Dr. Frazer's new article
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Jon
Aug 7, 2008, 11:40:21 AM8/7/08
to American Heritage
Friends,
I've mentioned Dr. Frazer's work here on this forum. He has an
article posted today at WorldNetDaily which may interest you. Dr.
Frazer heads the history and political studies dept. at the college
where MacArthur is President. His defense of MacArthur's anti-
dominionist position raises many points very apt to this debate.
Check it out :
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71614
Note the discussion on Jonathan Mayhew, who was one of the most
important pro-revolutionary preachers during the American Founding.
He was called the "morning gun" of the revolution:
"It is also instructive to point out that Mayhew is not exactly the
most reliable authority on what the Bible says. His reputation for
unorthodoxy was so pronounced that his ordination had to be
rescheduled because not enough ministers attended. He was a unitarian
(did not believe in the deity of Christ) and a rationalist who
believed that reason was the ultimate determiner of what counts as
revelation. He specifically denied the doctrines of imputation,
justification by faith, the virgin birth and original sin and held an
unorthodox view of the atonement. He denied them because he found them
to be unreasonable. Doctrines, which he called 'niceties of
speculation,' were not of particular interest to him, though, because
he believed that there were many roads to God and that one walked them
through works. He listed Plato, Demosthenes, Cicero, Sidney and Hoadly
among his intellectual influences. His quoted remark in the article
that a king can 'un-king himself' is completely without biblical
foundation. Mayhew's view of Romans 13 had nothing to do with what
Paul said and everything to do with what Mayhew found reasonable under
the circumstances."
I've mentioned Dr. Frazer's work here on this forum. He has an
article posted today at WorldNetDaily which may interest you. Dr.
Frazer heads the history and political studies dept. at the college
where MacArthur is President. His defense of MacArthur's anti-
dominionist position raises many points very apt to this debate.
Check it out :
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71614
Note the discussion on Jonathan Mayhew, who was one of the most
important pro-revolutionary preachers during the American Founding.
He was called the "morning gun" of the revolution:
"It is also instructive to point out that Mayhew is not exactly the
most reliable authority on what the Bible says. His reputation for
unorthodoxy was so pronounced that his ordination had to be
rescheduled because not enough ministers attended. He was a unitarian
(did not believe in the deity of Christ) and a rationalist who
believed that reason was the ultimate determiner of what counts as
revelation. He specifically denied the doctrines of imputation,
justification by faith, the virgin birth and original sin and held an
unorthodox view of the atonement. He denied them because he found them
to be unreasonable. Doctrines, which he called 'niceties of
speculation,' were not of particular interest to him, though, because
he believed that there were many roads to God and that one walked them
through works. He listed Plato, Demosthenes, Cicero, Sidney and Hoadly
among his intellectual influences. His quoted remark in the article
that a king can 'un-king himself' is completely without biblical
foundation. Mayhew's view of Romans 13 had nothing to do with what
Paul said and everything to do with what Mayhew found reasonable under
the circumstances."
mydh12
Aug 7, 2008, 5:26:52 PM8/7/08
to American Heritage
Jon, thank you for the information about Mayhew. Please continue to
tell me more about the FF. It helps to balance out what a person hears
from David Barton, although I appreciate Barton because he tells a
side of the story that was never told to me in school or in the
general media.
Mayhew seems to be like some of the other FF, in that he had an
amalgam of beliefs including Christianity and rationalism. It seems
that he was probably not an orthodox Christian. Yet he seems intent on
saying, like several other FF, that Christians should be heavily
involved in the political process. In fact, Frazer seems to say that
Mayhew perhaps gave TOO MUCH emphasis to this. Frazer is making my
point. Mayhew, like other non-orthodox FF, highly desired Christians
to be involved in the political process of creating a new government.
Whether he was theologically right or wrong on the proper
interpretation of Romans 13 and other passages is not the main point.
What is important is that Mayhew and other FF, although perhaps not
orthodox believers, wanted Christians, and therefore Christianity, to
have an influence on the coming political events and government. That
is all that I am arguing for, and you, on another thread, even
admitted that the FF desired to retain a Christian identity for the
US.
The Church's prime responsibility is to spread the Gospel. However, we
will also be held accountable for other opportunities to serve God and
others. I believe that one of those opportunities, in our free
democratic society, is to help elect godly people to positions of
influence so as to create a more just society. Proverbs talks about
the benefits of having godly rulers. It seems that the FF, whether
they were orthodox believes or not, believed in that also. That is all
that is important in my viewpoint, and people who attempt to tell
Christians that they have no right or responsibility to take part in
the elective process not only go against the general principles of the
Bible, but also go expressly against the desires of the FF.
That is why I tell my Christian friends that they have the same right
as other voters to "impose" their morality on others. This is just
like the non-Christian voters wanting to "impose" their morality and
values on us. As Christian citizens, we are supposed to have the same
right of free speech and the same right to vote as any other non-
Christian citizens. And as Christians, we have the added
responsibility to vote for people who reflect our biblical values,
just as non-Christians often vote for people who reflect non-Biblical
values. Unfortunately, these rights are slowly being taken away from
Christians in the name of "hate speech", "diversity", "tolerance",
imposing a "theocracy" and other limitations, such as a false idea of
the original meaning of the separation of church and state, or the
false idea that the FF desired a secular state.
Jon, I have assumed that you believe that Christians should have the
same rights to free speech and voting, as non-Christians have. Then
you should have no problem with what I am arguing for. I simply don't
want there to be any false arguments that serve as barriers to
Christians exercising their full rights as citizens to influence the
government to reflect our values, just as non-Christians do. Isn't
that something that you would want to help promote in your government
classes?
tell me more about the FF. It helps to balance out what a person hears
from David Barton, although I appreciate Barton because he tells a
side of the story that was never told to me in school or in the
general media.
Mayhew seems to be like some of the other FF, in that he had an
amalgam of beliefs including Christianity and rationalism. It seems
that he was probably not an orthodox Christian. Yet he seems intent on
saying, like several other FF, that Christians should be heavily
involved in the political process. In fact, Frazer seems to say that
Mayhew perhaps gave TOO MUCH emphasis to this. Frazer is making my
point. Mayhew, like other non-orthodox FF, highly desired Christians
to be involved in the political process of creating a new government.
Whether he was theologically right or wrong on the proper
interpretation of Romans 13 and other passages is not the main point.
What is important is that Mayhew and other FF, although perhaps not
orthodox believers, wanted Christians, and therefore Christianity, to
have an influence on the coming political events and government. That
is all that I am arguing for, and you, on another thread, even
admitted that the FF desired to retain a Christian identity for the
US.
The Church's prime responsibility is to spread the Gospel. However, we
will also be held accountable for other opportunities to serve God and
others. I believe that one of those opportunities, in our free
democratic society, is to help elect godly people to positions of
influence so as to create a more just society. Proverbs talks about
the benefits of having godly rulers. It seems that the FF, whether
they were orthodox believes or not, believed in that also. That is all
that is important in my viewpoint, and people who attempt to tell
Christians that they have no right or responsibility to take part in
the elective process not only go against the general principles of the
Bible, but also go expressly against the desires of the FF.
That is why I tell my Christian friends that they have the same right
as other voters to "impose" their morality on others. This is just
like the non-Christian voters wanting to "impose" their morality and
values on us. As Christian citizens, we are supposed to have the same
right of free speech and the same right to vote as any other non-
Christian citizens. And as Christians, we have the added
responsibility to vote for people who reflect our biblical values,
just as non-Christians often vote for people who reflect non-Biblical
values. Unfortunately, these rights are slowly being taken away from
Christians in the name of "hate speech", "diversity", "tolerance",
imposing a "theocracy" and other limitations, such as a false idea of
the original meaning of the separation of church and state, or the
false idea that the FF desired a secular state.
Jon, I have assumed that you believe that Christians should have the
same rights to free speech and voting, as non-Christians have. Then
you should have no problem with what I am arguing for. I simply don't
want there to be any false arguments that serve as barriers to
Christians exercising their full rights as citizens to influence the
government to reflect our values, just as non-Christians do. Isn't
that something that you would want to help promote in your government
classes?
mydh12
Aug 7, 2008, 5:47:52 PM8/7/08
to American Heritage
One more thing. The fact that Mayhew and some other FF, were probably
not orthodox Christians, in my view, makes my argument for Christian
political involvement even stronger. Some people may try to dismiss
orthodox Christian FF encouraging Christians to be active by saying
that the orthodox Christian FF were biased.
Jon, you seem intent on showing that several of the FF were not
orthodox Christians. If that is indeed the case, then that strengthens
my side, because the non-orthodox FF then were less likely biased
towards Christian involvement, in terms of their religious beliefs, as
the orthodox Christian FF. But, in actuality, the non-orthodox
Christian FF, like Mayhew, wanted the Christians to be heavily
involved in creating a new government. I believe that Dr. Gregg
Frazer's article helps to strengthen my argument for Christian
involvement, not lessen it. Thank you for the article link.
not orthodox Christians, in my view, makes my argument for Christian
political involvement even stronger. Some people may try to dismiss
orthodox Christian FF encouraging Christians to be active by saying
that the orthodox Christian FF were biased.
Jon, you seem intent on showing that several of the FF were not
orthodox Christians. If that is indeed the case, then that strengthens
my side, because the non-orthodox FF then were less likely biased
towards Christian involvement, in terms of their religious beliefs, as
the orthodox Christian FF. But, in actuality, the non-orthodox
Christian FF, like Mayhew, wanted the Christians to be heavily
involved in creating a new government. I believe that Dr. Gregg
Frazer's article helps to strengthen my argument for Christian
involvement, not lessen it. Thank you for the article link.
Jon
Aug 7, 2008, 9:50:03 PM8/7/08
to American Heritage
"Jon, I have assumed that you believe that Christians should have the
same rights to free speech and voting, as non-Christians have. Then
you should have no problem with what I am arguing for."
Yes, absolutely. And given that figures like Mayhew preached politics
same rights to free speech and voting, as non-Christians have. Then
you should have no problem with what I am arguing for."
from the pulpit shows there was quite a bit of that going on since the
beginning of America's Founding.
Re the whole forcing morality issue, I recognize that every single act
of government is some kind of imposition of morality; as a libertarian
I don't like it when the left does it any more than when the right
does it. Given that we libertarians believe in the least amount of
government, we therefore believe in the least amount of government
imposed morality on anyone.
Tigerlilly66
Aug 8, 2008, 10:29:59 AM8/8/08
to American Heritage
Once again, I feel mydh12 (how about a pseudonym I can call you?) has
made the kind of point I've been asking for...whatever the degrees of
belief that the FF's had as a whole, and whatever constituted their
definitions of "Christianity" as a group, what I would term an
evangelical world view is impossible to deny. Perhaps Jon is a
Christian, perhaps not, but for those of us who ARE and make no bones
about being so, we have this God-given desire and responsibility to
MAKE IT KNOWN TO ALL. Thus the frequent and pointed references to
Jesus Christ...that is who we are and what we do! All the flap about
what Unitarians believed just clouds the basic issue. Unitarians of
the 18th Century differ little, if at all, from those of today. We
may talk about whether they were Trinitarian, or Pre-Trib, etc. I
know taking a hard line is a no-no, but I expect to find NO Unitarians
from any age in Heaven simply because of the essentials of the
Christian faith that they either outright deny, or play down to the
point of uselessness. What is so difficult in saying this? Are we so
conditioned to "political correctness" that our ability to read and
discern plain English has been lost?
TL66
> > > the circumstances."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
made the kind of point I've been asking for...whatever the degrees of
belief that the FF's had as a whole, and whatever constituted their
definitions of "Christianity" as a group, what I would term an
evangelical world view is impossible to deny. Perhaps Jon is a
Christian, perhaps not, but for those of us who ARE and make no bones
about being so, we have this God-given desire and responsibility to
MAKE IT KNOWN TO ALL. Thus the frequent and pointed references to
Jesus Christ...that is who we are and what we do! All the flap about
what Unitarians believed just clouds the basic issue. Unitarians of
the 18th Century differ little, if at all, from those of today. We
may talk about whether they were Trinitarian, or Pre-Trib, etc. I
know taking a hard line is a no-no, but I expect to find NO Unitarians
from any age in Heaven simply because of the essentials of the
Christian faith that they either outright deny, or play down to the
point of uselessness. What is so difficult in saying this? Are we so
conditioned to "political correctness" that our ability to read and
discern plain English has been lost?
TL66
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jon
Aug 8, 2008, 11:25:54 AM8/8/08
to American Heritage
The evangelical worldview was certainly present and had quite a bit of
institutional power. Yet, I utterly do deny that the key Founding
principles of the Declaration, Constitution, and Federalist Papers had
anything to do with evangelical Christianity. Look at what I just
reproduced above. One of the most notable pro-revolutionary
preachers, Jonathan Mayhew, termed "Morning Gun of the Revolution" was
a unitarian and used his unitarian worldview to motivate Americans
into rebellion against Great Britain.
institutional power. Yet, I utterly do deny that the key Founding
principles of the Declaration, Constitution, and Federalist Papers had
anything to do with evangelical Christianity. Look at what I just
reproduced above. One of the most notable pro-revolutionary
preachers, Jonathan Mayhew, termed "Morning Gun of the Revolution" was
a unitarian and used his unitarian worldview to motivate Americans
into rebellion against Great Britain.
mydh12
Aug 8, 2008, 1:23:34 PM8/8/08
to American Heritage
"Given that we libertarians believe in the least amount of
government, we therefore believe in the least amount of government
imposed morality on anyone."
I also believe in having a limited government. Morality is needed for
government, we therefore believe in the least amount of government
imposed morality on anyone."
order in society. Morality needs a source, either internal or
external. The FF realized that religion, in this case Christianity,
provides a great internal set of good moral principles. If an internal
source of morality is missing, then an external source must be
provided to keep order in a society. That is why we see that as
Christianity wanes in the US, more laws are being passed to keep
people in check, from doing things which they previously would not
have considered doing because of their internal sense of Christian
morality.
The FF, both Christian and non-Christian, recognized that religion and
morality were the necessary pillars on which to build a free society.
So yes, let's keep government as small as possible, but we must
realize that this is only possible if there is already a strong moral
underpinning of moral concepts that religion, such as Christianity,
provides. The FF recognized this, so must we.
NVSv...@gmail.com
Aug 8, 2008, 3:23:56 PM8/8/08
to American Heritage
Nicely written response Mydh.
Tigerlilly66
Aug 9, 2008, 1:05:53 AM8/9/08
to American Heritage
As I continue to try to balance what I now see as the conceded
Christian heritage in the minds of the majority of FF's with Jon's
point that the key documents of the country do NOT ring of
Christianity, I see no conflict! It is plain for all to see that the
Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc, do not make express Christian
notations. But as I've pointed out more than once, just because
something is stated plainly and clearly does not necessarily guarantee
it will be perceived that way be certain readers! I offer just two
more quotes from FF's of some note and again ask...can you see a
Unitarian or Deist making such statements?
John Quincy Adams: SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT;
SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN
ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION”
"My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ
and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the
whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted
and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that
He was God.
The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever
believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope
that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never
since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been
more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present
time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and
prosper till the Lord shall have made “bare His holy arm in the eyes
of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the
salvation of our God” [Isaiah 52:10]. In the chain of human events,
the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of
the Saviour".
Elias Boudinot: PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; SIGNED THE PEACE TREATY TO END
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION; FIRST ATTORNEY ADMITTED TO THE U. S. SUPREME
COURT BAR; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; DIRECTOR OF THE U. S. MINT.
"Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are
Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned… [L]et us
earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ’s sake, to preside in our
councils. . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of
the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a
Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some
minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every
morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer".
These are but two of many dozens of similar quotes I could cite. I
can see the forest for the trees...can you?
TL66
Christian heritage in the minds of the majority of FF's with Jon's
point that the key documents of the country do NOT ring of
Christianity, I see no conflict! It is plain for all to see that the
Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc, do not make express Christian
notations. But as I've pointed out more than once, just because
something is stated plainly and clearly does not necessarily guarantee
it will be perceived that way be certain readers! I offer just two
more quotes from FF's of some note and again ask...can you see a
Unitarian or Deist making such statements?
John Quincy Adams: SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT;
SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN
ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION”
"My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ
and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the
whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted
and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that
He was God.
The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever
believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope
that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never
since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been
more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present
time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and
prosper till the Lord shall have made “bare His holy arm in the eyes
of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the
salvation of our God” [Isaiah 52:10]. In the chain of human events,
the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of
the Saviour".
Elias Boudinot: PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; SIGNED THE PEACE TREATY TO END
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION; FIRST ATTORNEY ADMITTED TO THE U. S. SUPREME
COURT BAR; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; DIRECTOR OF THE U. S. MINT.
"Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are
Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned… [L]et us
earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ’s sake, to preside in our
councils. . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of
the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a
Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some
minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every
morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer".
These are but two of many dozens of similar quotes I could cite. I
can see the forest for the trees...can you?
TL66
NVSv...@gmail.com
Aug 9, 2008, 11:02:02 AM8/9/08
to American Heritage
These are very nice quotes. It's part of the reason why I'm in this
debate. Let's see Jon's response.
> ...
>
> read more »
debate. Let's see Jon's response.
>
> read more »
mydh12
Aug 9, 2008, 4:23:16 PM8/9/08
to American Heritage
"Re the whole forcing morality issue, I recognize that every single
act
of government is some kind of imposition of morality; as a libertarian
I don't like it when the left does it any more than when the right
does it. Given that we libertarians believe in the least amount of
government, we therefore believe in the least amount of government
imposed morality on anyone."
Jon, as I have said before, I also would like the least amount of
act
of government is some kind of imposition of morality; as a libertarian
I don't like it when the left does it any more than when the right
does it. Given that we libertarians believe in the least amount of
government, we therefore believe in the least amount of government
imposed morality on anyone."
government as possible. However, I also recognize, as I'm sure you do,
that in order for there to be an orderly society, there must be some
sort of agreed-upon morality to live by. Without an accepted moral
code, there will be chaos or anarchy. The FF, and I, believe that a
moral code can only come from religion (the higher source of a law).
This is the basis of Natural Law. Jon, since you seem to be intent on
separating the Christian religion from the FF, what do propose as a
source of an agreed-upon morality? What is the source of your ethics,
and why do you choose to believe that your ethical code is valid?
Without religion (Christianity in my case), society can quickly
degenerate into a "Lord of the Flies" might makes right situation. It
becomes a case of pure Social Darwinism. That is a moral code but it
is NOT what the FF wanted. After all, they included a Bill of Rights
to protect citizens from a powerful government. Also, I highly doubt
that the FF, like me, would want a society based on the Sharia law of
the Muslims. So on what moral and ethical basis would YOU start a
society? Just curious, because when I talk to non-Christians, most
will smuggle in Christian values that they like, but they have no
justification for them. Without having inalienable rights given to us
from our Creator (a religious concept), any and all rights are no
longer inalienable and thus can be easily taken from us. So I am
curious as to what you would use as an ethical basis for starting an
orderly society. The FF chose Christianity. What will be your choice?
Jon
Aug 9, 2008, 4:46:15 PM8/9/08
to American Heritage
Two brief points. I realize Elias Boudinat was an orthodox
Christian. He was also not a key Founder. And neither was John
Quincy Adams who vacillated between Unitarianism and Calvinistic
Christianity throughout his whole life. I've seen a lot of citations
to that quotation of Adams'. I'll just note that it seems he's
peddling a "platitude" or a hagiographic myth. The Declaration of
Independence -- the birth certificate of America -- in fact had
nothing to do with Jesus or Christian principles. But to think that
it did makes it easier to go down in a nation full of Christians. In
short, it's like the GW cutting down the cherry tree tale.
> ...
>
> read more »
Christian. He was also not a key Founder. And neither was John
Quincy Adams who vacillated between Unitarianism and Calvinistic
Christianity throughout his whole life. I've seen a lot of citations
to that quotation of Adams'. I'll just note that it seems he's
peddling a "platitude" or a hagiographic myth. The Declaration of
Independence -- the birth certificate of America -- in fact had
nothing to do with Jesus or Christian principles. But to think that
it did makes it easier to go down in a nation full of Christians. In
short, it's like the GW cutting down the cherry tree tale.
>
> read more »
Jon
Aug 9, 2008, 4:50:25 PM8/9/08
to American Heritage
A little off topic, but
1) it's not at all clear from an empirical perspective that society in
fact needs religion to be moral (even though that's what the FFs
thought). For instance Japan and the nation of Western Europe have
fewer "social problems" than we do but are more secular in their
culture.
But regarding what I believe or a good basis for a shared morality. I
have no problem with the Golden Rule. The Founders by the way
believed simply that there is an overriding Providence who wants us to
be "just and good." I have no problem with that either. It's when
you start adding to those simple rules like "but God said in this or
that chapter of the Bible XY or Z, so our policy has to reflect that,"
where I disagree.
1) it's not at all clear from an empirical perspective that society in
fact needs religion to be moral (even though that's what the FFs
thought). For instance Japan and the nation of Western Europe have
fewer "social problems" than we do but are more secular in their
culture.
But regarding what I believe or a good basis for a shared morality. I
have no problem with the Golden Rule. The Founders by the way
believed simply that there is an overriding Providence who wants us to
be "just and good." I have no problem with that either. It's when
you start adding to those simple rules like "but God said in this or
that chapter of the Bible XY or Z, so our policy has to reflect that,"
where I disagree.
Jon
Aug 9, 2008, 4:57:57 PM8/9/08
to American Heritage
"Just curious, because when I talk to non-Christians, most
will smuggle in Christian values that they like, but they have no
justification for them. Without having inalienable rights given to us
from our Creator (a religious concept), any and all rights are no
longer inalienable and thus can be easily taken from us."
And you just smuggled in an Enlightenment value, perhaps without even
will smuggle in Christian values that they like, but they have no
justification for them. Without having inalienable rights given to us
from our Creator (a religious concept), any and all rights are no
longer inalienable and thus can be easily taken from us."
realizing it. The notion of inalienable rights from a Creator is not
a "Christian value," even if it is a religious value. The Bible never
speaks of "inalienable rights," and the second inalienable right
"liberty" as in "political liberty" is wholly alien to the Bible.
Every time the Bible speaks of "liberty" if refers to spiritual
liberty or the freedom from sin or sin's consequences (however you
want to put it). That is one can be a chattel slave (the antithesis
of politically free) and "free" in Christ, without contradiction, just
as Paul taught.
Finally the Founders did NOT choose Christianity as the "public
religion" but rather "theistic rationalism" or "generic theism" -- the
notion that there is an overriding Providence who wants us to "be just
and good" and who will ultimately reward good and punish evil.
Muslims have a place at the table in this "public religion" along with
Christians. THAT'S the difference between "Christianity" on the one
hand and "theistic rationalism" on the other. As Gregg Frazer puts it
the political theology of the American Founding is not Christianity
but theistic rationalism.
So I am
curious as to what you would use as an ethical basis for starting an
orderly society. The FF chose Christianity. What will be your choice?
On Aug 9, 1:23 pm, mydh12 <HansonDu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> read more »
mydh12
Aug 9, 2008, 5:46:40 PM8/9/08
to American Heritage
You cite Japan and western Europe as places where societies have fewer
social problems, but are secular societies. Japan, after World War II,
was westernized and forced to accept US values, such as the value of
women. That is a concept from the New Testament that stated that all
people are of value to God. Also, Europe, although it has become much
more secular, still has a Christian memory that it uses as a basis for
their ethics. Your argument would be stronger if you show me an
example of a society that has good ethics, by uor western standards,
that has NOT been influenced by western civilization's Christian
basis. Also, pre-war Japan may have had few social problems, but
perhaps that was because it was run by an autocratic bureaucracy.
There often can be few open "social problems" in dictatorships.
You say that you have no problem with using the Golden Rule as a basis
for morality. Jon, where do you think the Golden Rule came from? The
New Testament. Your personal ethics are coming largely from
Christianity whether you want to admit to it or not. That is typical
of most Americans.
> ...
>
> read more »
social problems, but are secular societies. Japan, after World War II,
was westernized and forced to accept US values, such as the value of
women. That is a concept from the New Testament that stated that all
people are of value to God. Also, Europe, although it has become much
more secular, still has a Christian memory that it uses as a basis for
their ethics. Your argument would be stronger if you show me an
example of a society that has good ethics, by uor western standards,
that has NOT been influenced by western civilization's Christian
basis. Also, pre-war Japan may have had few social problems, but
perhaps that was because it was run by an autocratic bureaucracy.
There often can be few open "social problems" in dictatorships.
You say that you have no problem with using the Golden Rule as a basis
for morality. Jon, where do you think the Golden Rule came from? The
New Testament. Your personal ethics are coming largely from
Christianity whether you want to admit to it or not. That is typical
of most Americans.
>
> read more »
mydh12
Aug 9, 2008, 5:50:24 PM8/9/08
to American Heritage
The concept of inalienable rights only applies if people have value
which cannot be taken away from them. Where do you get that other than
in the New Testament where Paul said that ALL people are valuable
before God. The Enlightenment people again stole values and morals
from the Bible, even if they are unwilling to admit it. Where do you
get any intrinsic worth of individuals apart from the Christian
religion?
> ...
>
> read more »
which cannot be taken away from them. Where do you get that other than
in the New Testament where Paul said that ALL people are valuable
before God. The Enlightenment people again stole values and morals
from the Bible, even if they are unwilling to admit it. Where do you
get any intrinsic worth of individuals apart from the Christian
religion?
>
> read more »
mydh12
Aug 9, 2008, 8:23:08 PM8/9/08
to American Heritage
"Finally the Founders did NOT choose Christianity as the "public
religion" but rather "theistic rationalism" or "generic theism" -- the
notion that there is an overriding Providence who wants us to "be just
and good" and who will ultimately reward good and punish evil."
Jon, how does your statement above square with your earlier assertion
religion" but rather "theistic rationalism" or "generic theism" -- the
notion that there is an overriding Providence who wants us to "be just
and good" and who will ultimately reward good and punish evil."
on another thread that the FF wanted to retain the Christian identity
of the country? No, the FF did not choose a "public religion" if you
mean by that a national church. They did not desire to have a "Church
of America" like there was a "Church of England." But as you said,
they desired to retain the country's Christian identity. They wanted
and expected Christianity to continue to have a strong influence on
the nation's morality. Even unorthodox men, like Jefferson and
Franklin, gave high praise to Christianity's moral code, and wanted it
to retain its influence. How do explain your above statement? Help me
out here.
>
> read more »
NVSv...@gmail.com
Aug 9, 2008, 9:28:57 PM8/9/08
to American Heritage
" So I am
curious as to what you would use as an ethical basis for starting an
orderly society. The FF chose Christianity. What will be your choice?
"
< I'm confused when you stated this after Mydh said it. Was this a
curious as to what you would use as an ethical basis for starting an
orderly society. The FF chose Christianity. What will be your choice?
"
mistake?
>
> read more »
NVSv...@gmail.com
Aug 9, 2008, 9:30:43 PM8/9/08
to American Heritage
Nicely put counter argument. I've got to read the NT completely
again.
> ...
>
> read more »
again.
>
> read more »
mydh12
Aug 9, 2008, 10:08:11 PM8/9/08
to American Heritage
"It's when
you start adding to those simple rules like "but God said in this or
that chapter of the Bible XY or Z, so our policy has to reflect that,"
where I disagree."
That would be a theocracy, and I, personally, don't know any Christian
you start adding to those simple rules like "but God said in this or
that chapter of the Bible XY or Z, so our policy has to reflect that,"
where I disagree."
that wants that. I believe that the Bible makes sense and applies to
all areas of life. If it makes sense, then I can make a rational
argument for my position without having to rely solely on an appeal to
the Bible. I can justify my position by showing the logical
consequences of not following the Biblical principles. Tis is in
keeping with Natural Law arguments.
BTW, I obviously am against trying to force anyone to become a
Christian in worshiping God. The Bible shows that God gave mankind a
freewill to reject God. Therefore, I would not try to force my
religion on others. But there is a difference between religion and
morality. Religion concerns my relationship with God. Morality
concerns my relationship with mankind. My morality should be, but is
not always contingent upon, my religion. I can argue for the validity
of my morality, by simply showing its logic, without forcing a person
to also accept my underlying religion.
The FF realized that the Christian religion provided the best
underlying foundation for a healthy morality which then made for a
free and ordered society. That is why they desired it to continue to
have a big influence upon the morality of the new US society, even if
some of the FF didn't totally buy into the religious aspects. Those FF
who didn't buy into the religious part of Christianity were
inconsistent in their beliefs, but then most people are that way.
Most people have not really discovered that you can't logically have
the good morality of Christianity without believing the religious
aspect of Christianity. That also applies to people today who smuggle
in Christian values without acknowledging and embracing the underlying
Christian faith as being true. They have their beliefs firmly planted
in mid-air. Philosophers often talk about this. That is why the
Modernism of the Enlightenment eventually led to Post-modernism. The
Modernists eventually came to see that their philosophy had no firm
basis and that it led to the dead-end of existentialism. Few people
really think through the epistemological arguments of what they
believe and why they believe it. If they did, and if they are from a
non-Christian perspective, it quickly leads logically to a position of
despair and no answers. That is reflected in the writings of Sartre,
Beckett, and existentialists.
So Jon, again I ask, what is your basis for forming a free and orderly
society? The FF chose Christianity and its moral code. Since
Libertarianism does not provide, in and of itself, a basis for
morality and ethics, you must have some other system to provide the
answers. What say you?
>
> read more »
Tigerlilly66
Aug 9, 2008, 10:34:30 PM8/9/08
to American Heritage, panzer...@gmail.com
I appreciate Jon's response to my citing Boudinot and JQ Adams as,
for myself at least, it brings into focus something I've been
suspecting for some time in this discussion...if the evidence is not
to our liking, we simply dismiss it. I kinda thought Boudinot had
rather impressive credentials, but that's just bias on my part, I
guess. I certainly didn't catch Adams' insincerity and vacillation.
I also wasn't aware that some FF's carry more "clout" than others, and
of course, the always-vague and convoluted definition of what
constitutes "Christian" remains an easy "out" card.
I've already conceded that the key documents of our nation are
"religion neutral". To extend that reality beyond the actual
documents themselves is where Jon's argument unravels. Did the FF's
not thoroughly understand WHO it would be that would be practically
administering the founding documents? Hmmm. No, Jon...our many FF
Bible-believing Christians were not in the least bit puzzled or
concerned about the direction the nation would take and their
statements to that effect are many!
Permit me to try just one more time to get it right. Do let me know
if these individuals qualify as "key" FF's !
John Hancock - SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; PRESIDENT OF
CONGRESS; REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS...
"Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order
and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every
measure for their support and encouragement".
"He called on the entire state to pray “that universal happiness may
be established in the world [and] that all may bow to the scepter of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole earth be filled with His glory".
He also called on the State of Massachusetts to pray . . . "that all
nations may bow to the scepter of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
and that the whole earth may be filled with his glory; that the
spiritual kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be
continually increasing until the whole earth shall be filled with His
glory; to confess their sins and to implore forgiveness of God through
the merits of the Saviour of the World; to cause the benign religion
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to be known, understood, and
practiced among all the inhabitants of the earth; to confess their
sins before God and implore His forgiveness through the merits and
mediation of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour; that He would finally
overrule all events to the advancement of the Redeemer’s kingdom and
the establishment of universal peace and good will among men; that the
kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be established in
peace and righteousness among all the nations of the earth; that with
true contrition of heart we may confess our sins, resolve to forsake
them, and implore the Divine forgiveness, through the merits and
mediation of Jesus Christ, our Saviour. . . . And finally to overrule
all the commotions in the world to the spreading the true religion of
our Lord Jesus Christ in its purity and power among all the people of
the earth".
John Witherspoon - SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; RATIFIER
OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; PRESIDENT OF PRINCETON:
"Christ Jesus – the promise of old made unto the fathers, the hope of
Israel [Acts 28:20], the light of the world [John 8:12], and the end
of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth [Romans 10:4]
– is the only Saviour of sinners, in opposition to all false religions
and every uninstituted rite; as He Himself says (John 14:6): “I am the
way, and the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by
Me".
"[N]o man, whatever be his character or whatever be his hope, shall
enter into rest unless he be reconciled to God though Jesus Christ".
"[T]here is no salvation in any other than in Jesus Christ of
Nazareth".
"I shall now conclude my discourse by preaching this Saviour to all
who hear me, and entreating you in the most earnest manner to believe
in Jesus Christ; for “there is no salvation in any other” [Acts
4:12]".
"It is very evident that both the prophets in the Old Testament and
the apostles in the New are at great pains to give us a view of the
glory and dignity of the person of Christ. With what magnificent
titles is He adorned! What glorious attributes are ascribed to him!…
All these conspire to teach us that He is truly and properly God – God
over all, blessed forever!"
"[I]f you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ – if you are
not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness – you must
forever perish".
"[H]e is the best friend to American liberty who is the most sincere
and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets
himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and
immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple
not to call him an enemy to his country".
TL 66
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
for myself at least, it brings into focus something I've been
suspecting for some time in this discussion...if the evidence is not
to our liking, we simply dismiss it. I kinda thought Boudinot had
rather impressive credentials, but that's just bias on my part, I
guess. I certainly didn't catch Adams' insincerity and vacillation.
I also wasn't aware that some FF's carry more "clout" than others, and
of course, the always-vague and convoluted definition of what
constitutes "Christian" remains an easy "out" card.
I've already conceded that the key documents of our nation are
"religion neutral". To extend that reality beyond the actual
documents themselves is where Jon's argument unravels. Did the FF's
not thoroughly understand WHO it would be that would be practically
administering the founding documents? Hmmm. No, Jon...our many FF
Bible-believing Christians were not in the least bit puzzled or
concerned about the direction the nation would take and their
statements to that effect are many!
Permit me to try just one more time to get it right. Do let me know
if these individuals qualify as "key" FF's !
John Hancock - SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; PRESIDENT OF
CONGRESS; REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS...
"Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order
and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every
measure for their support and encouragement".
"He called on the entire state to pray “that universal happiness may
be established in the world [and] that all may bow to the scepter of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole earth be filled with His glory".
He also called on the State of Massachusetts to pray . . . "that all
nations may bow to the scepter of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
and that the whole earth may be filled with his glory; that the
spiritual kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be
continually increasing until the whole earth shall be filled with His
glory; to confess their sins and to implore forgiveness of God through
the merits of the Saviour of the World; to cause the benign religion
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to be known, understood, and
practiced among all the inhabitants of the earth; to confess their
sins before God and implore His forgiveness through the merits and
mediation of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour; that He would finally
overrule all events to the advancement of the Redeemer’s kingdom and
the establishment of universal peace and good will among men; that the
kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be established in
peace and righteousness among all the nations of the earth; that with
true contrition of heart we may confess our sins, resolve to forsake
them, and implore the Divine forgiveness, through the merits and
mediation of Jesus Christ, our Saviour. . . . And finally to overrule
all the commotions in the world to the spreading the true religion of
our Lord Jesus Christ in its purity and power among all the people of
the earth".
John Witherspoon - SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; RATIFIER
OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; PRESIDENT OF PRINCETON:
"Christ Jesus – the promise of old made unto the fathers, the hope of
Israel [Acts 28:20], the light of the world [John 8:12], and the end
of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth [Romans 10:4]
– is the only Saviour of sinners, in opposition to all false religions
and every uninstituted rite; as He Himself says (John 14:6): “I am the
way, and the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by
Me".
"[N]o man, whatever be his character or whatever be his hope, shall
enter into rest unless he be reconciled to God though Jesus Christ".
"[T]here is no salvation in any other than in Jesus Christ of
Nazareth".
"I shall now conclude my discourse by preaching this Saviour to all
who hear me, and entreating you in the most earnest manner to believe
in Jesus Christ; for “there is no salvation in any other” [Acts
4:12]".
"It is very evident that both the prophets in the Old Testament and
the apostles in the New are at great pains to give us a view of the
glory and dignity of the person of Christ. With what magnificent
titles is He adorned! What glorious attributes are ascribed to him!…
All these conspire to teach us that He is truly and properly God – God
over all, blessed forever!"
"[I]f you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ – if you are
not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness – you must
forever perish".
"[H]e is the best friend to American liberty who is the most sincere
and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets
himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and
immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple
not to call him an enemy to his country".
TL 66
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Jon
Aug 10, 2008, 9:36:34 AM8/10/08
to American Heritage
There's no question that many of the lesser Founders were indeed
orthodox Trinitarian Christians. The point is when you look at the
key Founders -- the men on the US currency -- you don't see
traditional biblical Christianity, but a heterodox unitarian creed.
When you look at Founders like Witherspoon, Hancock, Boudinat, et al.
that's where you see the traditional Christians.
> ...
>
> read more »
orthodox Trinitarian Christians. The point is when you look at the
key Founders -- the men on the US currency -- you don't see
traditional biblical Christianity, but a heterodox unitarian creed.
When you look at Founders like Witherspoon, Hancock, Boudinat, et al.
that's where you see the traditional Christians.
>
> read more »
Jon
Aug 10, 2008, 10:01:23 AM8/10/08
to American Heritage
Okay -- here is what I see the source of confusion: Theistic
rationalism has a "Protestant Christian" component to it. And that's
what you are focusing on. I'm trying to show you the ways in which
this system is not historic Christianity. Jefferson called himself a
"Christian" in an identity sense but also rejected the following:
"* e. g. The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the
creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection
and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the
Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of
Hierarchy, &c."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_short.html
So the question is can such a system that rejects the following aptly
be termed "Christian."
Re "the people's" religion, America's key Founders thought those above
doctrines -- which some say are the heart and soul of "Christianity"
-- utterly unimportant. Rather what they valued in religion was the
teaching of an overriding Providence and future state of rewards and
punishments. And they valued the moral teachings of Christianity. So
if you strip all of those doctrines from Christianity but retain its
moral teachings like the Golden Rule and Sermon on the Mount, the
question follows: Is the resultant system "Christianity?" If the
answer is no, then you see what I mean when I say the FFs didn't
"choose" Christianity as the "de-facto" religion of the nation, but
some vaguer system that we might call "unitarianism" or "theistic
rationalism." If they chose Christianity, they would, by necessity,
hold that such a system MUCH include within it "[t]he immaculate
conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by
him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible
ascension...the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration." Yet,
these elements were utterly unimportant, the Founders so believed, for
"the people's" religion.
You see what we are calling "theistic rationalism" or "unitarianism"
is arguably a broader, more nominal form of Protestant Christianity.
But, to the "orthodox" (such as yourselves) they often object "this
isn't real Christianity," as they object with such systems as
Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnessism.
> ...
>
> read more »
rationalism has a "Protestant Christian" component to it. And that's
what you are focusing on. I'm trying to show you the ways in which
this system is not historic Christianity. Jefferson called himself a
"Christian" in an identity sense but also rejected the following:
"* e. g. The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the
creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection
and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the
Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of
Hierarchy, &c."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_short.html
So the question is can such a system that rejects the following aptly
be termed "Christian."
Re "the people's" religion, America's key Founders thought those above
doctrines -- which some say are the heart and soul of "Christianity"
-- utterly unimportant. Rather what they valued in religion was the
teaching of an overriding Providence and future state of rewards and
punishments. And they valued the moral teachings of Christianity. So
if you strip all of those doctrines from Christianity but retain its
moral teachings like the Golden Rule and Sermon on the Mount, the
question follows: Is the resultant system "Christianity?" If the
answer is no, then you see what I mean when I say the FFs didn't
"choose" Christianity as the "de-facto" religion of the nation, but
some vaguer system that we might call "unitarianism" or "theistic
rationalism." If they chose Christianity, they would, by necessity,
hold that such a system MUCH include within it "[t]he immaculate
conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by
him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible
ascension...the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration." Yet,
these elements were utterly unimportant, the Founders so believed, for
"the people's" religion.
You see what we are calling "theistic rationalism" or "unitarianism"
is arguably a broader, more nominal form of Protestant Christianity.
But, to the "orthodox" (such as yourselves) they often object "this
isn't real Christianity," as they object with such systems as
Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnessism.
>
> read more »
Tigerlilly66
Aug 10, 2008, 11:04:23 AM8/10/08
to American Heritage
I couldn't agree with you more concerning Jefferson and his supposedly-
Christian beliefs! You make exactly the point I've been hammering on
for days...there is absolutely NO connection between Unitarianism and
biblical Christianity...none whatsoever. One cannot deny the
fundamentals of something and yet want to be called by its name.
Jefferson was either schizophrenic or a cunning politician that knew
how to "play the game". If there is one thing that I think has been
clearly shown over the last couple of weeks, it is that "things that
are different are not the same". I just find it frustrating that so
much can be stated by the men that were there and involved in the
process of getting our country up and running, and yet have their
contributions downplayed time and again. Without the "lesser lights",
there would have been NO lights at all. The "major" players couldn't
have done it by themselves. It is the privates, corporals, and
sergeants who wage the battles to bring glory to the colonels and
generals.
TL
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Christian beliefs! You make exactly the point I've been hammering on
for days...there is absolutely NO connection between Unitarianism and
biblical Christianity...none whatsoever. One cannot deny the
fundamentals of something and yet want to be called by its name.
Jefferson was either schizophrenic or a cunning politician that knew
how to "play the game". If there is one thing that I think has been
clearly shown over the last couple of weeks, it is that "things that
are different are not the same". I just find it frustrating that so
much can be stated by the men that were there and involved in the
process of getting our country up and running, and yet have their
contributions downplayed time and again. Without the "lesser lights",
there would have been NO lights at all. The "major" players couldn't
have done it by themselves. It is the privates, corporals, and
sergeants who wage the battles to bring glory to the colonels and
generals.
TL
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Jon
Aug 10, 2008, 1:22:14 PM8/10/08
to American Heritage
TL,
You may enjoy this Ebook by Dr. Gary North. North is a bit extreme in
his religious views (he's a postmillenial Christian Reconstructionist
in whose first best world would institute Old Testament civil
punishments) and much of what he writes is "cranky." However he is
very smart and has a PhD in history from the University of
California. He notes something "bait and switch" like in our
Founding. Men like Jefferson, Adams, Madison and others presented
their ideas as authentically Christian, but used that as a cover to
import unitarian ideas. Importantly, when it came to public policy on
religion, it was "unitarianism" not "Christianity" that secretly drove
their policy.
Even though North is, as I noted, a bit of an extremist, more
mainstream scholars like Michael Zuckert, Thomas Pangle and Cushing
Strout have posited similar theories.
http://www.demischools.org/philadelphia.pdf
Here is an amusing quotation from North in the book on Jefferson and
Adams:
"In their old age, Adams and Jefferson renewed their friendship in a
long correspondence that lasted for more than a decade. Their letters
reveal that they were almost totally agreed on religion. They hated
Christianity, especially Calvinism....After surveying their letters,
Cushing Strout concludes: 'Whatever their political differences,
Jefferson and Adams were virtually at one in their religion.' Strout
identifies the creed of this religion: unitarianism." pp. 140-41.
And here North is on Madison:
"James Madison was a covenant-breaking genius, and the heart and soul
of his genius was his commitment to religious neutralism. He devised a
Constitution that for two centuries has fooled even the most
perceptive Christian social philosophers of each generation into
thinking that Madison was not what he was: a unitarian theocrat whose
goal was to snuff out the civil influence of the trinitarian churches
whenever they did not support his brainchild. For two centuries, his
demonic plan has worked." pp. 374-75.
And here he is on Washington:
"Here was the strange situation: George Washington was formally a
communicant church member who systematically refused to take
communion. The institutional problem here was the unwillingness of
church authorities to apply formal church sanctions. Any church member
who refuses to take communion has thereby excommunicated himself. A
refusal to take communion or a prohibition against one’s taking
communion is what excommunication means. Self-excommunication is
excommunication, just as surely as suicide is first-degree murder.
Nevertheless, the churches to which Washington belonged did not take
official action against him by either requiring him to take communion
or by publicly excommunicating him. It was this disciplinary failure
on the part of these churches that led to the public legitimizing of
Washington as a Christian. This failure later indirectly legitimized
the Constitution that he conspired to impose on the nation. Without
Washington’s support of the actions of the Convention, the
Constitution would never have been ratified. But Washington was deemed
either too powerful or too sacrosanct to bring under church
discipline." pp. 160-61.
> ...
>
> read more »
You may enjoy this Ebook by Dr. Gary North. North is a bit extreme in
his religious views (he's a postmillenial Christian Reconstructionist
in whose first best world would institute Old Testament civil
punishments) and much of what he writes is "cranky." However he is
very smart and has a PhD in history from the University of
California. He notes something "bait and switch" like in our
Founding. Men like Jefferson, Adams, Madison and others presented
their ideas as authentically Christian, but used that as a cover to
import unitarian ideas. Importantly, when it came to public policy on
religion, it was "unitarianism" not "Christianity" that secretly drove
their policy.
Even though North is, as I noted, a bit of an extremist, more
mainstream scholars like Michael Zuckert, Thomas Pangle and Cushing
Strout have posited similar theories.
http://www.demischools.org/philadelphia.pdf
Here is an amusing quotation from North in the book on Jefferson and
Adams:
"In their old age, Adams and Jefferson renewed their friendship in a
long correspondence that lasted for more than a decade. Their letters
reveal that they were almost totally agreed on religion. They hated
Christianity, especially Calvinism....After surveying their letters,
Cushing Strout concludes: 'Whatever their political differences,
Jefferson and Adams were virtually at one in their religion.' Strout
identifies the creed of this religion: unitarianism." pp. 140-41.
And here North is on Madison:
"James Madison was a covenant-breaking genius, and the heart and soul
of his genius was his commitment to religious neutralism. He devised a
Constitution that for two centuries has fooled even the most
perceptive Christian social philosophers of each generation into
thinking that Madison was not what he was: a unitarian theocrat whose
goal was to snuff out the civil influence of the trinitarian churches
whenever they did not support his brainchild. For two centuries, his
demonic plan has worked." pp. 374-75.
And here he is on Washington:
"Here was the strange situation: George Washington was formally a
communicant church member who systematically refused to take
communion. The institutional problem here was the unwillingness of
church authorities to apply formal church sanctions. Any church member
who refuses to take communion has thereby excommunicated himself. A
refusal to take communion or a prohibition against one’s taking
communion is what excommunication means. Self-excommunication is
excommunication, just as surely as suicide is first-degree murder.
Nevertheless, the churches to which Washington belonged did not take
official action against him by either requiring him to take communion
or by publicly excommunicating him. It was this disciplinary failure
on the part of these churches that led to the public legitimizing of
Washington as a Christian. This failure later indirectly legitimized
the Constitution that he conspired to impose on the nation. Without
Washington’s support of the actions of the Convention, the
Constitution would never have been ratified. But Washington was deemed
either too powerful or too sacrosanct to bring under church
discipline." pp. 160-61.
>
> read more »
NVSv...@gmail.com
Aug 10, 2008, 6:48:28 PM8/10/08
to American Heritage
I'm sorry, Jon. I agree with TL.
I'm glad you admit that many of the "lesser" Founders were at least
orthodox Trinitarian Christians, but I wouldn't count them "lesser".
I think anyone being similar to a "SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF
that many founders wanted Christianity to be tightly involved (at
least) in politics. I find it amazing how often these FFs mention more
about Christ than us Christians today in public affairs.
Just think who these guys are saying these things to... there must
have been some consensus on this. Imagine saying the same things in
modern times... I think our presidents and legislators would put
themselves in killer positions (unless God helps them out) because of
the anti-Christian environment. The environment of those quotes
clearly are friendly to such.
With these powerful and ***authoritative*** quotes (I mean, just
reading them is just amazing), the balance is tipping heavily towards
mydh and TL's assertions.
Thanks for the quotes TL. I'll keep them in my collection.
> ...
>
> read more »
I'm glad you admit that many of the "lesser" Founders were at least
orthodox Trinitarian Christians, but I wouldn't count them "lesser".
I think anyone being similar to a "SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF
INDEPENDENCE; RATIFIER
OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; PRESIDENT OF PRINCETON: "
and other credentials saying those particular things, is convincing
OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; PRESIDENT OF PRINCETON: "
that many founders wanted Christianity to be tightly involved (at
least) in politics. I find it amazing how often these FFs mention more
about Christ than us Christians today in public affairs.
Just think who these guys are saying these things to... there must
have been some consensus on this. Imagine saying the same things in
modern times... I think our presidents and legislators would put
themselves in killer positions (unless God helps them out) because of
the anti-Christian environment. The environment of those quotes
clearly are friendly to such.
With these powerful and ***authoritative*** quotes (I mean, just
reading them is just amazing), the balance is tipping heavily towards
mydh and TL's assertions.
Thanks for the quotes TL. I'll keep them in my collection.
>
> read more »
Jon
Aug 10, 2008, 9:34:45 PM8/10/08
to American Heritage
You may enjoy a post I did on John Witherspoon where I note, after far
more distinguished scholars, that when it came to politics,
Witherspoon did not turn to the Bible or the Christian religion, but
rather to the Enlightenment, rationalism and naturalism to base his
political teachings.
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2008/01/john-witherspoon-philosophical-rationalist.html
more distinguished scholars, that when it came to politics,
Witherspoon did not turn to the Bible or the Christian religion, but
rather to the Enlightenment, rationalism and naturalism to base his
political teachings.
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2008/01/john-witherspoon-philosophical-rationalist.html
Jon
Aug 10, 2008, 9:36:21 PM8/10/08
to American Heritage
"I find it amazing how often these FFs mention more
about Christ than us Christians today in public affairs."
Bill & Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama mention Christ far more often
about Christ than us Christians today in public affairs."
that George Washington ever did.
mydh12
Aug 10, 2008, 10:58:42 PM8/10/08
to American Heritage
JOn, I notice that you have not responded a all to my latest posts.
Why is that?
> ...
>
> read more »
Why is that?
>
> read more »
Jon
Aug 11, 2008, 9:28:20 AM8/11/08
to American Heritage
I thought I did. At least to one very important one. For the others,
I haven't done so because I'm busy.
> ...
>
> read more »
I haven't done so because I'm busy.
>
> read more »
mydh12
Aug 11, 2008, 12:59:58 PM8/11/08
to American Heritage
When you get the time, please respond to this post that I put up last
week. This post also followed a previous post where you had said that
people don't need a religion in order to have ethics. You then stated
that you would have the Golden Rule as a basis for ethics. I replied
that the Golden Rule was from the New Testament. The Ff knew that
ethics and morality had to be rooted in religion. That is why your so-
called "deists", John Adams and Washington, said that religion and
morality were necessary for a free orderly democracy. You seem to want
to deny the role of religion that the FF knew that was necessary. Why?
And what would you replace religion with?
Here is the other post that you did not respond to, and it is on the
same subject as above. Again Jon, I don't care if the FF were not
orthodox Christians. They recognized the absolute need for
Christianity as the basis for the morality that would provide the
underpinning for an "ordered freedom" in their new democracy. You
don't seem to do that. The FF expected and desired Christianity to
continue to have a huge influence on the populace and the government.
What do you propose to serve as a substitute for the Christian
religion that the FF endorsed?
Other previous post:
"It's when
you start adding to those simple rules like "but God said in this or
that chapter of the Bible XY or Z, so our policy has to reflect that,"
where I disagree."
That would be a theocracy, and I, personally, don't know any Christian
that wants that. I believe that the Bible makes sense and applies to
all areas of life. If it makes sense, then I can make a rational
argument for my position without having to rely solely on an appeal to
the Bible. I can justify my position by showing the logical
consequences of not following the Biblical principles. This is in
> ...
>
> read more »
week. This post also followed a previous post where you had said that
people don't need a religion in order to have ethics. You then stated
that you would have the Golden Rule as a basis for ethics. I replied
that the Golden Rule was from the New Testament. The Ff knew that
ethics and morality had to be rooted in religion. That is why your so-
called "deists", John Adams and Washington, said that religion and
morality were necessary for a free orderly democracy. You seem to want
to deny the role of religion that the FF knew that was necessary. Why?
And what would you replace religion with?
Here is the other post that you did not respond to, and it is on the
same subject as above. Again Jon, I don't care if the FF were not
orthodox Christians. They recognized the absolute need for
Christianity as the basis for the morality that would provide the
underpinning for an "ordered freedom" in their new democracy. You
don't seem to do that. The FF expected and desired Christianity to
continue to have a huge influence on the populace and the government.
What do you propose to serve as a substitute for the Christian
religion that the FF endorsed?
Other previous post:
"It's when
you start adding to those simple rules like "but God said in this or
that chapter of the Bible XY or Z, so our policy has to reflect that,"
where I disagree."
That would be a theocracy, and I, personally, don't know any Christian
that wants that. I believe that the Bible makes sense and applies to
all areas of life. If it makes sense, then I can make a rational
argument for my position without having to rely solely on an appeal to
the Bible. I can justify my position by showing the logical
>
> read more »
Jon
Aug 11, 2008, 11:12:08 PM8/11/08
to American Heritage
"Most people have not really discovered that you can't logically have
the good morality of Christianity without believing the religious
aspect of Christianity."
This is an utter non-sequitur. Let's posit that Christianity is
the good morality of Christianity without believing the religious
aspect of Christianity."
responsible for "The Golden Rule." Plenty of people in Japan live out
that very morality without ever believing in any of the doctrines of
Christianity. Indeed America's Founders recognized this. They
believed "natural religion" (something that included the Golden Rule)
were those moral tenets that all men of all religions (i.e., NON-
CHRISTIANS) could see as "morality" thru the use of their reason
unaided by revelation. And they Founded the United States on such
natural religion in the Declaration of Independence. They did not
CHOOSE Christianity.
>
> read more »
mydh12
Aug 12, 2008, 12:53:23 PM8/12/08
to American Heritage
Sorry Jon, as you stated in a previous post on another thread, the FF
desired to retain the Christian identity of the US.
You sound generous to "posit" that Christianity is responsible for the
Golden Rule. No, you don't have to "posit" that. It IS responsible for
it. Show me where it was found before it was introduced by Jesus.
While it is true that men thankfully often live according to Natural
Law morality, that had not led to any government putting in writing at
that time the thoughts that all people are created equal with
inalienable rights by their creator. You also haven't said what you,
as a libertarian, can rationally prescribe as a basis for these
rights, apart from a creator god like that in Christianity. Neither
could the FF. That is why they said that religion, in that case
Christianity, was indispensable to the democratic republic that they
set up.
Sorry Jon, my comment was not a non-sequitor, and you still haven't
answered my questions. Could it be because you can't answer the
questions?
> ...
>
> read more »
desired to retain the Christian identity of the US.
You sound generous to "posit" that Christianity is responsible for the
Golden Rule. No, you don't have to "posit" that. It IS responsible for
it. Show me where it was found before it was introduced by Jesus.
While it is true that men thankfully often live according to Natural
Law morality, that had not led to any government putting in writing at
that time the thoughts that all people are created equal with
inalienable rights by their creator. You also haven't said what you,
as a libertarian, can rationally prescribe as a basis for these
rights, apart from a creator god like that in Christianity. Neither
could the FF. That is why they said that religion, in that case
Christianity, was indispensable to the democratic republic that they
set up.
Sorry Jon, my comment was not a non-sequitor, and you still haven't
answered my questions. Could it be because you can't answer the
questions?
>
> read more »
Jon
Aug 12, 2008, 1:37:22 PM8/12/08
to American Heritage
See my latest post.
1. Yes other cultures not exposed to Christianity do have the golden
rule and I'll show you that later.
2. It is still the case that cultures full of non-Christians who may
have learned the golden rule from Christianity like Japan do a
wonderful job practicing it (arguably better than "Christian America"
does today) and
3. Re the "Christian" identity: If it's just a matter of terming
yourself Christian fine (in the way that Barack Obama and Oprah
Winfrey are "Christians" even though they believe there are many paths
to God. The point I'm trying to drive thru to you, that my latest
post addresses is that you can call yourself a "Christian" and your
system "Christianity," but that doesn't necessarily make it so
according to folks like Tigerlilly. Jefferson called his belief
system that rejected every single doctrine of orthodoxy "Christianity"
and John Adams believed that Hinduism taught "Christian" principles.
If that qualifies as "Christianity" then yes, I'd concede the Founders
chose "Christianity."
1. Yes other cultures not exposed to Christianity do have the golden
rule and I'll show you that later.
2. It is still the case that cultures full of non-Christians who may
have learned the golden rule from Christianity like Japan do a
wonderful job practicing it (arguably better than "Christian America"
does today) and
3. Re the "Christian" identity: If it's just a matter of terming
yourself Christian fine (in the way that Barack Obama and Oprah
Winfrey are "Christians" even though they believe there are many paths
to God. The point I'm trying to drive thru to you, that my latest
post addresses is that you can call yourself a "Christian" and your
system "Christianity," but that doesn't necessarily make it so
according to folks like Tigerlilly. Jefferson called his belief
system that rejected every single doctrine of orthodoxy "Christianity"
and John Adams believed that Hinduism taught "Christian" principles.
If that qualifies as "Christianity" then yes, I'd concede the Founders
chose "Christianity."
Jon
Aug 12, 2008, 1:42:52 PM8/12/08
to American Heritage
"Law morality, that had not led to any government putting in writing
at that time the thoughts that all people are created equal with
inalienable rights by their creator."
Let me again stress Jefferson believed all men are created equal and
at that time the thoughts that all people are created equal with
inalienable rights by their creator."
that the creator endowed men with unalienable rights -- something by
the way the Bible does not say (it never uses the term "unalienable
rights") and many texts within the Bible belie this notion; in order
to get such "equality" out of the Bible, you need an ultra selective
reading of the text. Indeed Jefferson was the author of these
sentiments; yet Jefferson without contradiction also rejected:
"The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of
the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible
ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity;
original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of Hierarchy,
&c."
created equal in the sight of God is in no way dependent on believing
in those doctrines that Jefferson rejected. This is important because
many folks argue those doctrines ARE Christianity. And if you reject
them, you reject Christianity, regardless of what you call yourself.
mydh12
Aug 12, 2008, 11:08:56 PM8/12/08
to American Heritage
1. Sorry, Jon. I don't buy your arguments, and I think that this
conversation is futile, so I'll probably move on. IF you think that
this is an indication of me capitulating to your logic, go ahead and
flatter yourself. The Bible doesn't mention "inalienable rights." So
what, it doesn't mention the word "trinity" in it either. The Bible
gives us the one source for the equality of man, that being that all
are made in the image of God. The Enlightenment ideas of liberty,
equality and fraternity are concepts that were smuggled out of the
Christian memory that "enlightened" Europeans had. Many people today,
like back then, like to take the benefits of Christianity, its moral
code, without taking the philosophical basis for them. As a result,
their ideas about good ethics are firmly planted in mid-air. Again,
the FF realized this, and therefore they wanted Christianity to stay
strong in the minds of the people. BTW, in the las 3 or 4 responses
that you have posted to me, you still have never answered my question
of what is YOUR philosophical basis for morality. If YOU were one of
the FF, what would YOU use as the philosophical underpinning for
morality in the society.
2. I seriously doubt that you can provide an example of a
philosophical or religious society, that has never been exposed to
western civilization, that promoted an ideal comparable to the Golden
Rule. The closest maxims were a variation of the "Silver Rule" of
stating the negative, "don't do to others what you don't want them to
do to you."
3. BTW, you mistake my arguments for those of Tigerlily, or perhaps
it may be a result of it sometimes knowing what prior post a post is
referring back to.. I argued that it does not matter if the FF were
born-again orthodox Christians. If they were, and some were, that is
merely "frosting on the cake" to me. What matters is only that the FF
wanted and expected Christianity to have a strong influence on the
populace and therefore the government. So all your arguments trying to
show that some of the FF were not orthodox Christians don't mean a
thing to me. They are superfluous to my proposition. As a result, I
also don't care about if the FF believed in the trinity, immaculate
conception, resurrection or the other theological issues that you
listed. That is unnecessary. They wanted the Christian moral ethic,
which is based on such doctrines as all men being made in the image of
God. That is the point of the argument. The other is simply a sideshow
to me. You can continue to make a big deal of some of the FF not being
orthodox Christians, but your arguments mean nothing to me because
they are beside the point. Try them on somebody else. And btw, you
still have answered the question that I ended the first paragraph
with.
> ...
>
> read more »
conversation is futile, so I'll probably move on. IF you think that
this is an indication of me capitulating to your logic, go ahead and
flatter yourself. The Bible doesn't mention "inalienable rights." So
what, it doesn't mention the word "trinity" in it either. The Bible
gives us the one source for the equality of man, that being that all
are made in the image of God. The Enlightenment ideas of liberty,
equality and fraternity are concepts that were smuggled out of the
Christian memory that "enlightened" Europeans had. Many people today,
like back then, like to take the benefits of Christianity, its moral
code, without taking the philosophical basis for them. As a result,
their ideas about good ethics are firmly planted in mid-air. Again,
the FF realized this, and therefore they wanted Christianity to stay
strong in the minds of the people. BTW, in the las 3 or 4 responses
that you have posted to me, you still have never answered my question
of what is YOUR philosophical basis for morality. If YOU were one of
the FF, what would YOU use as the philosophical underpinning for
morality in the society.
2. I seriously doubt that you can provide an example of a
philosophical or religious society, that has never been exposed to
western civilization, that promoted an ideal comparable to the Golden
Rule. The closest maxims were a variation of the "Silver Rule" of
stating the negative, "don't do to others what you don't want them to
do to you."
3. BTW, you mistake my arguments for those of Tigerlily, or perhaps
it may be a result of it sometimes knowing what prior post a post is
referring back to.. I argued that it does not matter if the FF were
born-again orthodox Christians. If they were, and some were, that is
merely "frosting on the cake" to me. What matters is only that the FF
wanted and expected Christianity to have a strong influence on the
populace and therefore the government. So all your arguments trying to
show that some of the FF were not orthodox Christians don't mean a
thing to me. They are superfluous to my proposition. As a result, I
also don't care about if the FF believed in the trinity, immaculate
conception, resurrection or the other theological issues that you
listed. That is unnecessary. They wanted the Christian moral ethic,
which is based on such doctrines as all men being made in the image of
God. That is the point of the argument. The other is simply a sideshow
to me. You can continue to make a big deal of some of the FF not being
orthodox Christians, but your arguments mean nothing to me because
they are beside the point. Try them on somebody else. And btw, you
still have answered the question that I ended the first paragraph
with.
>
> read more »
Jon
Aug 13, 2008, 9:44:52 AM8/13/08
to American Heritage
"BTW, in the las 3 or 4 responses that you have posted to me, you
still have never answered my question of what is YOUR philosophical
basis for morality. If YOU were one of the FF, what would YOU use as
the philosophical underpinning for morality in the society."
I haven't gotten to it yet. But one reason why I haven't felt the
still have never answered my question of what is YOUR philosophical
basis for morality. If YOU were one of the FF, what would YOU use as
the philosophical underpinning for morality in the society."
"urgency" to reply to this point is because it is IRRELEVANT to
purpose of this discussion thread which is to determine what the
Founding Fathers believed, not what I believe.
>
> read more »
Jon
Aug 13, 2008, 10:02:19 AM8/13/08
to American Heritage
You are probably not going to like this but I am going to again reply
with a note from Dr. Frazer. You are right about TL and I holding the
same "premises" on what is historic Christianity. What I don't think
you appreciate is that the "narrow way" understanding of Christianity
sees it as more than just special but an exclusive claim of truth.
The "broad way" Christianity that America's Founders undergirded
America's political order makes room for other religions and their
claims and truth and consequently transforms from "Christianity" to
"religion in general." Yes, the key Founders had a Christian identity
and thought Christianity's moral teachings were superior. However,
they made room for all religions at the place at the table of "sound"
religion; and in doing so, they could found America on "religion," not
necessarily "Christianity" only. To believe that Christians, Jews,
Hindus and Muslims all worship the same God and consequently have
"religion" -- a "religion" that can inform "politics" -- is as
American as apple pie. If you can agree with these caveats (and yes I
can agree with the idea that the Founders wanted Christians to bring
their moral convictions to the public sphere) then I don't think we
have an argument.
Keep that in mind when reading this note from Dr. Frazer (this was
taken from a thread a few years ago; he was responding to a "Christian
America" apologist:
"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)?"
> ...
>
> read more »
with a note from Dr. Frazer. You are right about TL and I holding the
same "premises" on what is historic Christianity. What I don't think
you appreciate is that the "narrow way" understanding of Christianity
sees it as more than just special but an exclusive claim of truth.
The "broad way" Christianity that America's Founders undergirded
America's political order makes room for other religions and their
claims and truth and consequently transforms from "Christianity" to
"religion in general." Yes, the key Founders had a Christian identity
and thought Christianity's moral teachings were superior. However,
they made room for all religions at the place at the table of "sound"
religion; and in doing so, they could found America on "religion," not
necessarily "Christianity" only. To believe that Christians, Jews,
Hindus and Muslims all worship the same God and consequently have
"religion" -- a "religion" that can inform "politics" -- is as
American as apple pie. If you can agree with these caveats (and yes I
can agree with the idea that the Founders wanted Christians to bring
their moral convictions to the public sphere) then I don't think we
have an argument.
Keep that in mind when reading this note from Dr. Frazer (this was
taken from a thread a few years ago; he was responding to a "Christian
America" apologist:
"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)?"
>
> read more »
Jon
Aug 13, 2008, 1:45:14 PM8/13/08
to American Heritage
Here's more support for the notion that America was intended to be a
"religious" not necessarily a "Christian" nation:
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=ODE3MjNlMjQwMWNmNGM3YTFiNGM3YWFhYjg2ZGNjMTQ=
The Founders and Us: Chapter 3 of 5
"Brookhiser says the Founders saw America as a religious nation, and
not necessarily a Christian nation. Washington, for example, while not
overtly passionate about a specific church or religious denomination,
often spoke about how providence played an active role in the whole
founding experience. His phrase was the 'astonishing interpositions of
Providence.'"
> ...
>
> read more »
"religious" not necessarily a "Christian" nation:
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=ODE3MjNlMjQwMWNmNGM3YTFiNGM3YWFhYjg2ZGNjMTQ=
The Founders and Us: Chapter 3 of 5
"Brookhiser says the Founders saw America as a religious nation, and
not necessarily a Christian nation. Washington, for example, while not
overtly passionate about a specific church or religious denomination,
often spoke about how providence played an active role in the whole
founding experience. His phrase was the 'astonishing interpositions of
Providence.'"
>
> read more »
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages