious liberty, as Gregg Frazer notes in the quote above in this post. Basically they're stuck making this kind of syllogism:
All men are created in the image of god and therefore are deserving of good things.
Liberty is a good thing.
Therefore, all men are deserving of liberty and liberty is thus a gift from god.
But since God himself nowhere sees fit to mention liberty (other than, as Frazer notes, spiritual liberty which means something entirely different), there is no reason to believe that God actually thinks liberty is a good thing. Indeed, there are ample verses where God commands his followers to kill those who "tempt" them to worship other Gods (e.g. the Midianites in Numbers 31), which is the very antithesis of religious liberty. So the argument is not merely tenuous, it is non-existent. There is not a shred of evidence that the God of the Bible supports the position being attributed to him and much evidence to the contrary. They are working at a level of abstraction that ignores all evidence to the contrary in order to reach an unsupported result.
They could just as easily -- and just as logically -- have made the following syllogism instead:
All men are created by God and therefore deserving of good things.
A million dollars is a good thing.
Therefore, all men are deserving of a million dollars and it is God's will that all men should have a million dollars.
It's the same logical structure, but you would likely laugh at such an argument.
I do not doubt this. The language of the Declaration was chosen in order to unite a disparate group of people. They used several different phrases to allow deists and Christians and those in between to read what they wanted into the text. But I don't see why this engages any argument I've made here.
This is a non sequitur. The constitution was, in fact, godless (that was a major argument against it by the Christian Nation crowd of that day). State constitutions were not (though they are now because of the 14th amendment).
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 29, 2009 3:54 PM
John- "He (Jesus) is the reason we have so much divsion about Christian "anything"."
Really? Cuz it looks to me like it's his idiot followers that have a hardon for division. Jesus could show up and clear up all the confusion. But apparently he can't be bothered.
Posted by: Rick R | December 29, 2009 3:57 PM
Also, though this is way off the point, there are no eyewitness accounts attesting the existence of either Jesus called the Christ or Nicholas of Myra. Their historical existence has to be inferred from other data--legends, mainly, though the Jewish historian Josephus does refer casually to a person he calls James, the brother of Jesus who is called the Christ. It is of course always possible that this passage is an interpolation (though there is no evidence for that) or that he is simply repeating a bogus Christian claim, but in any case the reference exists. There is nothing equivalent for Nicholas of Myra. The existence of a legend of course does not prove the existence of a historical figure, as the examples of Robin Hood, Merlin, and the Easter Bunny illustrate.
Posted by: sbh | December 29, 2009 4:07 PM
John, I don't believe you have any genuine love for Taz or anyone else at this blog whom you don't know. You are engaged in a form of deceit with this tactic, and it is highly unbecoming. Don't pretend you "love" someone simply to make yourself seem more likable or worthy of trust. And if you insist on doing it, don't expect anyone to not see right through you.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 29, 2009 4:10 PM
Ed stated:
"All men are created in the image of god and therefore are deserving of good things.
Liberty is a good thing.
Therefore, all men are deserving of liberty and liberty is thus a gift from god"
No the argument that Locke himself makes is this:
All men are created equal because they are the workmanship of God and thus his property.
In understanding that one is God's workmanship and thus his property one should love self enough not to damage that property
In a realization of the worth of self due to what was stated above respect the workmanship of God in other and do not injure God's property or theirs
What I actually stated has nothing to do with a million dollars. The bulk of your statement seems to deal with the the truth claims aspect of this discussion. That is not that relevant to a historical debate. What matters is what they believed back then. To accept Locke's philosophy and ignore his theology is more the line of thinking behind the French Revolution than the American.
I am glad you see that at least a good part of the Declaration was written to appeal to Christians.
As far as stating things that God told the Israelites to do under the Mosaic Law has no bearing on myself, Locke, or Aquinas in I think we all agree the much of that Law was asked for by the Israelites and Law like this has its logical conclusions. This is similar to when the asked for a King. It was not God's intention but he gave them the consequences of their choice. Jesus backed this up when he came to fulfill the law. Numerous passages allude to the fulfillment being love. This comes for the exhortation of Jesus to practice the summary of the law:
Loving God with a whole heart and your neighbor as yourself.
This takes us full circle right back to Locke's words that are the basis of thoughts on Life, Liberty, and Property. Abraham preceded the law and God told him to establish righteousness and justice on earth. This is right after he banished Cain for harming his brother and told Noah(though I think much of this is allegory but can still instruct us) that murder was wrong because of the image of God in man.
With that said, I do acknowledge some seeming contradictions with God telling people to kill people sometimes. I have no coherent concrete answer as of yet any than to make the general statement that killing someone does not have to violate justice. Locke seems to hit on this abstract concept when he talks about the power of the state and individual to deter license that acts as liberty.
As usual I thank you for these exchanges. It forces me to sharpen my arguments and become more precise. We had a long discussion on this same topic much further down the page on your last post about Barton. I go into more depth there.
PS: When these discussion come up is it your take that discussion should be centered on the immediate time of the founding and the mindset then or do you think later history is applicable to the whole "Christian Nation" idea? I have seen people on both sides of the issue get upset when things like the 14th Amendment come up thinking it is out of context.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 29, 2009 4:32 PM
Michael
A series of quotes does not prove or disprove whether America is a Christian Nation. In fact, I have not seen a definition of "Christian Nation" in any of the ramblings here. Personally, this topic cannot be logically proved or disproved because, deductive resoning cannot to prove what resides in a person's heart. All I can say is that many of our Founders were men of God and full of the Holy Spirit (I don't have a picture of one). Their writings and their personal integrity reflected that spirit. However, neither I nor any of you can prove it no matter the verbal gymnastics.
Look at it this way, one cannot determine the number of apples that will be produced from planting a single apple seed. Try as you might to reduce the apple seed to its smallest subatomic composition, no apples will be found inside. Life from seed and faith in God are spiritual and cannot been photographed, dissected or even reasoned. One's disbelief in the Truth is also spiritual and until, your eyes are opened you will never see what I see.
Love,
John
Posted by: John | December 29, 2009 4:34 PM
Ed stated:
"But they also didn't have religious freedom. Much of that common law based on the Bible was explicitly anti-liberty, like blasphemy laws. Yes, there have been nations that based many of their law on the Bible; no, none of them have had religious freedom."
Are you saying that Great Britain did not have religious freedom? I think it would depend what period you are talking about. Also, America is based on common law tradition and we have religious freedom. In fact, I have read some papers on the whole law and development movement that state that most of the places that have seen development were grounded in established law and the most developed specifically in common law. I cannot remember where I read it. There is even an index they use to gauge the establishment of laws before they will invest in development.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 29, 2009 4:39 PM
KoI wrote: "I do believe the political theology that created a Big Tent that many different sects could feel at home under was historically Christian political theology."
Anachronistic nonsense. You're using today's broad-brush meaning of "Christian" in a way that didn't really apply in the 18th century. Protestants didn't think Catholics were Christians, and Catholics didn't think Protestants were Christians. "historically Christian political theology" means nothing in an age where non-Anglicans in England and non-Catholics in France were under political and other restrictions.
The Founders couldn't have set the US up as a "Christian" nation, because that would have required that they define "Christian", which would likely have resulted in bloodshed.
Posted by: Jon H | December 29, 2009 4:41 PM
Jon H- "Protestants didn't think Catholics were Christians, and Catholics didn't think Protestants were Christians."
And that changed....when, exactly?
Posted by: Rick R | December 29, 2009 4:45 PM
John,
I was hoping you would take your street evangelism down the road and allow a good discussion to take place but my hopes have been dashed with your repeated posts. What you stated was off topic, wrong, a distraction from intelligent conversation. I am a Christian as well and understand that this is neither the time nor the place for comments about Jesus dividing people. There are blogs to discuss that.
Ed is pointing out glaring weaknesses in the Christian Nation argument. I do not agree with everything he says on this topic but he is mostly right about most Christians not knowing much of the real History behind this. Most of you guys read a David Barton book and start spouting shit off without checking the sources. I have nailed those on the other end that read a Rhodda book and do the same. But Ed is not one of them and is well versed on this topic.
So are many of his readers. It is people that make comments like yours that bring out the uninformed on this site that enjoy these types of back and forth pissing contests. I have no idea why your types come here to evangelize and and equally no idea why those that say they hate people like you the most do not just ignore you.
Address the arguments he made in a real way or please just pipe down.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 29, 2009 4:47 PM
Wow, John turns out to be an atheist inspired by Monty Hall. I mean I can't know what's in his heart. So evidently it's okay for me to ignore what he's written and make up whatever I want in its place. This is going to save me so much time!
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 29, 2009 4:47 PM
sbh,
John, Mark and Matthew wer all eyewitnesses of Jesus and wrote their accounts. Luke traveled with most of the disciples and with Paul and carefully researched and recorded his Gospel account and also the Book of Acts. James, and Peter also wrote of Jesus and were also eye witnesses.
I doubt these men and others would have died such horrible deaths if they did not see Jesus and know who He was.
John
Posted by: John | December 29, 2009 4:49 PM
I read that Harry Potter is really good at Quiditch. So it must be true.
Posted by: Rick R | December 29, 2009 4:52 PM
Jon H stated:
"Anachronistic nonsense. You're using today's broad-brush meaning of "Christian" in a way that didn't really apply in the 18th century. Protestants didn't think Catholics were Christians, and Catholics didn't think Protestants were Christians. "historically Christian political theology" means nothing in an age where non-Anglicans in England and non-Catholics in France were under political and other restrictions.
The Founders couldn't have set the US up as a "Christian" nation, because that would have required that they define "Christian", which would likely have resulted in bloodshed."
You are exactly right and wrong at the same time. It is exactly because they wanted to avoid the Religious Wars in Europe that they rallied under a political theology that ignored sectarian differences. That is my exact point. Locke was quoted in "Letters Concerning Toleration" stating the difference between "Church" and "Commonweatlth". Essentially he stated that "Church" was a place to worship God in a way the person saw fit and was private. "Commonwealth" was for public discourse about the government. The founders seemed steeped in this type of thinking and were able to put doctrinal disputes aside and focus on a Big Tent of diverse interests that included staunch Calvinists and strict "Deists" alike with everything in between.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 29, 2009 4:55 PM
John,
Here is what your exchange looks like to me:
A: Here is a bunch of evidence the founders didn't use the Bible as a source either during the constitutional convention or during that arguments later in favor of ratifying it.
B: Here is a quote from a Supreme Court justice decades later.
A: That's not nearly enough. That guy wasn't a founder and do you even have a site to the primary literature?
B: It looks like Jesus has divided us.
A: No he hasn't. I don't even believe in Jesus. Also, that guy looks like he was quoting himself from an earlier decision.
B: It is impossible that he has not divided us, Jesus said so. Also, you're going to hell.
So, you've moved from presenting evidence to telling people they're going to hell if they don't agree with your religious interpretations. Wow, you sure convinced us of the strength of your position. Next, why don't you try to make hell sound really scary. Maybe fear will convince us we're really a Christian nation despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | December 29, 2009 4:57 PM
Why is it "deceit(ful)" Sadie, to tell a fellow human being that you love him. Because we disagree about the truth of God's word doesn't mean I don't love Taz or anyone else here. Most of the disagreement in this discussion has a tint of hate behind it yet, I won't return hate.
Love,
John
Posted by: John | December 29, 2009 4:58 PM
Jon H,
I am not a "Christian Nation" advocate. Please do not read me as such. Take my arguments on their own merit do not tune them out as part of the David Barton narrative.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 29, 2009 5:00 PM
"Are you saying that Great Britain did not have religious freedom?"
They certainly did not. Catholics weren't allowed to hold seats in parliament until 1829. Quakers were prevented from doing so until 1833. There were anti-Catholic riots in 1780 after some anti-Catholic laws were eased. In 1791 there were anti-Dissenter riots in Birmingham that destroyed the home of Joseph Priestly, among others.
Posted by: Jon H | December 29, 2009 5:03 PM
It's only Church tradition that attributes the gospels to the disciples for whom they are named. It is not the consensus among Biblical scholars.
I guess there really had to have been an alien spaceship hiding in the tail of Hale-Bopp, then.
BTW, upon what source do you base your claim that they died horrible deaths?
Posted by: DaveL | December 29, 2009 5:06 PM
To all,
I appreciate you taking the time to listen. I apologize if I offended any of you, it was not my intention. I hope each of you finds what he/she is looking for from this discussion and from your future studies.
Love,
John
Posted by: John | December 29, 2009 5:08 PM
Re John
Mr. John, of course, is totally full of crap. In fact, there is not a single primary account of a person known as Joshua of Nazareth by anybody who ever observed him. In particular the various books of the Christian Bible were written long after the demise of this alleged person by authors who had never met him, never attended any of his alleged sermons, and wouldn't have know who he was if he walked into a room. Everything in that volume is second hand or worse, know legally as hearsay, and would not be admitted into any court in the United States as evidence.
Posted by: SLC | December 29, 2009 5:11 PM
Because, John, I don't believe you mean it. Maybe you do, but I've seen too many evangelists use "love" to try to win converts. It comes off as very phony and insincere. You are trying to sell something here (i.e. your interpretation of Christianity, and/or the idea that this nation was founded on "Christian principles," however those are defined), and like all salespeople, you've got to establish a rapport with your prospective buyer in order to have any success. I appreciate that you're not as much of an asshole as Bruce Davidson above, but I'm still not buying what you're selling.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 29, 2009 5:11 PM
"And that changed....when, exactly?"
In recent decades some people have blurred the definitions into a big happy ecumenical melting pot.
Others still believe the other side are going to Hell, but keep it quiet for political advantage, and if it comes out it's mostly in a smug way or as a way to raise money.
Point being, at least in the US these days most people are willing to consider all the Christian denominations to fall under the Christian umbrella, and we don't have sectarian riots.
Posted by: Jon H | December 29, 2009 5:12 PM
Hey I resemble that remark! ;-)
It's a fair question you didn't quite ask; why not just ignore the proselytizing. I think the answer has a lot to do with how bored I am at the time and how ridiculous the claim is. Sometimes it even leads to a worthwhile discussion, which is also encouraging. In this particular case the person drew me in by starting out attempting to present a factual argument, the clever devil. But yea, mostly it's like watching the dryer spin, pointless yet vaguely hypnotic.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 29, 2009 5:14 PM
John:
I decline your gambit as a diversion of the thread. There is no historical evidence that Matthew, John, Mark, or Luke wrote anything that has come down to us. No document about Jesus that has come down to us bears any evidence of having been written by an eyewitness. If you're seriously interested in learning something about the subject, I suggest Peter Kirby's site at http://earlychristianwritings.com/ as a good starting point.
Posted by: sbh | December 29, 2009 5:17 PM
John, you threaten people here with never-ending torture. You worship a cosmic terrorist. You celebrate the idea that anyone who disagrees with you will be murdered and tortured by your vile imagianary friend. This is hateful. It is monstrous. For you to display with your actions such transparent hatred for your fellow human beings, and yet claim to love them, makes you an obvious liar. Isn't that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness? Careful, if you keep lying you might lose your ticket to watch the eternal torment of your enemies and laugh at their plight!
The very fact that you support this grotesque scare tactic is proof you are not worthy to be considered a human being. You can't love someone while wanting them tortured forever. The god you imagine is a fantasy made in your own image. And that image is evil to the very core. You are an evil bastard, clearly incapable of love. Which is why you worship an imaginary friend who revels in the suffering of others.
In short, John, since you've made it clear you're too stupid to understand a complex explanation, it is dishonest to claim to love someone when it is painfully obvious that you do not love them. It is dishonest to lie.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | December 29, 2009 5:19 PM
John -
many of our Founders were men of God - yes, most of them did believe in god
and full of the Holy Spirit - superstitious nonsense, especially in light of your later claim:
Try as you might to reduce the apple seed to its smallest subatomic composition, no apples will be found inside. Life from seed and faith in God are spiritual and cannot been photographed, dissected or even reasoned.
There's nothing "spiritual" about apple seeds. The mechanism by which they grow to trees and thus produce apples is well understood. You're not really claiming that it's a mystery because there's no tiny apples hidden in the seed are you?
You seem to have a need to invoke supernatural explanations where none are required.
Posted by: Taz | December 29, 2009 5:23 PM
Sadie,
I am not trying to win converts. I am not proselytizing. I am just trying to give everyone here another view. They say we Christians are close-minded, I would suggest there are many closed minds here as well.
Love,
John
Posted by: John | December 29, 2009 5:28 PM
John, if you aren't proselytyzing, why are you threatening everyone who doesn't join your cult with neverending torture? Better watch that whole "false witness" thing, asshole.
Of course by now you're pretty clearly showing that honesty is against your religion.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | December 29, 2009 5:33 PM
Abby Normal,
I was not talking about you. But it is a waste of time. It really is not the place. If your bored go watch 500 Days of Summer it is a good movie. I learned more in that thought provoking movie than I have watching the back and forth with John here today.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 29, 2009 5:35 PM
John, you might want to read those Gospels again. The authors neither identify themselves nor claim to be eyewitnesses. Few scholars consider it likely that any of them was written less than 40 years after the subject's death. They contain contradictory genealogies, contradictory birth narratives, contradictory accounts of the Last Supper. Luke's "careful research" has the Roman authorities making everyone in the world take a ridiculous vacation just so they can hold a census - a census which is known to have been held a decade after the death of the Herod. That's the same Herod who "Matthew" claims ordered a mass slaughter of infants and toddlers, an act that would hardly have escaped mention in Josephus's history of the Jewish revolt. There are good reasons for not accepting these accounts uncritically.
And could men suffer and die for something that they deeply believed, but was actually false? Of course they can; otherwise, you need to start worshiping the god of the 9/11 hijackers.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | December 29, 2009 5:46 PM
John: "Another view" my ass. All you offer is the same tired old threat of eternal punishment I've been hearing since I was in grade-school. All you're proving is that you spew the same old threats, according to the same old script, because you and your religion have nothing positive to offer.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 29, 2009 5:50 PM
Whew! What fun. As a Christian and a long-time Sunday School teacher ... I want to surprise many here by stating my full and unequivocal support for the initial posting. This is NOT a "Christian Nation." The right-wing-evangelical so-called-Christian (I say, becsuse according to the principle of "by their fruits, ye shall know them" they so rarely behave in anything resembling the way Christ would behave) attempts to paint this country as by its nature and founding "Christian" are reprehensible. What protects us all -- all religions, including NO-religion -- is that we do NOT have a Christian State. Just recently, there was a gothic painting placing Christ with the founding fathers. It was sent to me by a Christian friend and he was not happy with my reply. I thought it was horrific and hoped he would not let any impressionable young children or naive adults see it, for it says exactly the wrong thing. Some Christians actually understand this priciple, although we seem to be the minority these days. Anyway, please do not think that all Christians would like to join with John in expelling those of other beliefs from our country.
Posted by: Scott | December 29, 2009 6:39 PM
Somewhat late to the party but there was one thing the stuck out at me that I felt I must address.
I can name two definite exceptions to that claim. San Marino (recognised as the oldest Republic still in existence) and the Papal States. Probably Venice as well, though I'd have to check on that one. Granted the Republic of Venice was made part of Italy, as was most of the lands of the Papal states, but that wasn't until much later. And while the Pope, as ruler of the Papal States could be considered a King, it was by no means a hereditary position.
Posted by: Knight of L-sama | December 29, 2009 7:00 PM
John... what you and many of your like-minded fellows do not seem to grasp is this: We who frequent this blog have for varied reasons decided that religion as practiced by most mainstream churches has nothing to offer us. We live satisfying and fulfilled lives without it. The idea that we "need" a hand, will see the light, etc. etc. is deeply insulting to us (if I may be forgiven for speaking on behalf of my fellow Braytonites).
To presume that our lives have a void that you and only you are equipped to fill is arrogant, unwelcome and unnecessary.
Posted by: Rod | December 29, 2009 7:02 PM
As someone earlier posted, liberty seems to mean the exact opposite to the far right as to most other people. As I am in the process of reading Max Blumenthal’s book on how the Republican party was taken over by the far religious right (Republican Gommorah) I have to say I too am coming to that conclusion. Here is a quote from Saint Ignatius Loyola that seems to say it best: “Take, Lord Jesus Christ, and receive all my freedom, my memory, my understanding, and my will.” Christianity isn’t liberty—it is the renunciation of liberty to the will of All Mighty God. This seems to be the meaning of liberty to much of the far religious right.
As for John, Bruce and others of the far right ilk I still would really love to understand where these ideas of the halcyon days of rule by people establishing a Christian Republic come from. The “Christian” Founding Father’s presided over child labor, women as chattel, Africans as property, and the eventual virtual genocide of the Native Americans usually under the guise of spreading the faith.
In fact, a modicum of research shows that most of the concepts of decency that most current Christians profess didn’t generally come about until the decline of Christianity in everyday affairs of politics and governing with the rise of the “secular elite.”
What I find most fascinating here is how these people manage to wander onto a website which is for its most part founded upon rational and empirical discourse. There must be a thousand other websites where truth is not open to debate, comment, and empirical evidence. After all, unquestioned belief is for comfort—something difficult to find here for an unquestioning believer (of any stripe I should think).
And I guess to finish it off I should say I don’t really care if we were founded as a Christian nation or not, I’m much more happy with the results since we haven’t been one.
Posted by: Duane | December 29, 2009 7:29 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
To the extent that the common law imposed religious doctrine on individuals, they did not have religious freedom. Throughout the relevant period here (16th-19th centuries), the common law included punishment for blasphemy and those laws were used to punish and persecute unitarians, deists, Quakers and many others. Denial of the trinity was explicitly exempted from the Act of Toleration. So no, I don't believe they had religious freedom. They may have had relatively more religious freedom than some other countries, but punishing people for the expression of their religious views is the touchstone of religious freedom.
No, America is not based on common law tradition; we are based on the Constitution, which was a radical break with the kinds of laws I'm talking about. I think you underestimate the extent to which the guarantee of religious freedom, the ban on religious establishments and the ban on religious tests for office were truly radical changes. The extent to which they were resisted by the religious right of that day should be an indication of that. The ban on religious tests was excoriated from pulpit after pulpit because it meant that someday a - gasp - "Papist" or worse, a Jew or an infidel, might attain political power (or even political equality, which was just as horrifying a thought to them). We have religious freedom because we made a spectacular break with tradition; it certainly did not flow out of tradition.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 29, 2009 7:30 PM
Uh Ed, American Laws were based on English Common Law, it's just that they cherry-picked those bits that actually made sense. 'The Founding Fathers' didn't just make American Law up from scratch in 1789. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | December 29, 2009 7:38 PM
Ed stated:
"To the extent that the common law imposed religious doctrine on individuals, they did not have religious freedom. Throughout the relevant period here (16th-19th centuries), the common law included punishment for blasphemy and those laws were used to punish and persecute unitarians, deists, Quakers and many others. Denial of the trinity was explicitly exempted from the Act of Toleration. So no, I don't believe they had religious freedom. They may have had relatively more religious freedom than some other countries, but punishing people for the expression of their religious views is the touchstone of religious freedom."
A debatable topic. I need to read up on it more. I would say the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and other that preceded it were at very least a step in the right direction. Some call the Glorious Revolution the first modern Revolution. It was the ideas of Sidney and Locke that took root in this society gradually. John Adams says that others like Ponnet contributed to all the "essential of liberty" that were expounded upon during this time.
Ed also stated:
"No, America is not based on common law tradition; we are based on the Constitution, which was a radical break with the kinds of laws I'm talking about. I think you underestimate the extent to which the guarantee of religious freedom, the ban on religious establishments and the ban on religious tests for office were truly radical changes. The extent to which they were resisted by the religious right of that day should be an indication of that. The ban on religious tests was excoriated from pulpit after pulpit because it meant that someday a - gasp - "Papist" or worse, a Jew or an infidel, might attain political power (or even political equality, which was just as horrifying a thought to them). We have religious freedom because we made a spectacular break with tradition; it certainly did not flow out of tradition."
I understand that there were some radical changes but I think many of them were well underway in Great Britain during the periods that Adams quotes in his "Defence of the Constitution". I agree with Dingo that they did not start law from scratch.
Your point about the the "religious right" of the day is right on though. I am going to eventually do a post at AC about the NC debates on the First Amendment. I found a fascinating quote of one exchange that illustrates exactly what you are saying. I plan to link your post from a while back about the whole issue in Asheville today. The speech the guy gives about tolerance is awesome in the debates.
With that said, I am leary of a lot of 14th Amendment citations today in that they seem to continue to expand the power of the National government in the name of protecting rights. Not a good thing.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 29, 2009 8:11 PM
John, Mark and Matthew wer all eyewitnesses of Jesus and wrote their accounts.
Oh okay thanks dude. Welcome to the 9th century I guess. Read some more Josh McDowell for all your 9th century entertainment needs. Lol.
Posted by: 386sx | December 29, 2009 8:18 PM
Ed,
I think a case can be made that some in England were trying to replaced the shitty stuff based on the Bible with some good stuff. I think and honest reading of Locke's theological refutation of Filmer points to this. I did a post on this idea here:
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/11/challenge-to-all-cultural-warriors-in.html
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 29, 2009 8:20 PM
It's strange. In England they had that terrible, rampant tyranny of an official religion, now religion has little political force; in American they had the lovely, virtuous liberty of not having a official religion, 'separation of church and state'? Not so much. :(
What went so terribly wrong? - Dingo
-------
PS: the 'Glorious Revolution' is somewhat like the 'Holy Roman Empire', not a single word is applicable. The accession of William and Mary was, in truth, little more than, what would now be called, a centre right, middle-class coup (against an authoritarian congenital idiot), that overturned the innovations won forty years earlier. (IMHO)
Posted by: DingoJack | December 29, 2009 8:50 PM
I didn't get a chance to read all of the comments after John's initial one. I'll scroll back up after I post this.
I understand that the name of Jesus Christ divides because the Bible explains that phenomenon (Luke 12:51; Matthew 10:34). God's truth, unto which this nation's founders predominently adheared, is a sword which divides truth from falsity, right from wrong, good from evil. It confronts us and requires us to make decisions about Jesus Christ. He can either be a rock on which we stand or a stone that causes us to stumble.
Take my hand Mr. Brayton and let me help you up.
One can note this is simply a false dichotomy, that one simply can be "neutral" on Jesus -- that is open minded and agnostic about his or His claims, but not convinced by the evidence one way or the other.
If I may do some "decoding" of "John's comment," it's a Truth conviction that unless you are one of "us" and for "Him" you are really against us. That's fine as far as it goes. The problem is the FFs were not one of you and America was not founded as a "Christian Nation" in the sense that you'd like.
And again -- if I am reading too much or too uncharitably into your assertions please clarify. That's what I'm here for, clarity, not to beat you up or win a debate.
Re the Holy Trinity case, it's about as authoritative as Roe v. Wade, Dredd Scott or any other Supreme Court case. Yeah, they said it. But no it doesn't make it right.
Re who Jesus is, it's doubtful any of the "key Founders" including John Q. Adams were "for Him" as you would like to think.
Simply saying "I follow Jesus" as Barack Obama did, doesn't make one a follower of Jesus as you'd like to believe.
If Jesus is the 2nd Person in the Trinity (which I'm guessing is John's theology), then the first American President who was "for" Jesus was likely Andrew Jackson.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | December 29, 2009 8:56 PM
Dingo,
It never seemed to last long. The gains won from freedom that is.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 29, 2009 9:09 PM
John | December 29, 2009 2:30 PM:
John, please read The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, by Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies Robert M. Price.
Posted by: llewelly | December 29, 2009 9:12 PM
KoI - Unfortunately, I think you are correct. :( - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | December 29, 2009 9:24 PM
rick @49
The date? On the Catholic side, it was November 21, 1964. Lumen Gentium #15.
When baptized protestants become Catholic they are not re-baptized because they are considered Christians with valid baptisms.
On the protestant side, the view of Catholics varies with denomination.
Posted by: Dr X | December 29, 2009 9:51 PM
I'm ashamed to admit that Baldwin's in my town. He's actually crazier than the "Christian Nation" crap would suggest--he buys into the Obama Internment Camps crap. He claims to have SEEN one in Colorado from 30,000 feet up. I especially liked the bit about the National Guard "advertising" for "Resettlement/Internment Specialists." On their own website.
Posted by: Jody White | December 29, 2009 10:21 PM
Rod,
You're overgeneralizing. Some of the "we who frequent this blog" have made comments that indicate views other than "religion as practiced by most mainstream churches has nothing to offer us."
Posted by: JuliaL | December 29, 2009 10:33 PM
Actually the national Guard did in fact advertise this on their website. It made the news in a hurry and they removed the ad. It is scary that the Obama administration tends to ignore Islamic terrorists and puts all his resources on pesky conservatives who actually know history better than he does. I ca't help it if he hates the Second Amendment or the first. he has to respect it like everyone else. He is president, not dictator, not yet anyway.
Yes, most of the founding fathers saw the world through Christian eyes even if some were deists. Their worldview and morals were still Bibically based, not man based.
As for the so called "establishment clause" as it is referred to, most dumb liberals do not realize that the word "establishment" at the time this was written referred to a particular demonination recieveing federal funding. The so called establishment clause prohibits the federal government from funding or establishing (cannot establish without financing with tax dollars) a particular denomination ( or religion as well). It does not state that a senator, president, congressman, etc cannot display personal religious beliefs, nor does it say that religious symbols cannot be displayed on government property if a private citizen places it there. Sorry dudes, you have been duped into one the ACLU's oldest con artist games.
Posted by: Captain patriot | December 29, 2009 10:40 PM
Yes, most of the founding fathers saw the world through Christian eyes even if some were deists. Their worldview and morals were still Bibically based, not man based.
Hmmm. A little more nuanced than the FFs were "Christians" and if you aren't with Jesus you are against him.
What does it mean to see the world through "Christian eyes" even as some are deists?
Did John Adams, a self proclaimed Christian, see the world through "Christian eyes" when he fervently denied the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, Eternal Damnation (as he did his entire adult life)?
“An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity.”
-- John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | December 29, 2009 10:46 PM
False dichotomy.
Posted by: Dr X | December 29, 2009 10:56 PM
I cannot help it if Adams was lost. He did believe in morality from God, not man though. He was lost. I supposed he never got saved. The was so with Jefferson. I don;t know why. both had the same opportunity to read for themselves about how to be saved. I don;t have all the answers, but I do know this nations was not founded by Godless socialist marxists hell bent on destroying religion and installing a socialist God hating man hating nation of perverts and dopeheads. That is not how they saw freedom. My fiend your form of freedom is called Californiaism. Not Americanism. Choose freedom, not socialism. Good not evil.
Posted by: Captain patriot | December 29, 2009 10:56 PM
Captain patriot: You say "Godless socialist marxists hell bent on destroying religion and installing a socialist God hating man hating nation of perverts and dopeheads" like it's a bad thing.
Have you even tried to be a Godless socialist marxists hell bent on destroying religion and installing a socialist God hating man hating nation of perverts and dopeheads?
Walk a mile in Godless socialist marxists hell bent on destroying religion and installing a socialist God hating man hating nation of perverts and dopeheads' shoes first, then come back here and give your opinion on Godless socialist marxists hell bent on destroying religion and installing a socialist God hating man hating nation of perverts and dopeheads.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 29, 2009 11:04 PM
Capt,
You don't have clue about the form of freedom I endorse. As to your assertion "but I do know this nations was not founded by Godless socialist marxists hell bent on destroying religion and installing a socialist God hating man hating nation of perverts and dopeheads."
This is called a "strawman."
Instead of knocking down a strawman that I didn't assert, let us instead, positively advance WHAT it was men like Jefferson, J. Adams, Franklin, Madison, Washington and others believed. They were PRO-RELIGION because they believed religion supported republican government. But they held the very opposite view of Jesus that "John" endorses in post 6 where he wrote "the name of Jesus Christ divides because the Bible explains that phenomenon (Luke 12:51; Matthew 10:34)."
To the contrary, like George Bush, they viewed Jesus politics as uniting, not dividing. Indeed they fully endorsed Bush's notion that Muslims worship the same God Jews and Christians do. To them, being a "Christian" meant being a good person, regardless of what one thought of Christ. One could be a Hindu or a pagan-Greco-Roman and still be a "Christian" according to American Founding thought.
America's Founders thought Jesus was a special dude in some divine sense -- and that meant he could have been 2nd person in the Trinity, could have been a divine like being, created by and subordinate to the father. Or 100% man, albeit a savior, sent of a divine mission to save man thru his perfect moral mission.
Besides being disproportionately unitarian, the key Founders tended to disbelieve in eternal damnation (they were theological universalists) and thought the Bible errant, that is partially -- some of them large parts of the Bible, some of them, not so large -- inspired.
This -- not strict deism or biblical Christianity -- was the political theological driver behind the American Founding.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | December 29, 2009 11:18 PM
Red herring. No one in this thread made that claim.
Posted by: Dr X | December 29, 2009 11:20 PM
Scott @ 73:
Thanks for a refreshing mainstream Christian perspective. Sometimes I forget what that sounds like.
Posted by: Moon Jaguar | December 29, 2009 11:36 PM
Captain Patriot wrote:
I always laugh when I see someone criticizing others as "dumb" while advocating absolutely false ideas. You provide not a shred of evidence for your assertion; let me provide you with evidence against it. Congress considered and rejected lots and lots of variant wordings for the First Amendment before the final wording was approved. Three of them, at least, would have specified a prohibition on the establishment of a particular sect or denomination. All three were voted down in favor of the much broader wording. They left the article out -- "an establishment of religion" vs "an establishment of A religion" -- on purpose. If they had only wanted to prevent the establishment of a specific denomination, they would have voted for the multiple forms of the amendment that specified that.
And no one claims it does. Politicians speak of their religious beliefs every single day and no one ever attempts to stop them.
And again, no one claims such a thing. But if the government allows one private citizen to put up a display of their own beliefs, they must also allow another citizen to put up a similar display for their own beliefs, even if they contradict the first one.
You're very good at beating up straw men but very bad at engaging the actual arguments made by your opposition.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 29, 2009 11:47 PM
Captain Patriot is clearly a Poe.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 29, 2009 11:48 PM
Sadie Morrison said:
I'm officially abandoning atheism just so I can say this with full impact, God I hope so!
KoI said:
Perhaps you didn't learn anything. But I would expect at least some readers might not be familiar with Justice Brewer and his roll in building the Christian nation story. Had John engaged the argument or acknowledged his error, he'd have kept my respect and we might have had a nice discussion. Instead he ducked the issue, retreating into appeals to emotion and baseless claims of moral superiority. That deserves a good swatting.
In other words, I'll mock him if I want to. So there. :-p
(And thanks for the movie tip. I'll check it out.)
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 30, 2009 12:44 AM
I suppose John does love us in his own fuckwitted way; he's doing the old good cop / bad cop routine. He's a friend, he wants to help us, to protect us from his partner. His partner's a scary guy, been kind of on edge lately, you know?
"I don't have all the answers, but I do know this nations was not founded by Godless socialist marxists hell bent on destroying religion and installing a socialist God hating man hating nation of perverts and dopeheads."
Hehehehehehe.
P.S
ModusOperandi said
"Walk a mile in Godless socialist marxists hell bent on destroying religion and installing a socialist God hating man hating nation of perverts and dopeheads' shoes first, then come back here and give your opinion on Godless socialist marxists hell bent on destroying religion and installing a socialist God hating man hating nation of perverts and dopeheads."
I would go one further. Walk a mile in Godless socialist marxists hell bent on destroying religion and installing a socialist God hating man hating nation of perverts and dopeheads' shoes first, then you're a mile away and you've got their shoes! That'll teach those damn dirty commie rats the value of private enterprise!
Posted by: Coryat | December 30, 2009 6:55 AM
Coryak - Yeah, but remember, they've got yours, and odds are: they're a hell of a lot: more comfortable, better fitting, better made and more expensive.
Who laughing now?! - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | December 30, 2009 8:22 AM
Ed,
I'm back. Please forgive me for sidetracking the discussion with my belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ. It was not my intention to cause such a stir but I did get somewhat caught up in responding to your comments.
That said, I will move on to the "Christian Nation," idea.
Definitions first:
Christian - a person who adheres to a belief in the teachings of and faith in the person of Jesus Christ who was fully man and fully God.
Nation - body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin. (New Ox American Dictionary 2nd Edition)
Therefore, a Christian Nation is a body of people primarily Judeo-Christian immigrants from Europe and some displaced Indians) who share a common history, culture (except the Indians) and who adhere to a belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ who was fully man and fully God. As a Christian Nation the majority would believe in the teachings of the Bible and would view them as inerrant (at least then) and from God. Finally this collective body would draw their morality and personal conduct from the example of Jesus.
The various blogs, articles, and posts available on the web are opinions based on both hearsay and scholarly research. Both avenues have their pitfalls and like my faith in the Word of God, require some degree of faith in the writer if they are to be accepted as true.
Ed you make a good arguement and I have not the time nor the inclination to debate your scholarship. Suffice it to say, one cannot begin to know what is in the hearts of every person alive then who called themselves Christians.
I agree with many here that many atrocities and bad behavior has been perpetrated by "Christians" but I will not allow the sinfulness of man to change my conviction.
Neither I, Chuck Baldwin, David Barton, nor you Ed can know how any of the Founders truly lived out in their lives and beliefs. We can read their writings and get some picture, but our own prejudices will always "fill in the blanks" as we desire to spin the conversation. Even the so-called experts with whom many of you professed to be familiar, bring a certain degree of bias to any of these discussions.
In my biased view, I agree (with many including the 911 terrorists) that the origins of our nation (its people) was borne from a Judeo-Christian belief system. The history from the Plymouth settlement to today, I believe, confirms.
If we desire to label America "A Christian Nation" based on the history and the religious background of the majority of that day, so be it - I agree. Could have Balwin been more elequent - yes; however, I doubt many of your mind's would have been changed.
Good article and good discussion. God Bless you....John
.
Posted by: John | December 30, 2009 1:58 PM
John,
Your argument boils down to, "we're a Christian nation because I believe we are, amen."
Unfortunately on the side of "not a Christian nation," we have little things like evidence, the actual writings of the founding fathers, the stated positions of those same founding fathers, the actual text of the Constitution, the Tripoli Treaty, the letters of Jefferson and Madison, authors of the two key documents that establish our reasons for separating from the British empire and the foundational legal principles by which our country was founded.
All of them establish one very inconvenient (for you) but fundamental truth. We were established as a liberal (for the time period) secular nation. Period, the end, have a nice life, Ramen.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 30, 2009 2:16 PM
Christian - a person who adheres to a belief in the teachings of and faith in the person of Jesus Christ who was fully man and fully God.
Some of my friends (KOI for instance) critic me for tightly focusing on this definition of "Christianity" when I assert America was NOT founded to be a "Christian Nation" in a political-theological sense.
But if that is how "Christianity" defines, America was NOT founded to be a "Christian Nation" and the "key Founders" were not "Christians."
That is, Jefferson, J. Adams, Franklin, Washington, Madison, G. Morris, Story, Hamilton and Marshall (before their deathbed conversions to your understanding of Christianity) and many others were not "Christians" according to YOUR miniminalistic definition (which I'm sure you could argue is the BIBLE'S definition).
Likewise, there is no meaningful connection between YOUR minimalistic definition of "Christianity" and the US Constitution, DOI, or Federalist Papers.
There's lots of other stuff in John's assertions that could be unpacked. But if we accept his premise that one must be a Bible believing Christian in order to have his views taken seriously, Dr. Gregg Frazer (and many others) fit the mark confirm at least what I have written here.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | December 30, 2009 2:24 PM
John, I'm going to say this first because I believe it's important to be straight right off the bat: I think you're a dickhead with some stupid views and no real reason to be here.
BUT.
Your definition of a Christian Nation had me a little, well, confused. You see, you've defined it as a nation made of Judeo-Christian immigrants, which is strange. It sounds a little like you're trying to frame the debate; if you use the word "immigrants" in your attempt at a formal definition, then it can only apply to the USA and hey! presto. You've got an American Christian Nation.
Of course, it avoids a lot of things. A nation is really a legal thing. It may be, and often is, based on the imagined community (although there are other kinds of nation state creation), but when the imagined community is used to create a nation state, then the principles of the imagined community are enshrined in law. Do you follow?
So, in Indonesia, for instance, the national ideology of Pancasila is enshrined in the constitution, basing Indonesia on the idea of an assimilationist, pelagic, essentially Javanese empire, geographically holding all of the territory of the former Dutch East Indies and officially believing in monotheism. This is enshrined in law. It makes Indonesia a Pancasila Nation. It was also used to justify creating Indonesia in the wake of the Dutch, but that wouldn't have made Indonesia a Pancasila Nation had the Indonesian government simply rejected it as an ideology and had created a mish mash of secular laws.
Turkey was, before the 1920s, a Muslim nation, and a Muslim empire. It was officially so, and for centuries, it had spread Islam and encouraged and enforced it. Most of its citizens are, still, Muslims. But the constitution of Turkey makes it clear that Turkey is a secular nation, and that is thus what it is.
The USA, to sum up, has placed secularism, federalism, democracy and private property at the heart of its laws. Christianity is not enshrined in law. Even if it had been the sole unifying factor in the creation of the USA (and it wasn't), then it wouldn't make the USA a Christian Nation; the law is main factor, especially in a democracy.
Also, there were Jews, Quakers, and Catholics in the British colonies before independence. To say that they all shared the same culture is also nonsense. The Scots-Irish in the south east did not have the same culture as descendents of Frenchmen in Boston (like Paul Revere) or Dutchmen and Quakers in Pennsylvania. They were not united by religion or culture. They were united by the laws of a secular government.
And the argument that America is Christian because of Plymouth Plantation is beyond ridiculous. One small religious colony (many in the colony weren't religious, by the way; they were simply using the colony as a base to make money from the area, which is hardly surprising) is not representative of the entirety of either the British colonies or the later states. You may as well claim that because the Oglala Lakota inhabit(ed) part of the USA, therefore the circle and buffalo are sacred, Lakota is the national language, and all Americans should wear rawhide.
You simply are not correct about anything. There is a tremendous amount of depth to this universe. You are ignoring most of it, and while that's a shame, I would not care at all, were you to simply shut up.
Posted by: Al West | December 30, 2009 2:33 PM
This is the same type of "reasoning" that a lot of creationists use. You don't *know* with 100% certainty that such and such happened, so I'm justified in believing whatever I want.
No John, we can't *know* what the founders really believed in their heart of hearts, but we can look at the evidence. The notes from the constitutional convention tell us that the Bible was not used as a source of ideas. What they wrote to advocate its ratification tell us that they didn't use Biblical arguments to try win support. And what they wrote about their own personal believes tell us that some wouldn't even qualify as Christians according to your narrow definition.
You, on the other hand, have presented almost no evidence to justify your position that this is a Christian nation. You can say we happen to be a nation of mostly Christians, but that's not that same thing as saying the nation was founded explicitly on Christianity and that the founder got their inspiration from the Bible as you claimed previously.
The two positions are not equal. Just because we can't ever be 100% certain about their actual beliefs doesn't mean that you can just assert something (that just happens to agree with your religious worldview) and then claim that its perfectly reasonable to believe it.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | December 30, 2009 2:47 PM
Therefore, a Christian Nation is a body of people primarily Judeo-Christian immigrants from Europe and some displaced Indians) who share a common history, culture (except the Indians) and who adhere to a belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ...
You're forgetting the African slaves, who came here (not of their own free will) from decidedly different religious and historical roots. You're also forgetting the huge numbers of non-European immigrants who also did not come from Christian backgrounds.
You're also forgetting that even among the original European Christian colonists, there's more than one religious and cultural tradition. Pretending we're a uniformly Christian nation, despite all the diverse strains of Christianity (and bitter hateful disputes between them) that were prevalent even back then, really doesn't support your "Christian nation" assertion. (Are the Mormons part of our "Christian nation?" Or are they a heretical enclave within it? What about the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox types?)
As a Christian Nation the majority would believe in the teachings of the Bible and would view them as inerrant (at least then) and from God. Finally this collective body would draw their morality and personal conduct from the example of Jesus.
First you speak of belief in "the teachings of Jesus," then you speak of "believing in the teachings of the Bible," then you're back to "the example of Jesus." The teachings of Jesus are VERY DIFFERENT from those of the Bible, and they're not interchangeable. Pick one and stick to it.
Ed you make a good arguement and I have not the time nor the inclination to debate your scholarship.
So basically you're admitting Ed knows his stuff and you're not disputing any of his assertions?
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 30, 2009 2:57 PM
Hey John @103, would you mind narrowing down your definition of a Christian Nation a little? As it stands now, it seems a bit too broad of a definition. Why don't you just say what you really think it is, i.e. a nation that was founded by Jesus?
Posted by: 386sx | December 30, 2009 3:05 PM
You're also forgetting that even among the original European Christian colonists, there's more than one religious and cultural tradition.
That's because he didn't give us what he really thinks is a Christian nation. He thinks a Christian nation is a nation founded by Jesus, but he won't say it.
Posted by: 386sx | December 30, 2009 3:07 PM
Al,
"I think you're a ***** with some stupid views and no real reason to be here....You simply are not correct about anything. There is a tremendous amount of depth to this universe. You are ignoring most of it, and while that's a shame, I would not care at all, were you to simply shut up."
So much for "free thinkers" I guess the only opinion that matters here is yours. I thought your biggest arguement with Christians was their closed-mindedness. I don't believe we have yet cornered the market.
"A nation is really a legal thing"
Tell that to Louis Farrakhan and Osama Bin Laden.
"They were not united by religion or culture. They were united by the laws of a secular government."
I believe this is inaccurate, a cursory read of the Mayflower Compact and accounts of the first winter in Plymouth that they were sustained by their faith and the providence of God. I refer you to www.mayflowerhistory.com if you desire to understand why the first settlers came and where the roots of our Christian Nation lie.
Posted by: John | December 30, 2009 3:09 PM
John,
You're still a dickhead. Embrace it.
Personally, my main problem with religious people has instead been the fact that they are incorrect about the cosmos. I actually have no social agenda, really. I'm interested in facts. And in case you needed any further corroboration of the fact that I have no real stake in the matter, I'm actually from England.
As for close mindedness, I don't really mind what you call it; I prefer bluntness. It comes naturally to me, I'm afraid.
Anyway:
PLYMOUTH != THE THIRTEEN COLONIES
PLYMOUTH != THE USA
When I say that the laws of a secular government united America, I mean that that is literally what united the USA, not any cultural or religious unity. So referring to Plymouth Plantation is... odd.
It is certainly likely that the few settlers of Plymouth were united by their religious convictions. So? That has absolutely nothing to do with America, nor even the British colonies in America, many of which came from Plymouth. What united them after the revolution was the law.
By the way, nations which aren't yet nations, but which call themselves nations, are academically referred to as "nations of intent". For instance, the Indonesian province of Papua has many citizens who constitute a West Papuan "nation of intent". But a nation of intent is not a nation, and it is the law that makes a nation, whether internationally or inside its own borders. The USA is a nation because of the law, not because of any perceived unity in its cultural and religious views.
Louis Farrakhan's use of nation would be considered incorrect, formally.
LOVE
Al.
Posted by: Al West | December 30, 2009 3:24 PM
John,
You are punting. The American Founding from 1776-1791 was NOT the Mayflower Compact, and in many ways repudiated those ideas.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | December 30, 2009 3:25 PM
You guys are so much fun!
Happy New Year!
Love
John
:)
Posted by: John | December 30, 2009 3:28 PM
You may not be aware of it, but the Plymouth colony was only one of many that came to make up the Massachusetts Bay Colony, which annexed it almost 100 years prior to the signing of the Constitution.
The Massachussets Bay Colony, in turn, corresponds to only two (Massachusetts and New Hampshire) of the 13 colonies that came to make up the United States.
It cannot be denied that there were some who wished to establish an explicitly Christian nation in America. To put it succinctly, they were overruled.
Posted by: DaveL | December 30, 2009 3:34 PM
John,
Seriously, read the writings of the anti-federalists. You will find that many of the claims you make about the nature of our government are false and the fact that the founding fathers weren't creating a "Christian Nation" was decried by your Christian predecessors who wanted, but didn't get a Christian nation.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 30, 2009 4:33 PM
Jon Rowe stated:
"Some of my friends (KOI for instance) critic me for tightly focusing on this definition of "Christianity" when I assert America was NOT founded to be a "Christian Nation" in a political-theological sense.
But if that is how "Christianity" defines, America was NOT founded to be a "Christian Nation" and the "key Founders" were not "Christians."
The real difference is whether to focus on people or ideas. According to most Evangelicals someone who does not believe Jesus is God, in original sin, or hell then that person is not a Christian. But that does not now, nor did it then, keep said Evangelical from recognizing the role of Christian ideas like Imago Dei and love of neighbor as self in the Declaration or the impact of other Christian ideas on the founding. It is in the former that private doctrinal differences are, and were, put aside for a public political theology/philosophy that creates a big enough tent for everyone to fit under.
I know what you are trying to do and commend you for trying to set the record straight. Since you do it in a polite tone that I believe sincerely hopes that the person you are pointing this out to sees the light I do respect you for it. I just think if we are not careful others will use what you say and make it out the America was created to be a strictly secular nation hostile to religion like France was at the time of the founding.
I think John was more interesting in doing evangelism where people really do not want it than discussing anything to do with the founding in an intelligent way. But who knows?
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 30, 2009 4:52 PM
Dog Meat stated:
"Your argument boils down to, "we're a Christian nation because I believe we are, amen."
Unfortunately on the side of "not a Christian nation," we have little things like evidence, the actual writings of the founding fathers, the stated positions of those same founding fathers, the actual text of the Constitution, the Tripoli Treaty, the letters of Jefferson and Madison, authors of the two key documents that establish our reasons for separating from the British empire and the foundational legal principles by which our country was founded.
All of them establish one very inconvenient (for you) but fundamental truth. We were established as a liberal (for the time period) secular nation. Period, the end, have a nice life, Ramen."
You blast him. Use those documents to make your case. How was the Declaration of Independence not an Interposition? If it was then one of our founding documents was based on a Christian legal idea. Maybe we need to access what secular really means? If it is the French Revolution that is not what the American Revolution was all about. To attempt to make it into that is just a big a lie as anything Barton says. Our founders were not trying to start all over. Up until the time that Parliament took their rights as Englishmen that is what they argued. The were not starting over the were building on what was already there thanks to the gains in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and had been forgotten.
When these efforts failed they turned to Interposition based on inalienable rights that were grounded in:
1 Love of God
2. Love of self based on a knowledge that one is the workmanship of God and his property
3. Love of neighbor based on the knowledge that he is God's workmanship and property as well
These are Locke's foundations for the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property that made it into the Declaration of Independence. This still has not been refuted.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 30, 2009 5:07 PM
It hasn't been "refuted" because you've established a benign little shell of "Christianity" to make your argument based upon, at best, a questionable interpretation of both scripture and Locke as well as a convenient dismissal or minimization of the volumes of evidence that the Bible played a much greater role in the establishment of anti-enlightenment, anti-republican, anti-liberty based totalitarian regimes. You then use this hollow shell of "Christianity" to establish a Catch-22 version of what our founders created that really, only Western European democracies can qualify and then point to this circular argument and say, "See, told you so."
For your explanation to work you have to water down Christianity to a point where it becomes irrelevant. You have to ignore the other influences, ignore the negative influences of the Bible that scream out to be noticed, and, as was pointed out in the previous "Christian Nation" thread, you have to play 6 degrees of Bible [Kevin Bacon] in order to establish this "tie."
Your definition and argument have about as much foundation as the fact that they happened to be men, European, or English support the notion that women, non-Europeans, or non-Englishmen are incapable of creating an enlightened republic. If this is a Christian nation in any substantial way, show me where in the Constitution it quotes scripture, references the Bible, mentions God, requires Christian services, requires Christian religious oaths, requires that members of the government be Christian, establishes laws or guidelines that are mandated by the Bible, follows the 10 commandments, hell, point to me where in the Constitution it even acknowledges the existence of Jesus.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 30, 2009 5:19 PM
Al West stated:
"The USA, to sum up, has placed secularism, federalism, democracy and private property at the heart of its laws. Christianity is not enshrined in law. Even if it had been the sole unifying factor in the creation of the USA (and it wasn't), then it wouldn't make the USA a Christian Nation; the law is main factor, especially in a democracy.
Also, there were Jews, Quakers, and Catholics in the British colonies before independence. To say that they all shared the same culture is also nonsense. The Scots-Irish in the south east did not have the same culture as descendents of Frenchmen in Boston (like Paul Revere) or Dutchmen and Quakers in Pennsylvania. They were not united by religion or culture. They were united by the laws of a secular government.
And the argument that America is Christian because of Plymouth Plantation is beyond ridiculous. One small religious colony (many in the colony weren't religious, by the way; they were simply using the colony as a base to make money from the area, which is hardly surprising) is not representative of the entirety of either the British colonies or the later states. You may as well claim that because the Oglala Lakota inhabit(ed) part of the USA, therefore the circle and buffalo are sacred, Lakota is the national language, and all Americans should wear rawhide.
You simply are not correct about anything. There is a tremendous amount of depth to this universe. You are ignoring most of it, and while that's a shame, I would not care at all, were you to simply shut up."
Al,
I actually agree with most of what you stated here and was about to write the same thing in response to John. The one caveat is what you mean by a secular nation? I guess it depends on one's view of separation of church and state. Or should I say the establishment clause. Discussion for another day.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 30, 2009 5:21 PM
KoI,
Clearly you know Locke much better than I do. Could you give me a source, please, where Locke says his "foundations for the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property" were grounded in "1 Love of God 2. Love of self based on a knowledge that one is the workmanship of God and his property 3. Love of neighbor based on the knowledge that he is God's workmanship and property as well"?
There may be similarities between ideas without one being the source of the other, so showing that some Christian idea is similar to something found in our governmental structure doesn't indicate that the one is the source of the other. Also, I have trouble connecting the three religious ideas you list with Locke and rights to liberty and property.
I don't see that love necessarily leads to principles of personal liberty and persoanl property ownership/control. For example, When my mother became very ill and confused in the months before she died in September, I legally deprived her of some of her liberty (to prevent her from injuring herself in her confusion) and of the control of some of her property to prevent her from giving away the money she needed to pay for medical treatment. I did those things out of love. Also, a belief that others and yourself are equally God's workmanship and property could lead logically to a society where everything is owned in common.
Perhaps you could direct me to some reading where Locke explains why personal liberty and private property ownership are required by the religious views you listed?
Posted by: JuliaL | December 30, 2009 5:44 PM
KoI, I would be interested to know how you think a "fuck you" letter to the King could have been worded such that you would not consider it a "document of interposition".
Posted by: DaveL | December 30, 2009 5:55 PM
Julia L,
Here is what I quoted from the first few paragraphs of his "Second Treatise" with some comments interpolated by me from the David Barton thread a while back:
"TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man."
The whole Declaration is essentially based on the concept of "all men are created equal."
This was the foundation of a legal argument that states that the King is not above the law because of some divine command. This doctrine is rooted in the concept Imago Dei, love of self, and neighbor. To take one part of the concept and leave out the other two is not consistent with Christian theology and was foreign to the founding political theology.
After a long theological reasoning that disputes Filmer's claim that Adam was born with an innate right to rule over his posterity Locke starts off his second Treatise with what was quoted above.
Locke Continues and eventually quotes Hooker:
"A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.
Sec. 5. This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity. His words are,
"The like natural inducement hath brought men to know that it is no less their duty, to love others than themselves; for seeing those things which are equal, must needs all have one measure; if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire, which is undoubtedly in other men, being of one and the same nature? To have any thing offered them repugnant to this desire, must needs in all respects grieve them as much as me; so that if I do harm, I must look to suffer, there being no reason that others should shew greater measure of love to me, than they have by me shewed unto them: my desire therefore to be loved of my equals in nature as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to them-ward fully the like affection; from which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn, for direction of life, no man is ignorant, Eccl. Pol. Lib. 1."
This is essentially expounded on the his first words and adding to his case other historical arguments that state the the King is not above the law because all men are equal. Then he ties in the whole idea of God's workmanship that clearly shows a connection between equality, Imago Dei, and love of self rooted in love of God.
"But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another."
The last part here would shock most people that have been taught what Locke said but never read it for themselves. This no doubt made it into the Declaration.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 30, 2009 5:56 PM
I can give you a source where Locke held the decidedly Christian view that Adam and everything else was "poofed" into the world ex nihilo, and where he also held the decidedly anti-Christian view that Adam did not have dominion over the world.
Posted by: 386sx | December 30, 2009 5:57 PM
DaveL stated:
"KoI, I would be interested to know how you think a "fuck you" letter to the King could have been worded such that you would not consider it a "document of interposition".
I think it was an interposition and it is totally in line with the writings of Ponnet that John Adams said has "all the essentials of liberty":
"Chapter VI. Whether It Be Lawful To Depose An Evil Governor, And Kill A Tyrant.
As there is no better nor happier commonwealth nor no greater blessing of God, than where one rules, if he is a good, just, and godly man: so there is no worse nor none more miserable, nor greater plague of God, than where one rules, that is evil, unjust and ungodly. A good man knowing that he or those by whom he claims was to such office called for his virtue, to see the whole state well governed, and the people defended from injuries: neglecting utterly his own pleasure and profit, and bestows all his study and labor to see his office well discharged. And as a good physician earnestly seeks the health of his patient and a shipmaster the wealth and safeguard of those he has in his ship, so does a good governor seek the wealth of those he rules. And therefore the people feeling the benefit coming by good governors, used in times past to call such good governors, fathers: and gave them no less honor than children owe to their parents. And evil person coming to the government of any state, either by usurpation, or by election or by succession, utterly neglecting the cause why kings, princes, and other governors in commonwealths be made (that is, the wealth of the people) seeks only or chiefly his own profit and pleasure. And as a sow coming into a fair garden, roots up all the fair and sweet flowers and wholesome simples, leaving nothing behind, but her own filthy dirt: so does an evil governor subvert the laws and orders, or makes them to be wrenched or racked to serve his affections, that they can no longer do their office. He spoils the people of their goods, either by open violence, making his ministers to take it from them without payment therefore, or promising and never paying: or craftily under the mane of loans, benevolences, contributions, and such gay painted words, or forbear he gets out of their possession that they have, and never restores it. And when he has it, consumes it, not to the benefit and profit of the commonwealth, but on whores, whoremongers, dice games, cards, bankletting, unjust wars, and such evils and mischiefs, wherein he delights. He spoils and takes away from them their armor and harness, that they shall not be able to use any force to defend their right. And not content to have brought them in to such misery (to be sure of his state) seeks and takes all occasions to dispatch them of their lives. If a man keeps his house, and nothing in metal, than shall it be said that he frets at the state. If he comes abroad and speaks to any other, further with it is taken for a just conspiracy. If he says nothing, and shows a merry countenance, it is a token, that he despises the government. If he look sorrowful, than he laments the state of his country, how many so ever be for any cause committed to prison, are not only asked, but are racked also to show whether he is privy of their doings. If he departs, because he would live quietly, then he is proclaimed an open enemy. to be short, there in no doing, no gesture, no behavior, no place can preserve or defend innocence against such a governor's cruelty: but as a hunter makes wild beasts his pray, and uses toils, nets, snares, traps, dogs, ferrets, mining and digging the ground, guns, bows, spears, and all other instruments, engines, subtle devises and means, whereby he may come by his prey: so does a wicked governor make the people his game and prey, and uses all kinds of subtleties, deceits, crafts, policies, force, violence, cruelty, and such devilish ways, to spoil and destroy the people, that be committed to his charge. And when he is not able without most manifest cruelty to do by himself that which he desires, then fain unjust causes to cast them into prison, where like as the bearwards muzzle the bears, and tie them to the stakes, while they are baited and killed by mastiffs and curies, so he keeps them in chains, while the bishops and his other tormentors and heretical inquisitors do tear and devour them. Finally, he says and denies, he promises and breaks promises, he swears and forswears, and no other passes on God nor the devil (as the common saying is) so he may bring to pass that which he desires. Such an evil governor men properly call a tyrant.
Now for as much as there is no express positive law for punishment of a tyrant among Christian men, the question is, whether it is lawful to kill such a monster and cruel beast covered with the shape of a man. And first for the better and more plain prose of this matter, the manifold and continual examples that have been from time to time of the deposing of kings, and killing of tyrants, do most certainly confirm it to be most true, just and constant to God's judgment. The history of kings in the Old Testament is full of it.
And as Cardinal Pole truly cites, England lacks not the practice and experience of the same. For they deprived King Edward the Second, because without law he killed his subjects, spoiled them of their goods, and wasted the treasure of the realm. And upon what just causes Richard the Second was thrust out, and Henry the Fourth put in his place, I refer it to their own judgment. Denmark also now in our days did nobly act the same, when they deprived Christierne the tyrant, and committed him to perpetual prison."
Sounds like a long list of abuses and then a dissolving of political bonds with a tyrant to me. Anyone see anything different than what Ponnet said above and Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence? It looks like a long list of abuses that violates the covenant between ruler and ruled that ends with the tyrant being deposed to me.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 30, 2009 6:08 PM
Dogmeat stated:
"For your explanation to work you have to water down Christianity to a point where it becomes irrelevant. You have to ignore the other influences, ignore the negative influences of the Bible that scream out to be noticed, and, as was pointed out in the previous "Christian Nation" thread, you have to play 6 degrees of Bible [Kevin Bacon] in order to establish this "tie.""
First off I see you cannot make your own argument you only attack those of others. Second, i did not say "Christianity" I said Christian ideas. "Christianity" has some good ideas and some shitty ones. I have acknowledged both. It is based on two verses in the Bible. Where Noah was told the murder was wrong because man is made in the image of God and where Jesus says the law is summed up by loving God and your neighbor as yourself. Yea, real complicated and convoluted stuff. Six degrees my ass!
Make your case dude. You cited the documents to John now pull them out, read them, and make your case. Dare you. I might be wrong but I have at least read the shit I throw out to tear down others arguments. Just saying dude.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 30, 2009 6:16 PM
KoI,
You ignored my question:
How do you think the Declaration of Independence could have been worded that would have made it not a document of interposition?
Posted by: DaveL | December 30, 2009 6:41 PM
KoI:
Sorry if I have missed this in your posts, but when you say "Christian ideas" do you mean uniquely Christian ideas or ideas consistent with Christian doctrine?
Also, what do you mean by "a secular nation"?
Posted by: General Liberty | December 30, 2009 6:54 PM
DaveL,
Misunderstood it. Yes, But it wasn't so the point is mute.
General Liberty,
I did not use the term secular nation the rest to. If you have some time go to a post about David Barton was last week and I answered your first question. In short, I believe the ideas Locke presents above based on the two verses I cited are uniquely Christian. I am open to evidence otherwise but do not think it will be found.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 30, 2009 7:15 PM
386,
Depends what you mean by "rule" and which branch of Christianity the idea that he does rule comes from. He was refuting Filmer's claim that Adam has monarchial rule over all of mankind. Filmer's position was silly and proved to be so.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 30, 2009 7:24 PM
KOI: "Misunderstood it. Yes, But it wasn't so the point is mute."
we like quiet points.
Posted by: tybee tyrant | December 30, 2009 8:23 PM
KoI,
Quit changing the subject and answer the question:
How would the Declaration of Independence have had to have been worded such that you would not consider it a document of interposition?
It's not a moot point. It goes to the heart of what it means when you say that it is one. Indeed, it goes to the heart of whether it means much at all.
Posted by: DaveL | December 30, 2009 11:14 PM
DaveL
It would not follow the pattern of hundreds of years of Christian arguments for Interposition. All I can do is show you what it would look like as an interposition. Anything else would be what it would look like if it was not. I showed you what Ponnet wrote. I do not have time to look up some of the others but if you email me at joewinpisinger@vzw.blackberry.net I can look the rest up and send them to you.
It is like me trying to show you what a Silver Car looks like and you asking me what a non-Silver car looks like? It is really a non-sensical question. I gave you one example up top of what a Silver car looks like if the DOI seems like it resembles it then my case is better than it was before I described the first Silver car. Did you even read Ponnet? If not I am not going to waste my time describing more Silver cars because you really do not care.
My case is that it is an Interposition and am building a case to show that it is. If you think it is not then your case it to show that it was not. Make your case. It will disprove mine if you are right. I can tell you now that you are not. But if you do not want to believe me study it and make a case. I will post it at American Creation.
I do not have to answer a question that changes the subject. Nice try!
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 30, 2009 11:42 PM
Right. Only Christianists could be smart enough to include "don't murder" in a legal code. Legends and myths indeed.
Posted by: jws | December 31, 2009 1:15 AM
JWS,
It is not just the do not murder it is the why? But you got to actually read Locke and others to get to that though. I thought this is the site where you all actually read things and analyze them or is that just for those who you want to blast that visit here.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 31, 2009 1:49 AM
The why? The why of not murdering? Isn't that just an insane idea? Murdering is bad because murdering is bad. That's all you need to say.
Every single legal code in the world has a provision stipulating that killing people is bad, in most, if not all, situations. There need be no justification for it.
And will you please stop going on about Locke? He's not the main dude. He wasn't a founder. He wasn't infallibly clever. And he was a theologian, which is a bit like being a really clever cockroach. And that, KoI, is why most people cannot be bothered to read Locke.
Posted by: Al West | December 31, 2009 5:31 AM
So far your only case is that it resembles Ponnet's writings in that it's "a long list of abuses and then a dissolving of political bonds with a tyrant". So what then, would be an example of a non-interpositional rebellion? One where the people overthrow a king they liked? One who rules with such virtue and wisdom that none can manage to come up with a list of grievances against him? Has any such rebellion ever happened in recorded history, among any people, Christian or otherwise?
I find I have to agree with Jonathan Rowe on this. Just because you can find a doctrine in Christian theology to justify the Declaration of Independence does not mean it is inspired by that doctrine. This is especially true in a case such as this where you set the bar so low that I cannot(and neither, apparently, can you) imagine a case that would not qualify. Indeed, the existence of an equal but precisely opposite doctrine within that same theology suggests you would make an identical argument had the Founding Fathers decided against revolution.
Posted by: DaveL | December 31, 2009 7:37 AM
DaveL,
There are a million arguments one could make to depose a King that do not fit with Interposition. It is a silly question. Ponnet is not the only one. It actually goes back to Canon Law. The common idea in all of them is:
1. The King is not above the law
2. That when the King begins to usurp power that is not his over a long period of time he is a tyrant
3. That it is the right and duty of lower magistrates to depose the King when he becomes a tyrant
Of course there are additions and subtractions that some make but that is the general idea. Some have different standards for what it means to qualify as a magistrate and others have higher and lower bars for what it means to be a tyrant.
So I would say any type of document that said fuck you to the King that did not have the three elements above would be a good description of NOT being a "Christian" interposition. Are you saying that all fuck you's that preceded a revolution/resistance have all three of the conditions above? If not then I think you answered your own question.
Locke was responsible for "all men are created equal" and rights to life and liberty. I think one could get happiness from him too but that is debatable since Jefferson changed that one a little. You prove my exact point when you say he was a theologian. So I guess we argree that Judeo-Christian ideas made it into the Declaration but were the foundation of the most important phrase in it? That is whether Locke was all important or not.
About murder:
It is the Christian rational for why not to murder that is unique that the command itself. Back to the whole Imago Dei and love of neighbor as self thing.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 31, 2009 1:43 PM
What laws did the King break? What powers did he use that were not his by English law?
Or are you talking about The Law, in which case any instance in history where subordinate officials overthrew their existing government could indeed be construed as a "Christian Interposition"?
Posted by: DaveL | December 31, 2009 2:25 PM
The King violated their rights as Englishmen. The same thing Charles did and was deposed for. Mayhew's sermon that heavily influenced the Founding generation was preached on the 100th Anniversary of the interposition against Charles.
Jefferson and Madison used similar arguments and terms in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 98. Their case was against federal government encroachments not a king and Jefferson's brought up nullification which if this would have drawn out could have led to armed conflict. It is not exactly the same but it is the same concept under the same name and used by the person who wrote much of the DOI and another influential founder.
As for what laws the king specifically broke when he stepped over his bounds read Jefferson' Ponnet like laundry list of abuses.
Dave,
By the way I do have to agree with Micheal Heath about enjoying your comment here. I do not see eye to eye here with you but you are about the only one who was willing to discuss substance here, besides Ed, and this has turned into a good discussion I think. Jon and i are still going back and forth on this at AC if you would like to join us.
I just saw your second comment where you stated:
"Or are you talking about The Law, in which case any instance in history where subordinate officials overthrew their existing government could indeed be construed as a "Christian Interposition"?"
It would be if it was done to protect the rights of the people based on them being the workmanship of God.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 31, 2009 2:49 PM
Oh, I most assuredly have, but is the king not within his legal rights to refuse his assent to laws? To levy taxes? To dissolve legislative bodies? To convene them "at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records"? To establish new offices? To quarter troops among the populace? To conscript troops?
Posted by: DaveL | December 31, 2009 3:19 PM
DaveL stated:
"Oh, I most assuredly have, but is the king not within his legal rights to refuse his assent to laws"
He thought so. Christian teaching on "Interposition" to protect the inalienable rights of the people grounded in the uniquely Christian idea of man being the property of God and his workmanship and the responsibility of one to love neighbor as oneself out of love for God. Those magistrates that were steeped in this tradition that saw "All men created equal" felt duty bound to honor God by stepping in a deposing the King for the exact type of thought you describe in what is quoted above.
All the things listed were marks of a tyrant right in line with much of what Ponnet was saying. Thus, well within the bounds of an Christian "interposition". I gotta go for today, I might be able to check back in tomorrow. Thanks for the discussion.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 31, 2009 4:00 PM
the second sentence above should end with "did not think so" speaking of the Christian teaching.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 31, 2009 5:38 PM
King of Ireland,
You seem to care far too much about the often illogical "reasons" behind rational laws, and other such nonsense. It doesn't matter whether murder is considered immoral in Christianity because of imago dei and loving one's neighbour; everyone agrees that murder is immoral, and the principle is enshrined in every legal system I can think of on earth.
These days, most people agree that rights are inalienable and should not and cannot be taken away, and justifying this by, again, imago dei is not useful. It doesn't matter. The real reason for having inalienable rights is to insure the safety and happiness of every citizen of planet earth, inasmuch as that is a possible aim. The real reason to disallow murder is the same, but of course, it's a more visceral and practical thing...
You may find Christianity in the shadows of some reasonable laws and principles. That doesn't matter. I don't understand why you keep trying.
Posted by: Al West | December 31, 2009 6:49 PM
That phrase was dropped from the treaty a mere eight years later, which speaks to its "importance."
Posted by: Milesius | December 31, 2009 8:04 PM
Raging Moron opined:
Not in this universe.
Posted by: Milesius | December 31, 2009 8:08 PM
Milesius "That phrase was dropped from the treaty a mere eight years later, which speaks to its 'importance.'"
So, before 1813 the USA was not founded on the Christian Religion but after 1813 it was?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 31, 2009 8:21 PM
Milesius: The teachings of Jesus are consistent with all of the other teachings in the Bible?
Posted by: General Liberty | December 31, 2009 8:41 PM
No, hence Matthew 5:17-48. However, Raging Moron went much further than that in his/her/its claim.
Posted by: Milesius | December 31, 2009 8:58 PM
People still use the Treaty of Tripoli as a major argument against the idea that America's government is rooted in a Judeo/Christian worldview?
Interestingly, most people only seem to quote the first phrase of Article 11 from the Treaty of Tripoli - and often as a complete sentence and thought (which is erroneous). Let's look at the whole Article for some context:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Note that the thought does not end with the oft-quoted key phrase. Using the key phrase as a complete sentence as secularists often do is disengenuous because it distorts the intended meaning of the whole article by leaving out a lot of context. Taken as whole, Article 11 has a different meaning.
The most important phrase, in my opinion, and the one that most colors the meaning of the article as a whole, is the one that concludes the article:
. . . no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Article 11 was not declaring that America's government was not rooted in a Christian worldview. Why would the Muslims even care about our Founding philosophy in a peace treaty? By signing, the United States was declaring it's non-hostility towards Tripoli based specifically on religious grounds. Note the phrase "pretext arising from religious opinions". In other words, the article was about not starting any holy wars.
And why would the issue of "religious opinions" need to even be raised in a peace treaty with a Muslim nation? Because it was a well-understood that the United States was a predominantly Christian nation, meaning that the vast majority of citizens held to a Christian worldview. Even the Muslims of Tripoli knew that. If that was the case, it is pretty safe to say that a Christian worldview heavily influenced the framing of America's system of government. And why would it be any other way considering the Founders came from heavily Christianized Europe?
The oft-quoted statement from the Treaty of Tripoli is completely taken out of context. I highly doubt the drafter of the treaty intended to make declarations about America's founding philosophy in a peace treaty. I do believe, however, he intended the treaty to be an agreement not to start any holy wars. Taken out of context, the quote seems to support the secularist position. Taken in context, as it properly should be, I think it undermines the secularist position.
Posted by: mroberts | December 31, 2009 9:10 PM
mroberts makes an absolutely ridiculous argument here. The context changes absolutely nothing, it only tells you why the statement being quoted was important - because it established that there was therefore no inherent religious conflict between the two parties to the treaty. But the rest of the context does not cancel out the validity of that clause.
And the statement is that there is no reason we would start a holy war because we are not a Christian nation and were not founded upon Christianity. If we had been, there might well have been some intrinsic reason to be at war because that would have made conflicts arising from religious opinions far more likely.
If this statement were true, it should be quite easy to point to numerous provisions in the constitution and then to their analogs in the Bible or in Christian theology. The founding fathers themselves explained the origins of nearly every provision of the constitution; they did so in the federalist papers, which were intended to convince the citizens to vote for the new constitution. And they were explaining that to a predominately Christian citizenry, so it would surely have served their cause of convincing people to vote for the new constitution if they would have pointed to Biblical sources for those provisions. Yet, as Frazer notes above, such references are entirely absent from the federalist papers - just as they were entirely absent from the constitutional convention. At no point in the framing, explaining or advocacy of the new constitution did any federalist point to the Bible as a source of inspiration for the ideas found with in it. Many anti-federalists - that is, anti-constitutionalists - did use the Bible to argue against the ratification of the constitution. The facts simply are not on your side for this claim. All of the evidence is to the contrary.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 1, 2010 12:51 AM
"If that was the case, it is pretty safe to say that a Christian worldview heavily influenced the framing of America's system of government."
Uh, what? You are aware of the "correlation equals causation" fallacy, right?
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 1, 2010 1:08 AM
Really? Then why this:
If Interposition is based on Natural law as Locke saw it, then the above criteria are moot. There could be no such thing as a legitimate King and all calling themselves such must need usurp power not belonging to them by right. There can be no such thing as a King who is not also a tyrant.
What then are we left with? That a rebellion is an interposition if enacted against a monarch by lesser officials?
Posted by: DaveL | January 1, 2010 5:42 AM
I love how in mroberts' world "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" somehow means the exact opposite of what it plainly says.
Oh, they only mentioned they were not explicitly founded on Christianity because it was well understood that the nation was made up of predominantly of Christian, which means the US must have been founded on Christianity.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | January 1, 2010 7:09 AM
DaveL,
I think you missed that I left out that the Christians that did not believe that the king was above the law did not think so. As far as the king is the people consent then it is legitimate. If it is a republic it is legit as long as the people consent. When the government or king overstep the bounds of the consent repeatedly in violating the rights of the people then it is an interposition when they depose the king or nullify the alien and sedition acts like Jefferson and Madison wanted to do in 98.
I have not researched this much but the idea of a covenant between King and people is supposedly in Canon law. This whole issue came up when Pope Gregory thought that the kings had to much power of the churches in their realm. Both sides started writing theology to back their position.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 1, 2010 1:54 PM
Al West,
The discussion about murder is incidental to the topic. Someone said I had to go through 6 degrees or something to find biblical rational for "all men are created equal" and the root if why LOCKE believed this. I understand that about every culture had a no murder law. The discussion is about where the foundational saying of "all men are created equal" came from. It seems to have come from The "Second Treatise" and Locke explains HIS rational behind it. You do not have to agree with him. This is not a truth claim discussion it is a history discussion. The history is plain that he said it and that is made it into the single most important phrase of the Declaration of Independence.
Now if you want to take a Natural law apart from God(I do not know how that is possible) or more modern philosophical stance for inalienable rights then fine but I personally believe it is a slippery slope. Many on this site cannot tell me what a human is when I ask in any type of agreement based on Science. With no agreement on what a human is we, as a society, run the danger of Holocausts and Rwanda continuing when people are dehumanized, enslaved, and then killed.
If it is left up to, "to each his own" I think that is more liberty than license in the way Locke put it. If we are going to throw out the natural law morality of the founding that was based on God then let's say that and state our case for why modern philosophy and "whatever will be will be" is better. Remember though much of this is becoming internationalized and will effect the whole world.
With that stated, the real topic of this discussion is the history of the founding era and what influenced them as they set up our nation. So I gather you think Locke was wrong fine. The question is what he believed and if it made its way into the Declaration of Independence. I clearly demonstrated what he believed and proved it made its way into the document. I also proved that the language in the document is consistent with the teachings of Ponnet on interpositon. One of the primary people responsible for the drafting of the document said that Ponnet had written about "all the essential point of liberty". I also have shown that Jefferson was not only familiar with interposition but used it in 98.
There is not doubt that interposition was a Christian idea at the time. I also think there is little doubt the document was an interposition. The second their rights were taken away they gave up petitioning the king under their rights as Englishmen, deposed him as a tyrant, and declared independence from his rule. All in line with the way it was done in 1688 and before in Britain.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 1, 2010 2:14 PM
"With no agreement on what a human is we, as a society, run the danger of Holocausts and Rwanda continuing when people are dehumanized, enslaved, and then killed."
KoI, from what I see you're a pretty smart guy, so I don't believe you actually think that Rwanda and the Holocaust came about because people were too ambivalent or nuanced in their understanding of what it meant to be human.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 1, 2010 3:36 PM
KoI, I don't believe in the sanctity of human life over any other life forms, but I know that mass slaughter is wrong. No belief that human beings are any more special than other animals is necessary to condemn holocausts. I simply believe that the wanton slaughter of living beings is wrong, period.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 1, 2010 4:10 PM
KoI,
Regardless of anything else, I think you need to examine what the "is ought problem" is. The fact that the word "human" is indefinable, realistically (and make no mistake that it is indefinable) has no bearing on whether murder is right from any logical standpoint. You simply cannot extract a moral "ought" from a logically and rationally understood "is". This is also known as "Hume's Guillotine". Morality is about practicality, not expectations that a moral proposition be justified absolutely by the rest of the universe. The universe is simply not built around humans, it just happens to have "humans", however you wish to define the term, in it.
The fact that the word "human" is indefinable, and that the concept has no objective back up, no absolute, metaphysical, meaning is also a MAJOR problem for religion. If humans are a collection of organisms, and fit into a continuum of life at an individual level instead of fitting into discrete, objective and absolute categories, then, if killing a bacterium is not morally wrong, metaphysically and absolutely, then neither is killing a human. That is to say, it is yet more evidence that absolute morality is a ridiculous idea, and that there is no heaven and no hell. It means that "human" is not an innate category in the universe, only in our heads. When you think about it, that makes sense; for nearly 14 billion years, there were no creatures in the universe that could be categorised as "human" by any of our brains. It exists in our heads, and nowhere else, and that's fine. Do you see what I mean?
Our brains naturally create categories, and fit the collections of atoms they perceive to be whole objects into those categories. This extremely natural inclination (the majority of what we call intelligence is based on it) is the basis for Plato's assertion of a world of forms, ridiculous as the concept actually is. Instead of every object being given a unique name, category and logical position, which is closer to the truth, we classify them into blocks. This includes human beings. "Human" is a very natural category. It is, however, slightly changeable, and it is possible to make someone believe that a collection of these individuals are not part of this category based on some arbitrary characteristic.
I would also say that it is just as slippery a slope to base rights on Christianity, for the simple reason that Christianity is a load of incorrect beliefs about the universe. It is wrong; there is no god, no supernatural, no afterlife, no absolute morality. To extrapolate the need for rights from a load of faulty premisses is crazy, and would logically undermine rights. Instead, I base them on nothing, and this is just as secure as anything else. Rights are not objective or absolute. They are simply a very practical, good idea to put into the law, and that is enough. The aim (happiness and freedom for everyone) is an assumed aim, not an absolute rock, waiting to be discovered. This is true of everything human.
Anyway, I understand that this is not the topic you are discussing. I am simply questioning the basis for wanting to discuss what you are discussing, your motivation, and the foundation on which you make your arguments.
As for rebellion being a Christian idea, how does this fit into the idea of the divine right of kings? Certainly this was THE widespread conception of the king in Christendom for centuries. Is it possible for both concepts to be part of Christian theology, and for it then to still make sense? Surely Christian theology is then just an unreasonably big catch mitt, picking up every philosophical ball that you wish it to.
Posted by: Al West | January 1, 2010 4:12 PM
You are perfectly free to believe this, but this is a law of your own that you break every day - by having a shower, using bleach, eating food, and practically every other activity, you are killing billions of your relatives. Bacteria!
And this is why any attempt at producing a rational, scientific moral philosophy will always end in tears. There's no way to do it without making the leap to some assumption that we arbitrarily consider good.
As I have said, this is fine with me.
Posted by: Al West | January 1, 2010 4:17 PM
What you are stating is that you see no distinction in life forms as far as morals goes. What if someone had your same stance about no distinction and a different ethic on killing life? In other words, the person that thinks there is no distinction and likes hunting could easily take his enjoyment to humans. I know that is an exaggeration but I think the point is valid. The "tootsi cockroaches" that were killed in Rwanda is telling.
But to get us back the matter at hand, you view would have been seen as extreme at the founding. So if what you believe is the definition of "secular" America in no way was founded to be a secular nation. The "Godless Constitution" and "secular nation" in their extreme forms are just as asinine as the David Barton "Christian Nation" claims.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 1, 2010 4:22 PM
Now if you want to take a Natural law apart from God(I do not know how that is possible) or more modern philosophical stance for inalienable rights then fine but I personally believe it is a slippery slope.
And "because that's what I believe god wants" isn't? Tell me again, why are Muslims trying to kill us? Why can't gays marry?
Posted by: Taz | January 1, 2010 4:25 PM
I don't know how to simplify this anymore. But I guess I can get it down to three words.
IS. OUGHT. PROBLEM.
There is no way to extrapolate from the OBJECTIVE FACT that humans are not a cohesive whole that they must be killed or hunted. On a objective, absolute level, nothing is moral or immoral, and morals do not exist beyond our heads. This is a fact, and it's fine. Morals are practical things, not absolutes.
I didn't say that I personally don't see a distinction between human beings and other animals. I'm alive, and what you and I and everyone would classify as "human". But the universe isn't attuned to this, and it isn't objective fact. Can you grasp this?
Yes, my view would have been extreme 200 years ago. So? It's also the way that it is written into the law. There is no mention of god in the law. There is no mention of the Bible in the law. There is no back up for religious concepts in the law. There are no religious institutions catered for by the law. So however you wish to argue it, whatever intent you see in the words, it isn't explicit, or even implicit, and in the law, if it isn't explicit, it isn't there. That is to say, the USA is a secular nation, by my standard or any. And I would say that my position is far more rational than the Barton stuff, because it's true. The inspiration for the laws is unnecessary if they can 1. be logically deduced and 2. are not explicitly noted as having these inspirations in the laws themselves.
Posted by: Al West | January 1, 2010 4:31 PM
DaveL,
Locke possibly did have a different view of who could resist a tyrant. In the passage I cited he goes on to say that the does not think that the magistrates have any more power to punish in the state of nature than a King does. Some could take that into the social contract and say that they retain that power if the king violates the contract. I doubt it because that would be license not liberty in my view.
What most seemed to have ignored here is that the most powerful evidence for interposition is the Calvinistic God phrases in the inserted by the Continental Congress to lure the Calvinists into participating in the Revolution. Gregg Frazer that Ed quotes often states that and more liberal view of Romans 13 was crucial to the Revolution cause because it opened the door to recruit from the Calvinist Churches. Anyone that doubts the importance of this faction should consider that it was called the "Parsons Presbyterian Rebellion" by King George himself.
What God thought was important to enough people that the Declaration had to reflect this. Thus, it would seem that meeting the 3 conditions above for an interposition was important. It was that other secular revolution that did not care!
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 1, 2010 4:36 PM
@Al West: My statement was perhaps a bit absolutist. I obviously think that there is a moral distinction between killing bacteria and killing dogs/humans/dolphins/etc., but it is not an objective distinction. The moral distinction stems from certain creatures' levels of awareness and their ability to experience physical and emotional pain. In my original comment, I was trying to delineate my objection to the blanket notion that human beings are intrinsically more valuable than all other animals.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 1, 2010 4:41 PM
Taz stated:
"And "because that's what I believe god wants" isn't? Tell me again, why are Muslims trying to kill us? Why can't gays marry?"
Well, Mr. Taz what the hell does this have to do with the history of the Founding and how it relates to different concepts of what a human is and a human's intrinsic worth? Plus, you can go look at the hundreds of comments I have made here and I have never said one word about the Muslims coming to kill me. I think 98% of the Muslims I have met overseas are peaceful people. I am also on record with the fact that I could care less if gays marry. If the people of a state vote it in then that is that states choice. If the judicial system feels it needs to protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority in regards to gay marriage I am sympathetic to that as well.
So this really was foolish comment. Just as foolish as the ideologues you hate that come on here. Misery loves company that is why they come and you guys blast them. It does not make for civil and intelligent discussion.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 1, 2010 4:45 PM
@Sadie Morrison,
It wasn't half as absolutist as the common opinion, and that makes it a breath of fresh air.
@the King
Taz didn't seem to be complaining about your opinions on those issues, but on the issue of whether a thing can be a natural fact and not a godly one. If you determine natural to be the same as godly, then one need only look in one's religion's books to find out what natural is. Anything outside of that, like homosexuality, could thus be justified as unnatural, and therefore unlawful. I believe this is the reasoning.
You seem to want to raise normal conversation about these issues to some unattainable level of politeness. In any discussion, there will always be people who call other people assholes, and you've got to live with it. Having a polite discussion is nothing compared to a frank, brutal, truthful discussion.
That is, of course, only an opinion.
Posted by: Al West | January 1, 2010 4:54 PM
Al West stated:
"Yes, my view would have been extreme 200 years ago. So? It's also the way that it is written into the law. There is no mention of god in the law. There is no mention of the Bible in the law. There is no back up for religious concepts in the law. There are no religious institutions catered for by the law. So however you wish to argue it, whatever intent you see in the words, it isn't explicit, or even implicit, and in the law, if it isn't explicit, it isn't there."
Well, Al since it would have been extreme then we cannot claim the founding for your view. The founding made it so you can have your view and not be jailed or whatever the y used to do. But lets not make it sound like the majority of the people or the Founding Fathers thought like you. There is a difference.
Your point about the law does not take into account Federalism and that most of the states still had common law traditions that absolutely had Bible and God in them. You also completely ignore that religion was left to the states and that many establishment laws remained(I think wrongly) for years. Some religious test laws still remain. Jefferson himself said that religion was left to the states and even endorsed prayer proclamations as governor that he would not as President because he saw the distinction. He even attended church services at the Capitol.
So in fact parts of the law did have God and Bible in them and when religion was left to the states the state established institutions were catered to. Madison wanted to make the establishment clause apply to the states as well but lost that battle. Go read about it.
So, yes it seems the "Liars for Secularism" are just as dangerous to the truth as "Liars for Jesus". Misery loves company and that is why so many fools that take Barton word for word without checking him love to come on here and it is also why at least a decent portion of those here love to see them come. It allows the discussion to stay in the gutter of half truths and propaganda from both sides that will never get to the truth.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 1, 2010 5:00 PM
K of I - Boy did you miss the point by a mile. You implied that morality not based on god is a slippery slope that could lead to evil consequences. I pointed out that morality based on god has the same problem. I wasn't saying anything about what you personal believe regarding either Muslims or gays.
Posted by: Taz | January 1, 2010 5:10 PM
I have never claimed that it was their opinion; my opinion on how to create the laws of a nation naturally differs from men from 200 years ago. They absorbed diverse influences, and those must have included Christianity. But they didn't write those influences into the law, and they explicitly stated that at the level of the federal government at the least, the USA is secular in every which way.
At the state level, of course, that need not be the case, and I have to say, I agree with you on the point about federalism. But the states are not the United States. What is true of one part of a thing need not be considered true of the whole. In any case, if religion were entirely up to the states, then it would be quite possible for a state to be created that was officially atheist - not secular but atheist. It would be possible to create Jewish states, Muslim states, and so on, were religion left to the states. And that means that, naturally, the USA was still a secular nation, even before the 14th amendment. Sure, it's different to how it is today, but it doesn't change the fact of the secular nature of the US government.
The idea of states having the ability to choose an official state religion is not a good one, though. I can't support it. How would Mississippi react to, let's say, a Muslim Michigan, or an atheist Vermont? It would be divisive and ridiculous, beyond the implications for citizens of the state. No, it makes much more sense to have a secular nation from state to federal law, I'd say.
Posted by: Al West | January 1, 2010 5:12 PM
Al West,
Frank and brutal I love. People being assholes for no reason is different. Jon Rowe, one of the most kind and fair minded people I know, was just blasted on here for no reason.
I think we are having a good dialogue. I appreciated Sadie's comment as I always do. DaveL is a smart and engaging guy. It has been direct and to the point. But not just snide comments for no reason. I think there is a difference. I can see it when people like Pat or some of the others come on here but I think I am reasonable and informed enough to deserve some respect.
Not to mentioned when I have been presented with information that convinced me I was wrong I have owned up to it numerous times. Those that are willing to change their minds when being presented with superior reasoning should be commended. I actually agree a lot with what many of you all have to say about religion. It is a shame that all who acknowledge God get brushed with the same stroke.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 1, 2010 5:16 PM
Al West stated:
"The idea of states having the ability to choose an official state religion is not a good one, though. I can't support it. How would Mississippi react to, let's say, a Muslim Michigan, or an atheist Vermont? It would be divisive and ridiculous, beyond the implications for citizens of the state. No, it makes much more sense to have a secular nation from state to federal law, I'd say."
I actually agree with you. More harm has been done when religion is established than anything else I can think of. Except maybe Maoist China.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 1, 2010 5:20 PM
Taz,
I got get it now. I apologize. I AGREE. The are good historically Judeo-Christian ideas and shitty ones. Possibly more shitty ones than good. Does not mean we should throw out the baby with the bath water. Rational Christians like Hooker, Aquinas, and Locke had some great ideas. Many of them were borrowed as well. That man is God's property and his workmanship I think is unique to Christianity, it is what Locke believed, and it made it into the DOI as the single most important part of the document. That is all I am stating.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 1, 2010 5:26 PM
Does not mean we should throw out the baby with the bath water.
Absolutely not. I'm happy to give credit for good ideas to any world view that produces them.
Possibly more shitty ones than good.
A hard thing to measure, especially since abuses are due more often to someone's misapplication of an idea than the idea itself.
Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
- T.S. Eliot
Posted by: Taz | January 1, 2010 5:42 PM
That raises a question: does this show that Christian theology at the time was a driving force behind the revolution or an impediment that needed to be overcome? Including wording to appeal to a particular religious group would show its religious doctrine as a political obstacle rather than a philosophical impetus. Indeed, even if we accept your arguments about Locke, I think it valid to ask if there would have been any need for a Locke at all if there had been no Divine Right of Kings in the first place and no Plimer to defend it?
I thank you, by the way, for your kind remarks and wish you a happy New Year. Cheers.
Posted by: DaveL | January 1, 2010 7:08 PM
DaveL stated:
"That raises a question: does this show that Christian theology at the time was a driving force behind the revolution or an impediment that needed to be overcome? Including wording to appeal to a particular religious group would show its religious doctrine as a political obstacle rather than a philosophical impetus. Indeed, even if we accept your arguments about Locke, I think it valid to ask if there would have been any need for a Locke at all if there had been no Divine Right of Kings in the first place and no Plimer to defend it?"
I agree that Locke would not have been needed if Filmer would not have messed up the Divine Right of Kings as far as setting that straight. Obviously the loyalist view of Romans 13 was an impediment and the Mayhew version was a catalyst. That is for the people that cared what God thought with was probably most of them. But Locke goes beyond Filmer's nonsense to craft an idea of individual rights based on all being created equal.
Have a good New Year as well. I am sure we will pick up another aspect of this again as Ed does post on it a great deal. Rightly so, by the way, because there are so many people that think that all the founders were born again types and they were not. I just think it gets out of balance at times the other way.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 1, 2010 9:03 PM
Taz, I have nothing to say regarding your exchange with KoI, but I just wanted to note that you have gone up a few notches in my eyes for quoting one of my favorite Eliot poems ("The Hollow Men"). You have excellent taste.
Posted by: Mr. B | January 1, 2010 10:54 PM
My god, 120+ comments on The Transitive Power of Huckabee, as applied to Locke and the Declaration of Independence?
Posted by: Rutee | January 2, 2010 12:17 AM