Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 46

Thread: Faith & Freedom

  1. #1
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Faith & Freedom

    Here you go Gel

    Founders on Education

    With all the controversy over education reform and the place of religion in public schools, it is helpful to turn to the words of our founding fathers for their opinion on religion and public education. For example, according to historian David Barton, Benjamin Rush was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, helped found five colleges, and was the first founder to propose free public schools. In his publication entitled A Defense of the Use of the Bible as a Schoolbook, he wrote the following: "Before I state my arguments in favor of teaching children to read by means of the Bible, I shall assume the ... following propositions: First, that Christianity is the only true and perfect religion, and that in proportion as mankind adopt its principles and obeys its precepts, they will be wise and happy; Second, that a better knowledge of this religion is to be acquired by reading the Bible than in any other way; Finally, that the Bible contains more knowledge necessary to man in his present state than any other book in the world ..."1

    Gouverneur Morris was a founder whose name is less familiar to us than that of other founders, but who was the most active member of the Constitutional Convention, speaking 173 times on the floor of the Convention. In fact, it is his penmanship which graced the original draft of the Constitution. How did this founder feel about the Bible and public education? Gouverneur Morris stated, "Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore, education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God." 2 Apparently the man who literally wrote the Constitution was not overly concerned about the "separation of church and state," believing that the goal of education is to teach the duties of man toward his Creator.

    Founder Noah Webster was a soldier during the American Revolution, spent nine terms in the Connecticut legislature, three terms in the Massachusetts legislature, and four terms as a judge. Webster was very prolific as an educational textbook writer and as an educator. He was also outspoken about the importance of Christianity to education and government. In the preface to his famous dictionary, Webster stated, "The Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed ..." 3 Webster was so convinced of this truth that he even included Bible verses in textbooks he wrote, including his Webster's Blue-back Speller, which was the standard spelling textbook in America until the 1930s!

    Thomas Jefferson is often cited as a strict separationist who insisted on religion and government being kept apart. During George Washington's term as president, Jefferson was president of the District of Columbia school board. As such, he made the Bible one of the primary reading texts for the District of Columbia public schools. Why? In his own words, Jefferson noted, "I have always said, and always will say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens." 4 Jefferson also used to be remembered for saying, "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis--a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep forever." 5

    Not only did the founding fathers believe that the Bible was the basis for a good public education, at one time the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. The Court was asked to interpret a will which left seven million dollars to the city of . The Court held that it could not be done, saying, "Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament ... be read and taught as a Divine revelation in the [school]--its general precepts expounded ... and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? ...Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?" 6 In the words of Abraham Lincoln, "The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." 7

    Endnotes

    1. Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806) pp. 93-94.
    2. Jared Sparks, The Life of Gouverneur Morris (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1832),Vol. III, p. 483.
    3. Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828, Reprinted San Francisco: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1967), preface, p.12.
    4. Herbert Lockyer, Last Words of Saints and Sinners (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1969), p. 98.
    5. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson's Writings, Merril D. Peterson, ed. (NY:Literary Classics of the United States, 1984) p. 289 from Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia," Query XVIII, 1781.
    6. Vidal v. Girard's Executors; 43 U.S. 126, 200 (1844).
    7. Steve McDowell and Mark Beliles, America's Providential History(Charlottesville, VA: Providence Press, 1989) p. 83.

    Further.

    We Hold These Truths

    When George Washington announced in the autumn of 1796 that he was stepping down as President, all of America was stunned. "How can you retreat?" an alarmed Alexander Hamilton asked the grey-haired legend. "How will our new nation survive without its leader?" cried editorials in newspapers across the countryside. Americans looked to the future with fear and trembling. The young nation was traveling into uncharted waters now. All were aware that the free and democratic society they had created was unique in world history.

    Washington achieved legendary status early in life with his heroic exploits during the French and Indian War. He never sought fame however; in fact he spent all his adult years trying to shun the public life. But destiny always seemed to demand that he serve his country one more time. He had no desire to lead the Continental forces against the British in America's War of Independence, but Congress pleaded with him, saying there was no one else. So Washington sacrificed the private life he so cherished and accepted the daunting task-for which he refused financial compensation. He endured with his troops the winter at Valley Forge. After six years of war, and with the aid of the French fleet, he finally forced the surrender of the British General Charles Cornwallis at the Battle of Yorktown. Again, Washington hoped to retire; and again Congress informed him that only he could raise this new nation from its infancy.

    Washington was the Electoral Colleges unanimous choice for President of the United States. He expected to serve only one term, but was told that if he did not serve a second this new republic would likely collapse. After eight years as President, Washington decided to retire for good, and no one could persuade him otherwise. For almost 40 years this American legend had been trying to return to the peace and privacy of Mount Vernon and his wife Martha. At age 64 he was getting old. His bones were weary. He may have sensed that he had only three more years remaining in this life. America would either have to stand on its own, or perish. He knew the pitfalls that awaited a nation without a strong leader. But he saw an even greater threat in a people becoming dependent on one man, a dependency that would tend to undermine the very principles of liberty for which they had struggled so long.

    If this experiment in constitutional democracy were to succeed, Washington concluded, it would have to succeed without him. To run for a third term would be to turn the clock back and reestablish over the American nation a de facto monarchy, a prospect no one loathed more than Washington. He always placed principle above personal aggrandizement, which is a rarity in the annals of man. Because of this, the legacy he would leave would not be the usual one of tyranny and human misery-but one of political, economic, and religious liberty.

    The United States of America is the freest, strongest, and most prosperous nation in human history. We owe this miraculous development in large part to the life of one man - his bravery in battle, his perseverance through hardships, his patience with those who opposed him, his wisdom while in power. What was astonishing about this gallant Virginian, who rode a white horse, was that he actually lived by the ideals of which he spoke. There were not many dry eyes in America when George Washington on September 17, 1796, announced his final farewell from public life. From this moment on, he said, the survival of freedom on American soil would have nothing to do with him, and everything to do with the character of its people and the government they would elect:

    "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports," he said. "In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all the connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." Washington knew well that a nation's laws spring from its morals and that its morals spring from its religion. And the religion of which Washington spoke was clear to all who knew him: "It is impossible to govern rightly without God and the Bible," he said.

    * * *

    In his essay "What I Saw in America," the great English writer G. K. Chesterton observed that "America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence." Chesterton was referring to the second paragraph of America's founding document which states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (emphasis added). The starting point of the Declaration's argument was faith in man's "Creator," and is very similar to the Apostle Paul's initial proposition in his letter to the Romans: "Because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:19-20).

    Thomas Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration, and believed it was sufficient to assert certain transcendent truths as self-evident. To him God's existence was manifest in creation. Jefferson was not here talking about the God of Islam, faith in whom laid the foundation for a different kind of social order altogether. He meant the God of the Old and New Testaments. Whether Jefferson was himself a Christian is in dispute. But he understood the society in which he lived and who his audience was when he made the case for severing ties with Britain on the grounds that England had "violated the laws of nature and of nature's God."

    There were no Moslems, Buddhists, Confucianists, or Hindus present at either the signing of the Declaration, or eleven years hence at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Jefferson was addressing Christians. His entire argument about people having "unalienable rights" is contingent on the existence of God, and One who cares deeply about each and every individual. As Jefferson asked rhetorically on another occasion: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that their liberties are the gift of God?"

    With no higher lawgiver, the state becomes the highest moral authority, in which case rights are no longer "unalienable," but become subject to the whim of the monarch, dictator, assembly, or the vicissitudes of human fashion. Therefore, warns Paul in his letter to the Romans: "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God ..." (Romans 13:1). "Unalienable" is another word for eternal, not subject to change under any circumstance. It implies that there are moral absolutes.

    If the life of an individual amounts to no more than a brief flicker in history, then the perpetuation of the state, society, or empire becomes the overriding political concern. This was Hitler's philosophy, and it is the driving ideological force behind communism. Inherent in collectivist political systems is the idea that the interests of the individual must be subordinate to the supposed (and I stress the word "supposed") interests of the whole. We begin to hear phrases like "national purpose," "world government," and "social theory"-ideas completely at odds with what America's founding fathers had in mind.

    But if, on the other hand, the span of civilizations amounts to less than a blink of an eye in comparison to the eternal life of a person, then the protection of God's most valued creation, the individual, becomes the primary function of government. Indeed, this was the fervent belief not only of Jefferson (who is often portrayed by historians, erroneously, as an agnostic) but also of all the major figures involved in the creation of the American Republic. George Washington was so eager to leave public life precisely because he did not believe in the final claim of the state. He believed in freedom. He had a Christian view of the sanctity of man and the immortality of the soul. Under the American political system, soul, mind, and body are to be free from human constraints to fulfill their destinies in this life and the next.

    Even if one does not accept the truth of the Christian faith, prudence argues for the promulgation of its moral code in every area of public life, because history has demonstrated that Christian morality is indispensable to the preservation of a free society. Alexis de Tocqueville in the early part of the 19th century was commissioned by the French government to travel throughout the United States in order to discover the secret of the astounding success of this experiment in democracy. The French were puzzled at the conditions of unparalleled freedom and social tranquility that prevailed in America. Previously, it was thought that where there was liberty, anarchy would inevitably follow because of the inability of people to govern themselves. But in America people were free - and also well-behaved. In fact, nowhere on earth was there so little social discord. How could this be? This is what Tocqueville reported.

    "I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion - for who can know the human heart? - but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable for the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole rank of society." America, Tocqueville added, is "the place where the Christian religion has kept the greatest power over men's souls; and nothing better demonstrates how useful and natural it is to man, since the country where it now has the widest sway is both the most enlightened and the freest." John Quincy Adams, America's sixth President, acknowledged that from the begin-fling Americans "connected in one indissoluble band the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

    Unless law is anchored in moral absolutes, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall's statement that the government of the United States is a "government of laws and not men" makes no sense. If there is no consensus as to what constitutes the law, often called the "Higher Law," and where it can be found, then we are governed by men and not laws. The colonists believed that this "Higher Law" was a definite thing and could be found in a particular place, namely the Bible, under whose commandments all would be equally subjected: "The right of freedom being a gift of God Almighty, ... the rights of the colonists as Christians ... may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the Great Law Giver ... which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament," wrote Samuel Adams, the great revolutionary organizer, in his 1772 classic of political history, The Rights of the Colonists.

    The notion of the "Higher Law" goes all the way back to Moses, when Yahweh1 handed down His commandments to the people of Israel for their protection. God, through Moses, taught the Israelites how to live with each other, how to order their moral lives and their community, and how to please Him. Mosaic Law taught restraint, and conveyed Yahweh's wishes on how His children were to treat their fellow human beings, whether in person or through the instrument of the state. Jesus broadened the covenant to include Gentiles as well. The new covenant is spelled out in very clear terms in the New Testament. The word "covenant" refers, in the Bible, to an unbreakable contract between God and man; it is an eternal and cosmic constitution that governs our relationship with the Creator.

    As writer and constitutional scholar John Whitehead points out, the idea of the "Higher Law" is closely connected to "common law," a legal term referring to Christian principles adapted to the legal structure of civil life. The phrase first entered the vocabulary of English lawyers of the 12th century, after King John at Runnymede was forced by Pope Innocent III, English landowners, and the "Army of God" to sign England's first written constitution, designed mainly to protect property rights. Magna Carta, or the Great Charter, is filled with such phrases as: "The King himself ought not to be under a man but under God and under the law, because the law makes the king for there is no king where will governs and not law." And: "Know ye that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our souls, and the souls of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of Holy Church... have in the first place granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever."

    The Continental Congress of the United States on October 14, 1774, issued its Declaration of Rights stating that the colonists of the several states were entitled to the protections of the common law of England. Everyone understood this as a reference to a legal tradition beginning five centuries earlier with Magna Carta, whose moral authority was firmly grounded in Christianity. Whitehead points out in The Second American Revolution that the phrase "common law" comes from jus cornmune, which was the canon law of the Catholic Church. "The usages of God's people and the institutes of our forefathers are to be held for the law," wrote Augustine (354-430); and William Blackstone, the great English legal theorist, rephrased the idea in 1765: "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of Revelation2, depend all human laws," he wrote, articulating the common law principle, which has been with us since Moses brought the tablets down from Mount Sinai. Judges throughout English and American history, following the common law tradition, have often handed down decisions with explicit references to the Ten Commandments. James Madison, known as the father of the U.S. Constitution, put it this way: "We have staked the whole future of the American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future... upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

    Perhaps with some of this history in mind, the Kentucky Legislature in 1978 thought it important that students understand the source of America's common law tradition and to make the point that the preservation of freedom is a direct consequence of our adherence to the "institutes of the Great Law Giver," as Samuel Adams had said. Thus Kentucky required that the Ten Commandments be posted in the public schools along with the following statement: "The secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western civilization and the common law of the United States."

    But in 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that Kentucky's decision to post the Ten Commandments in the public schools was a violation of the First Amendment's clause forbidding the establishment of religion. Thus, for public schools to teach the true origin of America's common law heritage, which undergirds the U.S. Constitution and which is specifically referred to in the Seventh Amendment, is now deemed "unconstitutional." This ruling followed the equally astounding decision in 1962 and 1963 banning all religious expression from the public schools. Already, many public schools, in order to follow the spirit of recent Supreme Court rulings, have replaced traditional Christmas programs with "Winter" festivals, and have stopped the singing of such traditional Christmas songs as "Silent Night" and "Joy to the World." This state of affairs bears no resemblance to what James Madison and Fisher Ames had in mind when they introduced the First Amendment, which was intended to guarantee "the free exercise" of religion, not obliterate religion.

    The history of America's laws, its constitutional system, the reason for the American Revolution, or the basis of its guiding political philosophy cannot accurately be discussed without reference to its biblical roots. Every President, from George Washington to George Bush, has placed his hand on a Bible and asked for the protection of God upon taking office. Both Houses of Congress open each daily session with a prayer. The phrase "In God We Trust" is emblazoned on all U.S. currency. Witnesses are expected to swear on a Bible before testifying in a court of law. The Christian Sabbath is a national day of rest; many states restrict the sale of liquor and the operation of restaurants on the Lord's Day in order to encourage religious worship and time spent at home. A government official opens each day's session of the Supreme Court with the plea, "God save the United States and the Honorable Court." The Ten Commandments appear on the wall above the head of the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court; which is ironic when one considers that it is this very judicial body that declared it unconstitutional for states to do the same in the public schools. These laws and customs all have their origins in America's Christian past and provide a clue as to the assumptions guiding the creation of America's form of government, assumptions the founding fathers had about man's nature, his place in eternity, and the character of the God to whom he is accountable. It is these ultimate concerns that determine the shape of society.

    Man can never escape his religious nature. Everyone holds a certain world-view. Atheists, such as Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Bertrand Russell, are every bit as religious as Francis of Assisi, John Wesley, and Mother Teresa of Calcutta. The atheist believes passionately, and hopes dearly, that God does not exist, that there is no life on the other side of the grave. The theist, specifically the Christian, believes with equal passion that God does exist and that one's choices here on earth have a bearing on one's eternal destiny. Neither faith can be proven definitively in the sense that a mathematical equation can be proven. But is is clear to anyone who has met Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Mother Teresa of Calcutta (I have met both of them) that their religious faiths have a direct effect on their behavior, their views of their fellow man, and their attitude toward life. Moreover, I would venture to guess that a government established under the direction of Mother Teresa would be far more pleasant and humane than one set up according to the prescriptions of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and that even the atheist would prefer to live in a society governed by Mother Teresa.

    Agnosticism is no less of a faith than Christianity or atheism. The agnostic does not know if God exists, but he is firmly convinced that if God exists, it makes no difference in his life. The agnostic's world-view is every bit as self-contained and closed as that of any other religion or ideology, and has a direct impact on the way he chooses to live and the kind of society he would establish.

    In the minds of many Americans, to say that one is an agnostic is to suggest that one is tolerant, a moral relativist. Agnostics generally like to present themselves as relaxed and easygoing. America has become politically and culturally agnostic, and the Christian faith in the minds of many has come to represent intolerance. Cited as evidence is the Christian conviction that there are moral absolutes - a notion that sounds authoritarian and dogmatic, even to some Christians. The principle we are offered as a substitute is a fuzzy agnostic "pluralism."

    Now pluralism in theory sounds appealing to almost anyone. The word connotes a non-confrontational, humane, alive and-let-live attitude. But under the agnostic pluralistic regime in practice we have seen quite the opposite. The Supreme Court's abortion ruling, for example, with a stroke of the pen overturned laws in all 50 states and millions of unborn babies have since gone to the slaughter. The decision states explicitly that religious belief can have no bearing on how we determine when human life begins. But, in the name of pluralism and tolerance, why not? Even William O. Douglas, one of the most liberal Supreme Court justices in history, admitted that "we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a supreme being." Since man, left to his own devices, has not provided a satisfactory refutation of the biblical position that life begins at conception,3 why shouldn't our laws also adopt that position rather than run the risk that as a society we are condoning mass murder? Should we not err on the side of caution and protect life until it is proven definitively that there is no life in the womb?

    The answer is that agnostic pluralism logically excludes moral absolutes. Such assertions as "thou shalt not steal," "thou shalt not commit adultery," and even "thou shalt not murder" are open to debate and are adjusted to suit the "needs of the times." Agnostic pluralism releases man from the constraints placed on him by God, and absolutizes "man as the measure of all things," as Protagoras put it. Thus, it becomes up to the in dividuai or a court to determine when life begins and whether or not it deserves protection. Proponents of so-called pluralism feel compelled to ban religious considerations from public discourse because they know, instinctively if not intellectually, that their faith is in direct conflict with the God of the Bible, and that in the end the two positions are irreconcilable.

    All gods require submission: either we will submit to the God of Scripture, immutable and unchanging, or we will submit to the ever-shifting god of human convenience. Agnostic pluralism, too, is a jealous god. It is a militant philosophy, a closed system that in the end cannot tolerate other creeds. Thus, when a minister or a clergyman takes seriously unfashionable Christian doctrines which condemn sex outside marriage, homosexuality, abortion, and feminism, and injects his views into the political debate, he is immediately denounced as a "reactionary." Indeed, he can count on being the victim of a character smear campaign by Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, People for the American Way, and various abortion rights and gay groups, whose complaints are given ample air time in the national media. Their attacks on religion are often hysterical, and their approach bears no resemblance to the tolerant, pluralistic society they purport to promote.

    The problem with the word pluralism is that it is misleading. There really is no such thing. Our society, for example, does not accept polygamy as a legitimate way to live because it is anti-biblical and, therefore, counter to the American tradition.4 Moreover, there are many things our culture tolerates, but does not condone. We tolerate homosexuality, but do not condone it. We don't live that way here, and the fact that we don't is a reflection of our understanding of right and wrong. We tolerate promiscuous lifestyles, but don't condone them. There are those crusading under the banner of pluralism, however, who are not satisfied that we put up with adultery; we must endorse it, promote it as liberating. And not only is abortion a constitutional right, but it must also be financed by the taxpayers, even by taxpayers who believe doctors who perform abortions are the moral equivalent of Joseph Mengele. Georgetown University, a Catholic school, lost a lawsuit to a group of homosexual militants because it refused to subsidize a gay student organization. Thus we get the feeling that something more than "pluralism" is being foisted upon us.

    Pluralism is a loaded word, intended to tip the scales against a certain kind of absolute it does not like, specifically that embodied in the Judeo-Christian moral code. In place of the old morality, we will get the new morality-one that's more relevant-namely that "nothing is real except our world of desires and passions," as Friedrich Nietzsche phrased it in his book Beyond Good and Evil. Formally, this philosophy is not called pluralism, but secular humanism. The problem Christians have with secular humanism is not that it is truly pluralistic, but that it subjects man to the sentimentality and enthusiasms of the moment. Indeed, history has shown that secular humanism - the view that man is the sole judge of the world, including morality, the shape of society, and the value of the individual - is very bad for humanity.

    In the American context, the secular humanist philosophy was illustrated well in statements by two senior Supreme Court justices, Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan. "A too literal quest for the advice of the founding fathers seems to me futile and misdirected," said Brennan in 1963. "I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever fixed at the Philadelphia convention," added Marshall in May 1987. "Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start." As a consequence of this judicial philosophy, a Supreme Court ruling in recent decades has become like a lottery. Says Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court is "in a state of utter chaos and confusion."

    Under the Marshall and Brennan view of the law, political power rather than "nature's God" (Jefferson's phrase) becomes the sole arbiter of the law of the land, and this conforms precisely to the framers' definition of tyranny. The First Amendment, established for the purpose of protecting free expression and the free exercise of religion, can be turned on its head to make the utterance of a prayer and the posting of the Ten Commandments in a public school a criminal offense. What at another time would be thought unthinkable can quickly become the governing philosophy of a nation. The progressive income tax, for example, now taken for granted, would have been considered in George Washington's day an egregious violation of the constitutional guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." What was once illegal can in an instant become a constitutional right, which can in turn be reversed overnight. Under such a regime, political disputes rapidly become more violent, as we saw in the ferocious and dishonest attacks launched by Senator Edward Kennedy against conservative Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. Secular humanism at its core is materialistic, situational, and a matter of individual and social convenience. The law under the secular humanist approach becomes pliable, like "Silly Putty," to be molded by the impulses of those in power, whether this power happens to be a dictator in the mold of Joseph Stalin, or the nine people in black robes who preside over America's highest court.

    At present, secular humanism in America is still held in check by a Christian tradition, though much faded. We have heard often the assertion that Jesus was a good moral teacher, but nothing more. (How reliable a moral teacher can He be if He lied about who He was?)5 Even the most trendy secular humanist in America wants to preserve some aspects of the moral code handed down from Mount Sinai and the Sermon on the Mount. But as the string connecting public policy with America's Christian past becomes longer and longer, and eventually snaps altogether, the New Testament God will not be replaced by nothing. Man is a spiritual being; when one faith is eliminated, a new god will rush in to fill the spiritual void. Throughout history, this has been a man-made god called the state.

    In just a few short years the public sector has ballooned so that it now consumes about one-third of the entire U.S. economy-and most of this has occurred since the ban on prayer in public schools in 1962-63. It's not surprising that a people who would permit the government to outlaw God from a major part of life would simultaneously acquiesce in the submerging of other rights, once thought "unalienable." For if God becomes irrelevant to the public life of a nation, then no freedoms are truly sacred. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty," the Apostle Paul says in his second letter to the Corinthians (3:17). "We must obey God rather than men!" the Apostle Peter warns emphatically in the Book of Acts (5:29).

    Alexis de Tocqueville foresaw the likely consequences of permitting the erosion of America's moral foundations, and predicted that if this occurred, we would see the rise of a new form of despotism, unique to democratic societies; over its people, he wrote, will stand "an immense, protective power which is alone responsible for securing their enjoyment and watching over their fate ... it gladly works for their happiness but wants to be the sole agent and judge of it. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, makes rules for their testaments, and divides their inheritances... Thus it daily makes the exercise of free choice less useful and more rare, restricts the activity of free will within a more narrow compass, and little by little robs each citizen of the proper use of his own faculties."

    Responsibility for one's actions and the ability to choose one's destiny is an essential component of both the American dream and the Christian faith. There is no virtue in being forced by other men, who are all equal in God's eyes, to make sacrifices. The virtue is in freely choosing the right course of action. But as Americans increasingly permit the state to make decisions on their behalf-to be the sole judge of "compassion" (a buzz word for a new government program) - it is not surprising that Americans also begin to lose their moral bearings, culminating in complete confusion over what constitutes right and wrong.

    There is a myth aggressively promoted in modern American society that to be released from "the chains of religious obligation" is to achieve liberation for the individual, sometimes called "self-realization" or "self-fulfillment." As writer Joseph Sobran notes, we are continuously reminded in history classes of the sins of Christianity-the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials - as if these episodes represent the essence of Christianity. In fact, they only prove the reality of original sin and the corruption of human nature, which is a central doctrine of both the Old and New Testaments. The lesson we are supposed to learn from focusing on the worst moments in Christian history is that as faith faded more and more into the background, man was able to free himself from bondage. But the opposite is, in fact, the case. As a substitute for religious obligation, we have found our fates increasingly sealed by the decisions of faceless bureaucrats, Internal Revenue Service tax auditors, and unelected Supreme Court justices. Government has crept its way into almost every aspect of human existence, making decisions for individuals and consuming resources in ways not at all envisioned by the framers of our constitution.

    Tocqueville warned of the threat to liberty posed by this ever-expanding paternalistic power, covering "the whole range of social life with a network of petty, complicated rules. . . through which even men of the greatest originality and most vigorous temperament cannot force their heads above the crowd. It does not break man's will, but softens, bends and guides it; it seldom enjoins, but often inhibits action; it does not destroy anything, but prevents much from being born."

    If unchecked, the state will inexorably set itself up as the absolute authority in all areas of life, beyond which there can be no appeal. The law becomes whatever suits those who hold the levers of power, who proceed unrestricted even by their own consciences. Expedience becomes the final standard by which all is judged. If we continue down this path, we will have only ourselves to blame. By behaving like goats, we have started thinking like goats; and by abdicating responsibilities, Americans have gone a long way towards surrendering their freedoms. "No private rights are of such little importance," warned Tocqueville, "that they can safely be left subject to arbitrary decisions." The erosion of our constitutional protections, he wrote, "deeply corrupts the mores of a nation and puts the whole society in danger, because the very idea of right tends constantly among us to become impaired and lost."

    America's founding fathers understood very well the principle that faith and freedom go together, and that one cannot survive long without the other. Daniel Webster, the great statesman, lawyer, and orator of the early days of the Republic, in a speech delivered on December 22, 1820, at Plymouth, Massachusetts, in celebration of the Pilgrim landing at Plymouth Rock, underscored this point: "Finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin," said Webster. "Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary. Let us cherish these sentiments, and extend this influence still more widely, in the full conviction that that is the happiest society which partakes in the highest degree of the mild and peaceful spirit of Christianity."

    It is not surprising, therefore, that the enemies of liberty very often first attack the religious institutions of a nation. The Romans brutally persecuted the early Christians because they were seen as a political threat. It being counter to Christian teaching to worship false gods, Christians refused to acknowledge Caesar as god-man, and proclaimed instead Christ to be the God-Man who ruled even Caesar. When the Pharisees attempted to trap Jesus into denying Caesar's authority, Jesus answered: "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's" (Matt. 22:21). What Jesus meant here was that Caesar's authority was negligible when measured against God's. He was de-sanctifying the state, a point that was certainly not lost on Caesar.

    In communist countries today, Christians and Jews are the first to feel the wrath of the state. The Bible is viewed as subversive and, therefore, outlawed reading by the Marxist god of dialectical materialism. Priests, ministers, and rabbis are routinely jailed as inherently threatening to the underlying premise of the totalitarian state. Secular ideologies take many forms: Marxism, Nazism, Socialism, and various forms of collectivism. All are incompatible with the God of the Bible because all end in the rule of man over man, with the aid of an enormous governing apparatus attempting to squeeze human nature into unnatural shapes. That those in America who are always promoting a larger state role in the lives of the people tend to be the same ones who shriek about Christian involvement in politics is no accident; for they have placed their faith in a different god.

    Liberty is under attack in all quarters of existence; in brutal fashion by totalitarian powers abroad, and in more subtle ways by an ever-expanding bureaucratic welfare state here at home. Our situation in fact is similar to that of the colonists when they decided to stand firm on first principles and declare their independence from British rule. What is needed today is less of a revolution than a reformation in American thinking, a sweeping away of the intellectual debris that now hides America's past.

    There has been a concentrated attempt in American academic circles to recast the Christian-based American Revolution in the image of the virulently anti-Christian French Revolution, which predictably ended in tyranny. Liberation of the individual was not an idea of the philosophes; it was a Christian idea, and specifically a Reformation idea, as America was settled overwhelmingly by fundamentalist Protestants. The Mayflower Compact, signed by the Pilgrims in 1620, is proof that the "social compact" was a blueprint for government enacted by Christians long before thinkers of the Enlightenment claimed to have arrived at the notion through human "reason." Separation of church and state was not a reaction against religion, but a reaction against the state; and it was not introduced by skeptics, but by Protestants largely for religious reasons. The revisionist pens of such 20th-century historians as Charles Beard, Henry Steele Commager, Gary Wills, and the standard textbook writers have gone a long way toward altering America's heritage to conform to an agnostic, secular humanist creed. "To destroy a people you must first sever their roots," wrote Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The plan of this book is to correct the many popular misconceptions about America's past, repair the damage inflicted on our nation's heritage by the liberal history lesson, and to tell the true story of the unfolding of an idea we often take for granted - the idea of liberty. Our mission as citizens is to rediscover exactly how it is we came to be Americans so that we will understand exactly what is required to remain Americans.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  2. #2

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    The founding fathers were frequently fallable even on faith and freedom.

  3. #3
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    The founding fathers were frequently fallable even on faith and freedom.
    Yeah they were a bunch of morons . Lets throw out this stupid constituion its old and past its time.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  4. #4
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    These are hardly the words of the founding fathers. These are the suppositions of the fathers twisted to suit the views of the people who wrote all that. They are no more valid to make that assumption than you or I, Gawain.
    No there not. Most of it is quotes from them. Try reading it again. The case in Philly reallt makes the point. Anyway jeres some more food for thought

    LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

    President Abraham Lincoln reminded the nation of that great truth contained in the Declaration of Independence when he said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He reaffirmed faith towards Almighty God as Creator of mankind.

    In the Declaration, the Founders established the foundation and the core values on which the Constitution was to operate. The Constitution was never to be interpreted apart from those values expressed in the Declaration. Those expressed values are of God and from God.

    The First Amendment was clearly understood and explained by the man who wrote it and the man who first applied it as law. Fisher Ames wrote it. John Jay applied it as law while he was the first Chief Justice of our Supreme Court.

    Fisher Ames, the same man who wrote the First Amendment, also wrote that the Bible should always remain the principle text book in America's classrooms.

    John Jay, original Chief-Justice U.S. Supreme Court, said it is the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to help and encourage virtue and religion.

    The Constitution of the United States of America was penned by the man who was head of the committee which created the final wording. That man, Governor Morris of Pennsylvania, was also the most active member of the Constitutional Convention. He spoke 173 times. He also advocated that "education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God."

    An early House Judiciary Committee affirmed the Founder's lack of pluralistic intent when it declared: "Christianity ...was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants."

    " You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention." George Washington

    " Let...statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by...educating their little boys and girls...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system." Samuel Adams

    "History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion...and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Benjamin Franklin

    "Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation." John Jay, ORIGINAL CHIEF-JUSTICE U.S. SUPREME COURT

    "The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians." John Quincy Adams

    A page of history is worth a volume of logic. History shows the intent and purpose of our founding fathers. Contemporary logic is wrong whenever it contradicts the clear explanations of those men who wrote the Constitution.

    97% of the founding fathers were practicing Christians and exercised their faith in public office, at work, at home, and had it taught to their children in their schools.

    187 of the first 200 colleges in America were Christian, Bible teaching institutions. Entrance to Harvard required strong knowledge of the Bible.

    Noah Webster wrote the dictionary with Bible verses explained so children could understand the words of God and know the truth of Jesus Christ. Webster even wrote a translation of the Bible for the American speaking people.

    You could hardly find a school in America that wasn't Christian based with the Bible as its main text book until the 1830's. As a result of the attack upon children learning the truths of God and Salvation, the American Sunday School League was formed during that same decade so those children who were deprived could still get Bible knowledge.

    Fewer and fewer people remembered the exhortations of those men who established this nation to follow Christ and give Christian teaching in the schools, as the backbone and main course of our schools.

    The Declaration of Independence appeals to God no less than three times. Four to those who can see His Name in the phrase "protection of divine providence".
    Five to those who can admit the phrase "created equal" means created by God, not evolved from chaos.

    Contrary to what is currently taught at most federal and state schools, Samuel Adams pointed out this strong lesson which is contradicted in courts today: "Before the formation of this Constitution...this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union and has NEVER been disannuled."

    The men who wrote the Declaration of Independence declared within it their undying faith towards God for all generations to see and follow.

    The Articles of Incorporation call the entity into existence and the By-laws then explain how it will be governed. Therefore the governing of the corporation under its by-laws must always be within the purposes and framework set forth in its Articles. The By-laws may neither nullify nor supersede the Articles. The Constitution neither abolished nor replaced what the Declaration had established; it only provided the specific details of how American government would operate under the principles set forth in the Declaration.

    PROOF of the Declaration being attached to the Constitution is found in Article VII .
    The Constitution attaches itself to the Declaration by dating itself as being signed in the twelfth year of the independence of the United States of America! Now that proves the founding fathers considered themselves to have been living in the United States of America for twelve years under the government document of the Declaration of Independence. Not only was the Constitution dated in recognition of the Declaration of Independence, also the later government acts were dated from the Independence of the United States of America.

    "The Jubilee of the Constitution" by John Quincy Adams explains the Constitution as dependent upon the virtues proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. That's why the Ten Commandments are inscribed in stone on the Supreme Court building. Those men saw the law of God as the basis of all law for all men always, never to be changed! How can we withhold God and His truth from our educational classrooms for children today? One Nation Under God. United we stand together with Christ.

    They erected a beacon to guide their children, and their children's children: for all men who would pursue life, liberty, and happiness...they pointed us to God and to His Son Jesus Christ. They desired that their posterity might look again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew that battle which their fathers began, so that truth, justice, mercy, and all Christian virtue not be extinguished from the schools of this land.

    Support and help this work go forward. Make a donation. One dollar or more. Do not despise the day of small things. Your gift, even of a dollar, can help and encourage. If you liked what you see here, and want others to see it, pitch in and help with a dollar or more. Thank you, and God bless you.

    There are several books out right now on the original intent of the founding fathers of this great nation. One is by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Rheinquist. Another is by David Barton from Wallbuilders Publishing,

    Why are these books so necessary for us to read? Because few of us ever heard the whole story of what the founding fathers of this nation originally intended.

    When they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they had a far different understanding than what the current Supreme Court is saying. There are lawyers today passing out literature on how the Supreme Court is running away with power and needs to be stopped. The Supreme Court rulings have done damage to the original intent of the law of this land. Those books listed above will inform you the extent of those changes.

    Some of you need to educate yourselves and stop believeing this revisionist history.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  5. #5
    Member Member Azi Tohak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Smallville USA.
    Posts
    971

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    There is nothing stopping people from going to the local church to become good little christians. It is nothing short of religious oppression to force it on the populace. Whether directly, like many arab states; or indirectly by making schools teach that christ is our savior.
    You are being oppressed by being told Christ is your savior? You can just ignore the person afterall.

    Besides that, how is being taught 'intelligent design' the same as being forced to take communion?

    Azi
    "If you don't want to work, become a reporter. That awful power, the public opinion of the nation, was created by a horde of self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditch digging and shoemaking and fetched up journalism on their way to the poorhouse."
    Mark Twain 1881

  6. #6
    Member Member Azi Tohak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Smallville USA.
    Posts
    971

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    Dumb people are impressionable. The public school system is full of dumb people. If you yell "Christ is our savior!" to enough dumb people, they'll listen. That leaves the rest of us stuck with a bunch of dumb christians. To put it all crudely.

    I don't oppose teaching about religion. It's an important part of the world. The schools should not be used as a converting tool, and I think doing so should be a criminal offense.
    And dumb Christians are worse then dumb atheists?

    So if the schools are not to be used for recruitment, do you want my high school to get rid of its strong Christian groups? Or the nascent-Moslem group?

    Where is the idea that schools are going to turn far right coming from? By telling kids the founding fathers were Christian, they are going to start hating gays? I don't understand what your argument is.

    Azi
    "If you don't want to work, become a reporter. That awful power, the public opinion of the nation, was created by a horde of self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditch digging and shoemaking and fetched up journalism on their way to the poorhouse."
    Mark Twain 1881

  7. #7
    Old Town Road Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,369

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    good the founding fathers were christian the kids at my school aren't gonna to give a sh*t one way or another wether there christians jews muslims or atheists none of us listen
    Last edited by Strike For The South; 08-10-2005 at 05:05.
    There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

  8. #8
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    My argument is that classes in school should not be bias towards religion. They should objectively portray the facts as they are. Give an accurate history of the religion and what is stands for, ect. That's all useful later in life. I have a problem when the schools are actually trying to get people to join religious groups.
    And the founding fathers say your wrong. You just ignore what they say and why they say it.


    You should try bringing up quotes where they denounce the evils of religious oppression.
    Sure they were against religous repression. Teaching religion in school is an expression of religous freedom not oppression. Remember these schools were not run by the government at this time. It seems to me that throught history when a cultures religion dies it dies along with it.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  9. #9
    Minion of Zoltan Member Roark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    961

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    Although I am a believer, I don't think that religion has a place in state schools as mandatory curriculum, especially not in a multicultural society like Australia.

  10. #10
    Chief Sniffer Senior Member ichi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,132

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    One of the primary reasons that Englishmen came to the US was to escape the tyranny of State-sponsored religion, and one the highlights of the Constitution is the prohibition of the establishment of a State-sponsored religion.

    If requiring kids to be taught the views of a particular religion in public schools isn't State-sponsored religion, then it's a big step towards it.

    Teach your own kids the theory of intelligent design, let them learn science in school.

    ichi
    Stay Calm, Be Alert, Think Clearly, Act Decisively

    CoH

  11. #11
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    If requiring kids to be taught the views of a particular religion in public schools isn't State-sponsored religion, then it's a big step towards it.
    The founding fathers were not multi culturalist like today. They all believed in the same god. A christain one. They had indeed seen the results of religous opression. But it was Christian oppression of fellow Christains they were concerned about. Again the schools were not run by the federal government nor the states at this time. I still dont think they should be. Better to remove the government from education than religion from education I say. Then you have no beef.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  12. #12
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    Gawain, I dub thee, ORG Evangelist.

    A Reading from the Book of Armaments, Chapter 4, Verses 16 to 20:



    Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, "Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy." And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals ... Now did the Lord say, "First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."

    -- Monty Python, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  13. #13
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    Gawain, I dub thee, ORG Evangelist.
    Maybe you better check the Christain club them as Im far from being an Evangelists. Again I despise for the most part organised religion. But I do love that Bit from the Holy Grail. Its one of my favorite movies ever.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  14. #14
    agitated Member master of the puppets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    where destruction lay around me from a fight i could not win
    Posts
    1,224

    Talking Re: Faith & Freedom

    you must remember that the founding fathers were in a time when it was believed that god was completely true and that america as a land was founded by god under god
    A nation of sheep will beget a a government of wolves. Edward R. Murrow

    Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. —1 John 2:9

  15. #15
    Member Member bmolsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    Posts
    3,029

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    Quote Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
    Yeah they were a bunch of morons . Lets throw out this stupid constituion its old and past its time.
    I disagree. They where terrorist, yes, but they where not morons. They had a difference reference base, which has to be taken in to account when evaluating their intents.......

  16. #16

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    Oh yes, the people that formed the most powerful nation in the world which has saved europes ass more then once were terrorist. Would you rather speak german or russian?
    Formerly ceasar010

  17. #17
    The Blade Member JimBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Chi Town
    Posts
    588

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    The founding fathers were deists, they believed in a single God that created the Earth and then left us to our devices. Jefferson actually rewrote the Bible without Jesus being divine, there are no miracles, nor is The Resurection present. Washington almost never took communion and on his death a close friend of his when asked about Washington's religion said "Sir, Washington was a deist." Franklin is quoted as saying (to paraphrase), I read a book against deism, the more I read though the more drawn to deism I became.

    Moving on to rabid nationalism:
    Oh yes, the people that formed the most powerful nation in the world which has saved europes ass more then once were terrorist. Would you rather speak german or russian?
    Of course they were terrorists. Define terrorism "the use of force to sway a government, civilian population, or institution" hell we started a war, against the British Army. That's terrorism, terrorism for a just cause, but terrorism.
    Sometimes I slumber on a bed of roses
    Sometimes I crash in the weeds
    One day a bowl full of cherries
    One night I'm suckin' on lemons and spittin' out the seeds
    -Roger Clyne and the Peacemakers, Lemons

  18. #18
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    The founding fathers were deists, they believed in a single God that created the Earth and then left us to our devices. Jefferson actually rewrote the Bible without Jesus being divine, there are no miracles, nor is The Resurection present. Washington almost never took communion and on his death a close friend of his when asked about Washington's religion said "Sir, Washington was a deist." Franklin is quoted as saying (to paraphrase), I read a book against deism, the more I read though the more drawn to deism I became.
    Thats the BS revisionist history they teach you today but it is far from the truth. Diest my a$$ In fact they considered diests to be infidels.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  19. #19
    Member Member bmolsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    Posts
    3,029

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    Quote Originally Posted by ceasar010
    Oh yes, the people that formed the most powerful nation in the world which has saved europes ass more then once were terrorist. Would you rather speak german or russian?
    Just for your info, my mother tounge is Swedish...... And both Germans and Russians have tried during history and got their ass kicked......

  20. #20
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    Quote Originally Posted by bmolsson
    I disagree. They where terrorist, yes, but they where not morons. They had a difference reference base, which has to be taken in to account when evaluating their intents.......
    Your terrorist definition doesn't fit, nor does JimBob's. They fought the British military in uniforms and in units. Their primary targets were not civilians, their targets were the enemy military forces. They were in rebellion and that is not the same as being a terrorist. Can a rebellion turn into terrorism? You bet. And the lines can be a bit fuzzy. Excesses will happen on both sides to a degree. Rebellion does not = terrorism unless the rebellion is conducted as a terrorist campaign (see Palestine...)

    We've discussed this in the context of Iraq before. While I very much support our troops and hate the attacks by non-uniformed irregulars (who should receive summary judgement and be shot according to older military practice), I also accept that it isn't outright terrorism when the target is military. When the target is civilian that's another matter. The civilians have been the main target of much of the campaign so on balance the organization(s) is/are acting more often as terrorists than as irregular guerrilla's. Another aspect of Iraq is that there is no specific organized rebel front with some sort of national aim. That puts them more toward the side of terrorism than a legitimate revolution.
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  21. #21
    Member Member bmolsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    Posts
    3,029

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Harvest
    Your terrorist definition doesn't fit, nor does JimBob's. They fought the British military in uniforms and in units. Their primary targets were not civilians, their targets were the enemy military forces. They were in rebellion and that is not the same as being a terrorist.
    It does fit. Your judgement is clouded by patriotism and nationalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Harvest
    Rebellion does not = terrorism unless the rebellion is conducted as a terrorist campaign (see Palestine...)
    All rebellions are terrorism. Rebels doesn't have a regular army and therefore are they terrorists.

    Note: You can be a terrorist and still have a noble and just cause, but that is a totally different story.

  22. #22
    Old Town Road Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,369

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    Quote Originally Posted by bmolsson
    It does fit. Your judgement is clouded by patriotism and nationalism.



    All rebellions are terrorism. Rebels doesn't have a regular army and therefore are they terrorists.

    Note: You can be a terrorist and still have a noble and just cause, but that is a totally different story.
    So you're saying an iraqi (or anyone for that matter) straps bombs to his chest and blows up a bus filled with civilians is the same as being an army or malitia and fighting just the military? I don't buy it
    There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

  23. #23
    Member Member bmolsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    Posts
    3,029

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    Quote Originally Posted by strike for the south
    So you're saying an iraqi (or anyone for that matter) straps bombs to his chest and blows up a bus filled with civilians is the same as being an army or malitia and fighting just the military? I don't buy it
    I think that anyone that straps bombs to his chest and blows anyone up are a terrorist. It's bizarre..

  24. #24
    The Blade Member JimBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Chi Town
    Posts
    588

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    Your terrorist definition doesn't fit, nor does JimBob's. They fought the British military in uniforms and in units. Their primary targets were not civilians, their targets were the enemy military forces. They were in rebellion and that is not the same as being a terrorist. Can a rebellion turn into terrorism? You bet. And the lines can be a bit fuzzy. Excesses will happen on both sides to a degree. Rebellion does not = terrorism unless the rebellion is conducted as a terrorist campaign (see Palestine...)
    Mine is the paraphrased definition the FBI uses. And yes they fought in uniform(although early in the war uniform was a very subjective term). You should remember that the Son's of Liberty were fond of tar and feathering loyalists. The lines are fuzzy yes, but the arguement can be made, and I'm sure the King of England would have agreed with me.

    Thats the BS revisionist history they teach you today but it is far from the truth. Diest my a$$ In fact they considered diests to be infidels.
    I will admit I am wrong on Jefferson, I would call him a Unitarian, as he did not believe in Jesus being Divine, did not believe in the Resurection, did not believe in the Trinity, and rejected the traditional churches. He also rewrote the Bible, pick up a copy if you want, its a good read. Or you can get it right here
    Also note these letters written by Jefferson
    Letter To Dr. Benjamin Rush.
    Washington, April 21, 1803.
    DEAR SIR,

    In some of the delightful conversations with you in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you that one day or other I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other. At the short interval since these conversations, when I could justifiably abstract my mind from public affairs, the subject has been under my contemplation. But the more I considered it, the more it expanded beyond the measure of either my time or information. In the moment of my late departure from Monticello, I received from Dr. Priestley his little treatise of "Socrates and Jesus Compared." This being a section of the general view I had taken of the field, it became a subject of reflection while on the road and unoccupied otherwise. The result was, to arrange in my mind a syllabus or outline of such an estimate of the comparative merits of Christianity as I wished to see executed by someone of more leisure and information for the task than myself. This I now send you as the only discharge of my promise I can probably ever execute. And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations and calumnies. I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public, because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behooves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith which the laws have left between God and himself. Accept my affectionate salutations.

    Th: Jefferson
    Letter To William Short.
    Monticello, April 13, 1820.
    DEAR SIR,

    Your favor of March the 27th is received, and as you request, a copy of the syllabus is now enclosed. It was originally written to Dr. Rush. On his death, fearing that the inquisition of the public might get hold of it, I asked the return of it from the family, which they kindly complied with. At the request of another friend, I had given him a copy. He lent it to his friend to read, who copied it, and in a few months it appeared in the Theological Magazine of London. Happily that repository is scarcely known in this country, and the syllabus, therefore, is still a secret, and in your hands I am sure it will continue so.

    But while this syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in its true and high light, as no impostor Himself, but a great Reformer of the Hebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am with Him in all His doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin; I require counterpoise of good works to redeem it, etc., etc. It is the innocence of His character, the purity and sublimity of His moral precepts, the eloquence of His inculcations, the beauty of the apologues in which He conveys them, that I so much admire; sometimes, indeed, needing indulgence to eastern hyperbolism. My eulogies, too, may be founded on a postulate which all may not be ready to grant. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to Him by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of His doctrines, led me to try to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that His past composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us by man. The syllabus is therefore of His doctrines, not all of mine. I read them as I do those of other ancient and modern moralists, with a mixture of approbation and dissent...
    Jefferson respected Jesus as a man. He agreed with much of what he said, but there was some that he disagreed with.

    2) As to Washington, the church he attended admits that he did not take communion and that his wife was more a Christian than he. He was a Freemason, his friends said he was a deist, he never mentioned religion publicily. The only refrence to him as a good pious Christian come from the same book with the cherry tree story. The author of that text was more concerned with making an American Hero, rather than reporting the truth.

    3) Franklin, you can't even argue that Franklin was anything but a Deist, who accepted no dogma but his own.
    Sometimes I slumber on a bed of roses
    Sometimes I crash in the weeds
    One day a bowl full of cherries
    One night I'm suckin' on lemons and spittin' out the seeds
    -Roger Clyne and the Peacemakers, Lemons

  25. #25
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    Wow you have come up with three and have already admited to being wrong on one.

    From Franklin

    In 1749, he wrote:

    History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion. . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.
    Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania, 1749, p.22
    More from Jefferson.

    The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man:

    1. That there is one only God, and He all perfect.
    2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
    3. That to love God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.…

    Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian.

    —To Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse. (1822) The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Albert Ellery Bergh. 20 vols. Washington: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1907. (Memorial Edition) vol. 15, p. 383.

    I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus—very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its Author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great Reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were He to return on earth, would not recognize one feature.

    —To Charles Thomson. Bergh 14:385. (1816.)
    I totally agree with him.

    Heres the case I was looking for

    No Schools Without Christ

    And finally Washington

    At Valley Forge, May 2, 1778, the Continental Army suffered from cold, lack of food and clothing and equipment, yet General George Washington encouraged all of his men to conduct themselves in a Christian manner: "To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to laud the more distinguished character of Christian." On January 1, 1795, George Washington wrote the National Thanksgiving Proclamation: "In such a state of things it is an especial manner our duty as a people, with devout reverence and affectionate gratitude to acknowledge our many and great obligations to Almighty God, and to implore Him to continue and confirm the blessings we experience." At one point, Washington said about the correlation of good government and Christian ideals: "True religion affords government its surest support. The future of this nation depends on the Christian training of our youth. It is impossible to govern without the Bible." When in Washington and Williamsburg, George Washington attended Bruton Parish in Williamsburg, Virginia, and Christ Church of Philadelphia when in Pennsylvania. On April 30, 1789, when George Washington was inaugurated as the first President of the United States, he reverently kissed the Bible and said, "So-help-me-God." As a legacy to all Americans, George Washington voiced this lovely prayer: "Almighty God; we make our earnest prayer. .. that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with charity, humility and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine author of our blessed religion [reference to Christ], and without humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

    It was the Quaker Isaac Potts who found George Washington on his knees praying for divine assistance at Valley Forge. He said of our Founding Father’s piety: "Till now I have thought that a Christian and a soldier were characters incompatible; but if George Washington be not a man of God, I am mistaken, and still more shall I be disappointed if God do not through him perform some great thing for this country." And so God did a great thing for this country through a man of great faith. On his deathbed, the last words of George Washington were as follows: "Father of Mercies, take me to thyself." Were these words of an agnostic, a skeptic, a deist? I think not.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  26. #26
    A very, very Senior Member Adrian II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    9,748

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    I researched this issue some time ago and it occurred to me that much of the American 'debate' about it comes down to a couple of websites with compilations of quotes taken out of context. No historical analysis, no biographical research, no respect for the fact that peoples' opinions changed over the years, back then as well as in our own time, or for the fact that circumstance often dictated compromise, resulting in what was in the 18th Century called 'prudent language'.

    Once you get beyond this debilitating 'quotism', a whole different picture emerges. We've had threads about that and I can't be bothered to dig them up or repeat their contents here. I just felt it necessary to issue this warning, as a historian, that quotes do not equal views or historical perspective. I could recommend Daniel J. Boorstin's The National Experience (1965), the second volume of his trilogy of American history. Digest that, then come back here and formulate your conclusions in your own words, then have a real debate.
    The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott

  27. #27
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    just felt it necessary to issue this warning, as a historian, that quotes do not equal views or historical perspective. I could recommend Daniel J. Boorstin's The National Experience (1965), the second volume of his trilogy of American history. Digest that, then come back here and formulate your conclusions in your own words, then have a real debate.
    Thats why I posted the case before the court about trying to open a schol that didnt teach the bible. They found it to be unconstitutional to do so. Theres is not a shred of doubt in my mind that the founding fathers thought this was and intended this nation to stay a christain nation. Jefferson and Madison, two who were claimed to be Diests actually held church in the halls of congress every sunday during their time in office.

    I would recomend Original intent of you want to learn more on the topic.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  28. #28
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    Quote Originally Posted by bmolsson
    It does fit. Your judgement is clouded by patriotism and nationalism.
    Nope. If I let my judgement be clouded like that then I would consider all insurgent attacks in Iraq as terrorist. I don't. Many, yes. All, no.

    I just looked up the CIA's definition:

    "The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

    —The term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

    —The term 'international terrorism' means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.

    —The term 'terrorist group' means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.



    All rebellions are terrorism. Rebels doesn't have a regular army and therefore are they terrorists.
    That definition is patently false.

    The American Revolution had a regular army (Continental Army.) These were uniformed men fighting in formation of a declared government. There were also regional militia that were already in existence to some degree, and were used versus the Brits. In addition there were some more irregular types.

    Often it is the army itself that turns against the government. The irregular guerrilla's might be those actually trying to defend the "legitimate" govt.

    The American Civil War had a regular Confederate Army. During the war there were also partisan bands in border areas like Missouri. A number of these "partisans" on both sides were primarily terrorists, attacking civilians directly with the direct aim of terrorizing them or killing them. Quantrill, Bloodly Bill Anderson, the James Brothers. Men like these were executed when apprehended.
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  29. #29
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    And werent the British guilty of terrorism in the way they used the indians? And how about this outstanding British officer Lt. Col. Tarleton, known as "the Butcher."
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  30. #30
    Member Member bmolsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    Posts
    3,029

    Default Re: Faith & Freedom

    Quote Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
    And werent the British guilty of terrorism in the way they used the indians? And how about this outstanding British officer Lt. Col. Tarleton, known as "the Butcher."
    Of course they where....

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO