Intelligent minds know that it only takes a few generations to gain complete control over a nation. To start, the benevolent government must get their people to abandon their beliefs in a Higher Being so they realize the government is their only solution to every woe. Good & regular propaganda that becomes mainstream is how that is achieved. Eventually, a population hears something enough, it becomes fact (take "Global Warming" for instance, a THEORY that was supported by the government and through CONSTANT propaganda eventaully became accepted by us as fact and since being disproven the movement has now morphed into "Climate Change.") Once the people have become completely dependent, there is no NEED for anything BUT support for government. All the government asks in return is that you never speak the name of your Maker in public. This idea is sold by having us believe this practice is wrong anyway…Why? Because it’s mean to offend others by your viewpoint. Keep it to yourself! It seems like an easy trade off…who is it hurting anyway? It actually seems benevolent at first glance because, you’re right, it IS wrong for anyone to hear, see, or be witness to my personal faith if it offends.
This is the first play in the Marxist handbook, EVERYTIME. The DAY after Hilter was elected, the children went to their public schools and all the crosses that hung in their in the classrooms were removed and replaced with a picture of Hilter and the morning prayer omitted (I heard this on an interview of a woman who literally was one of those children.)
Each time the socialist experiement is tried, the current society believes THEY know what went wrong in prior attempts. Because this current society is far more intelligent and a more advanced than the last. THIS time, this time in history we will get it right & nothing bad will happen! It is successful for a time, as the people allow for the government to hand them EVERYTHING and the people who remain faithful become demonized while the propaganda drums the idea that they are radicals, crazy, and are mocked as the uneducated! How dare they PUSH their faith on anyone else…for us in America it is even echoed as un-Constitutional!!! It borders on lawlessness because we have been made to believe that peoples ears, eyes and sensibilities maybe offended if they are exposed, in ANY way, to something that is in disagreement to their belief system. But the religious on the otherhand CAN be exposed to near pornographic content on street corners, horrendous, vile content from everyone and everything under the protection of free speech and our children will learn of contraceptives, abortion and same sex marriages in their SCHOOLS because this is all being provided by OUR GOVERNMENT. So a secular agenda in the public arena is sold as tolerance and kind and MUST be accepted by society because it is protected by law but the Judeo-Christian religious beliefs are intolerant and prejudice. What I cannot undertsand is how the MAJORITY of Americans are Christian yet we allow this.
Governments in the past have attempted to re-write history in many cases by removing or re-writing books made for our children under the guise for what is best for the people. We see this today, we are sold ideas that certain older books maybe “insensitive” to particular groups (even our history BOOKS) so let us add or delete FACTS from our very history and whitewash content so not to offend. Take the ongoing argument that the majority of our Founding Fathers were agnostic and that they did NOT form our nation under Mosaic law (i.e. the 10 Commandments) or what it is more commonly referred to as Natural Law and SOLIDLY rooted and framed in Judeo-Christian beliefs….. The Founding Fathers were brilliant men who had such knowledge of world politics, world history and human nature and who understood that it IS human nature to long for the Divine Providence and to force people to either abandon their faiths or force everyone to follow a particular faith (as England did) was immoral. These men knew all too well having just left a nation where state religion was imposed on all its citizens and were witness to its evils on the people. Do yourself a favor and read the book “The 5,000 Year Leap” by Cleon Skousen. What a GREAT & easy to read book about the foundation of our country. It covers all the facts of our past that the common history books our children read today in school are intentionally omitted. It is SHOCKING for sure. One cannot learn the true history of our nation without acknowledging how the people who formed it were so rooted in THEIR faith and used their faith as the basis of everything we know today as authentically American. The “separation of Church & State” is NO WHERE even mentioned in our Constitution. Jefferson wrote about it in a letter to his contemporaries and, like the game of telephone, his meaning through the years has been altered (quite purposely I might add.) His point in even uttering this sentiment was in discussion of how America would be different than England in that people would be free to OPENLY and VIBRANTLY express their different faiths anywhere they CHOSE without fear of the government encroaching on their practices (as long as it did not affect personal property.) At the foundling stages of our development, people were so respectful and accepting of each other’s faiths that it was common for different faiths to SHARE worship space since there weren’t enough Church’s built, in common areas!! Jefferson himself in his memoirs writes about how proud he was tof his home state of Virginia and how multiple faiths shared THE COURTHOUSE on alternating weekends to worship…and today the 10 Commandments are being removed from the courts and elsewhere in attempt to deny these facts of our history. It’s astonishing. Jefferson himself, when VP, was known to attend services in none other than the Capitol building!! Could you imagine?
As the years pass in THIS country, we witness the eradication of any visible sign of faith in any public place (especially anything Judeo-Christian in nature) under the guise of political correctness with secular filth taking its place under the protection of “free speech.” We hear the call from our public officials DAILY selling us on the ideas that: government subsidized abortion, lawful pornography, government subsidized contraceptives, over taxing the rich, over taxing our foods, over taxing privately owned businesses, the teaching our children false facts (environmentalism and the new & improved history) and immoral lifestyles, the dependency on thousands of government agencies, and universal healthcare (sold as a right), the banning of guns and the sheer scare tactics used in having us all believe that humans are destroying the planet etc. etc,. etc. ….that ALL of these governmental imposed things are actually offering us MORE FREEDOMS when in fact all it is doing is making us beholden to an ever growing government who quietly is controlling every aspect of our lives.
Our government encroaches farther & farther on religion as well, with secular laws allowing more and more un-Orthodox practices it makes it harder and harder for Orthodox religions to advance. Catholic Charities is the largest adoption service I believe in the world (most certainly the US) and a few years ago, the Catholic Charities of Boston denied a gay couple adoption rites to one of their orphans. God bless the Archbishop who did not back down BUT in doing so that branch of adoption services was shut down all together because of his stance. What an evil disservice. If a religious person (ESPECIALLY a Catholic priest) decides to preach from the pulpit the evils of abortion or any Orthodox standpoint they stand the chance to lose every dollar granted them by the government. So topics accepted and supported by the government are fine to advance but any idea considered NOT supported by the government will be neutered monetarily which in many cases can be the source keeping the doors of that particular place of worship open. Orthodox religions beware. It is a multi-pronged attack by not allowing anything religious to even be LOOKED upon in the public square and by making it as difficult as possible for many religions to even preach their beliefs past “God is love” it has hobbled many faiths. The religious message has been all but lost and there is a short distance between watered down theology and secularism.
Each generation thinks they are so far advanced than the last, that through OUR age’s technological advances we have become smarter & more refined which means it is only the weak & unintelligent who need to rely on the “SKY GOD”. Oddly, every advanced society has had the same delusions of grandeur before their fall. The farther we remove ourselves from God, the faster our culture will plummet.
So many think that secularism is harmless because, who cares what our neighbor believes or DOESN’T as long as it doesn’t infringe on ME. That is true for today. I don’t mind that my neighbor doesn’t believe in God…his way of life doesn’t not hinder my children & what’s more, he’s a great guy! But history PROVES that as secularism spreads it will eventually be a nation’s demise.
So many think that secularism is harmless because, who cares what our neighbor believes or DOESN’T as long as it doesn’t infringe on ME. That is true for today. I don’t mind that my neighbor doesn’t believe in God…his way of life doesn’t not hinder my children & what’s more, he’s a great guy! But history PROVES that as secularism spreads it will eventually be a nation’s demise.
Be a beacon my friends to those who are confused about their faith (because it is the second before they lose it altogether) …even if it is NOT Catholicism. Encourage people to head back to their places of worship and to realize the importance of a religious morality on a society. Monetarily support our churches instead of allowing the current society to wash over us all and rob us of what it ours.
Look around…try and see the BIG picture, not what is going on in your house, on your block in your kids school because all maybe rosy and fine…look past it to future generations & what is being created for your grandchildren and the nation as a whole. The greatest nation on earth, given to us as a gift from God, started by men of tremendous faith who fashioned us to be a nation of free men. Free FROM an over reaching government and a nation where we governed ourselves leaving us free to flourish and be ruled by God. We are currently a world away from that original plan. We look FAR more like Socialist Europe than anything our Founders created & as Europe teeters on the brink of collapse, we follow not far behind it.
I leave you today with a few of very apropos quotes:
"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson
“Social Justice=the FORCED redistribution of wealth with a hostility towards individual property rights under the guise of charity and/or justice.” ~author unknown
“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.” -Thomas Jefferson
“Tremble, all nations who no longer hear even the angry voice of God, for this silence is the greater punishment which heaven has dealt out to you. “-Padre Pio
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." -Norman Thomas (a Socialist)
God bless you & God bless America!!! Oh! And MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!
21 comments:
Wow! I believe this belongs in a newspaper Liz!
Oh sucks Tricia...
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
That the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered a smoking gun solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation--in those very words--of the founders' intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
Hi Doug! Thanks for joining the discussion although as you can guess, I respectfully disagree. Check out the wonderful David Barton on this topic: http://www.creationists.org/myth-of-the-seperation-of-church-and-state.html He is such a gifted & brilliant historian and a joy to listen & read.
In regards to the Founders not solidly basing the foundation of this nation in Judeo-Christian roots "The 5,000 Year Leap" by Skousen explains the Founders attraction to the principals of "Peoples Law" originally practiced by the Anglo-Saxons. I quote here pg 15) “As the Founders studied the record of the ancient Israelites, they were intrigued by the fact that they also operated under a system of laws remarkably similar to those of the Anglo-Saxons. The 2 systems were similar both in precept and operational structure. In fact the Rev Thomas Hooker wrote “The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut” based on the principals recorded by Moses in the first chapter of Deuteronomy. These “Fundamental Orders” were adopted in 1639 and constituted the first written constitution of modern times. This constitutional charter operated so successfully that it was adopted by Rhode Island. When the English colonies were converted over to independent states, these were the only two states which had constitutional documents which readily adapted themselves to the new order of self-government.
Here are the principal characteristics of “Peoples Law” and ancient Israel which were almost identical with those of the Anglo-Saxons:
1.They were set up as a commonwealth of freemen. A basic tenet was “Proclaim liberty throughout all t land unto all the inhabitants thereof.” (Leviticus 25:10) This inscription appears on The Liberty Bell….
2.All the people were organized into small manageable units where the representative of each family had a voice and a vote. This organizing process was launched after Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses saw him trying to govern under “Ruler’s Law” (see Exodus 18 13-26) (the book gives a great pyramid chart here of how the tribes of Israel were set up under this new system, shockingly similar to our government structure.)
3.There was strong emphasis on strong, local self-government. Problems were solved to the greatest extent on the level where they originated. The record says “The ard causes were brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.” (Exodus 18:26)
4. The entire code of justice was based primarily on reparation to the victim rather than fines & punishment by the commonwealth…
5. Leaders were elected and new laws were approved by the common consent of the people…
6. Accused persons were presumed innocent until proven guilty…
It was the original intent of the Founders to have both the ancient Israelites and the Anglo-Saxons represented on the official seal of the United States. The members of the committee were Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. They recommend that one side of the seal show the profiles of 2 Anglo-Saxons representing Hengist & Horsa. These brothers were the first Anglo-Saxons to bring their people to England around A.D. 450 an introduced the institutes of “People’s Law” into the British Isle. On the other side of the seal this committee recommended that there be a portrayal of ancient Israel going through the wilderness led by God’s pillar of fire….”
The book explains that this was to memorialize the two ancient peoples who practiced People’s Law and from whom they had acquired many of their basic ideas for their new commonwealth of freedom. Due to the complexity of the original design, it was decided on a simpler design. The book has a nice picture of what the original idea for the seal looked like.
This book (& many sources on David Barton’s website etc.) has MANY more references to the Founders actual writings on the topic of how their faiths inspired them in the formation of this great nation, I could go on & on…maybe in another post one day! Kep the comments coming, please!
Thank you for the kind words and invitation.
I agree with you that the founders would not establish a government that is inherently at odds with their religious convictions. Moreover, given the republican nature of our government, I think it is only natural and expected that the laws enacted by our government--in both the founders' time and today--largely reflect Christianity's dominant influence in our society.
That said, there is no reason to suppose that Christianity or theism is an inherent aspect of our constitutional government. Indeed, any such claim is antithetical to the constitutional principle against government establishment of religion. By founding a secular government and assuring it would remain separate, in some measure at least, from religion, the founders basically established government neutrality in matters of religion, allowing individuals to freely choose and exercise their religions and thus allowing Christianity (and other religions) to flourish or founder as they will. As noted above, it is to be expected that the values and views of the people, shaped in part by their religions, will be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires or calls for this; it is simply a natural outgrowth of the people's expression of political will in a republican government. To the extent that the people's values and views change over time, it is to be expected that those changes will come to be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent this; indeed, just the opposite--the Constitution establishes a government designed to be responsive to the political will of the people. It is conceivable, therefore, that if Christianity's influence in our society wanes relative to other influences, that may lead to changes in our laws. Nothing in the Constitution would prevent that--and moreover the establishment clause would preclude Christians from using the government to somehow "lock in" (aka establish) Christianity in an effort to stave off such an eventuality.
David Barton certainly knows much--enough to know he is deceiving his audiences. As revealed by the meticulous analysis of Chris Rodda and many others, zealotry more than fact shapes his work, which is riddled with shoddy scholarship and downright dishonesty. See Chris Rodda, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History (2006) (available free on line http://www.liarsforjesus.com/); http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Should-Christians-Trust-David-Barton-John-Fea-05-11-2011.html. Rodda presents Barton's claims, reviews the evidence and explanations he offers, and then shines a bright light on the evidence omitted, misinterpreted, or even made up by Barton, all with documentation and references so complete one can readily assess the facts for one's self without the need to take either Barton's or Rodda's word for it. The irony is that, by knowingly resorting to lies, this would-be champion of a religious right version of history reveals his fears that the real facts fall short of making his case.
Hi Doug, sorry I've been in the trenches for a few days. In regards to David Barton, as biased as one may feel he is to the right with his leanings, Chris Rodda is an extremist on the left. To argue that she could somehow be non-partisan is really false. Progressives have only just discovered Barton due to his rise in popularity since his visits to the Glenn Beck program but Barton has been on the scene for 20+ years. Barton's critics have more to say about the company he keeps than actual fact, lots of OPINION though. Barton constantly urges us all to read the memoirs of the founders to be able to truly understand them. He is demonized BECAUSE he is a religious man spreading the idea in secular world that this government was created on the concept of “Natural Law.” And THAT makes progressive HEADS explode. “The 5,000 Year Leap” explains how the Founders when studying Cicero discovered the necessary ingredient for their model society in "Natural Law"(pg 39) “To Cicero, the building of a society on principles of Natural Law was nothing more nor less than recognizing the rules of “right conduct” with the laws of the Supreme Creator of the universe. History demonstrates that even in those nations sometimes described as “pagan” here were sharp, penetrating minds like Cicero’s who reasoned their way through the labyrinths of natural phenomena to see behind the cosmic universe, as well as the unfolding of their own lives, the brilliant intelligence of a supreme Designer with an ongoing interest in both human and cosmic affairs. Cicero’s compelling honesty led him to conclude that once the reality of the Creator is clearly identified in the mind, the only intelligent approach to government, justice, and human relations is in terms of the laws which the Supreme Creator has already established. The Creator’s order of things is called Natural Law.…
…man shares with his Creator this quality of utilizing a rational approach to solving problems, and the reasoning of the mind will generally lead to common-sense conclusions based on what Jefferson called “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” (The Declaration of Independence).
Here is what our buddy Michael Voris says about Natural Law http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV#p/u/0/Wr6DE8WT8vY
Sadly, much of the texted books today are written by those who insert so much opinion, it goes as far as distorts facts (& I am being kind here). It is why our Constitution today is being referred to as LIVING document…what nonsense. This is merely so those in the “intelligencia” world can change it’s meaning by whim. Another person hated on the right is Mark Levin, an ENORMOUS mind and Constitutional lawyer few know the Constitution better than he. He too holds the same position as Barton and obviously Skousen, that the concept of “separation between Church & State” was meant that religion would always be protected FROM an over reaching government. Not as it has been bastardized today to mean that the two shall never be able to appear in the same place at the same time…
There is NO DOUBT that when founding our nation Mosaic Law, People’s Law & Natural Law were the3 main elements that influenced the great men at that time and inspired them on how they would frame our Constitution…all THREE are based on the ultimate rule ends with Divine Providence.
Public schools of that time had the children say daily morning prayers, prayers of thanks before meals etc. to the “Divine Providence”…back in that time, people who did not believe in a Higher Being, merely remained silent. ”Divine Providence” was non-denominational approach that would not offend because it was all encompassing but the founders found it important enough to instill in all schools. If the liberal intelligencia today were to openly accept these truths, their entire world would collapse before them. They have spent decades building up the secular walls, selling the secular crap as “American”, higher education would collapse. Global Warming is the perfect example of this. A lie in which the people who currently write the science text books for our children,telling them that Global Warming is a fact and evil humans are destroying "Mother Earth" they got caught. This is why the left is SOOOO angry at a Barton or a Beck or a Levin or even a Voris…anyone who presents and alter argument (& come to think of it…all 4 men are openly religious) you are mocked, ridiculed, called a liar etc. etc. etc…it's all in a days work. The more I read the ACTUAL Founders words…the more I am in the camp of Skousen, Barton & Levin….
Liz,
I typically focus on the arguments rather than on the one making the arguments. Barton, though, has so audaciously, repeatedly, and persistently lied through his teeth that he lacks all credibility. Were he a real historian, with his record, he would have been fired by any reputable educational institution. You entirely miss the point if you pass off the widespread criticism of him as just some left-right sort of thing. Nor can you pass off as mere left-right bias Chris Rodda's work exposing and demonstrating--with facts and evidence, chapter and verse--Barton's shoddy scholarship and blatant lies. Focus on the facts and evidence she presents, rather than on her and her politics. Contrary to your assertion, Barton's "critics," as you put it, focus on Barton's factual errors and misrepresentations rather than stuff like the company he keeps and matters of opinion.
You would make much, it seems, of the concept of natural law in interpreting our Constitution. Moreover, you assume, it appears, that natural law necessarily is associated with god(s). Different philosophers have predicated ideas of natural law on various grounds, hardly all of which involve god(s). While concepts of natural law, natural rights, and inalienable rights certainly have played roles in development of the common law and may well have been in the minds of various founders, the important point for our discussion is that there is nothing in the concept of natural law that conflicts with the Constitution's separation of government and religion.
The living Constitution idea has nothing to do with separation of government and religion; that principle is based on the Constitution itself and the intent of the founders.
Separation of church and state does not, as you seem to suppose, mean that government and religion shall never appear in the same place at the same time; nor does it, as often is complained, purge religion from the public square--far from it. It is important to distinguish between the "public square" and "government" and between "individual" and "government" speech about religion. The First Amendment's "free exercise" clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views--publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
As the Wake Forest paper serves to show, notwithstanding sometimes lofty rhetoric by courts and commentators about an impenetrable wall of separation, as maintained by the courts, that wall is low and leaky enough to allow various connections between government and religion. Indeed, the exceptions and nuances recognized by the courts can confuse laymen and lawyers alike, occasionally prompting some to question the principle itself, since decisions in various cases may seem contradictory (e.g., depending on the circumstances, sometimes government display of the 10 commandments is okay and sometimes not).
Hi Doug, may I ask, do you believe in Intelligent Design?
OK, Doug, I must admit is VERY difficult to listen to or read Chris Rodda due to her patronizing and downright rude tone she takes when discussing people or events she disagrees with. There is NO WAY to remove her political positions FROM her attempt at content by the way she presents herself BUT...I just pulled up her website & began listening to her her 1st video blog in her attempt to discredit Barton's Aitken Bible position and reviewed EACH of her allegations against what he was presenting on his site (along with copies of the actual letters between Aitken & congress from that time that he has on his site) & her accusations so far have been 100% FALSE. She says Barton claims the CONGRESS printed these Bibles...FALSE. Barton has the letter from Aitken to Congress with Aiken offering to print these Bibles for common use AND the use of the schools...exactly what he presents everywhere I've ever heard him speak on this topic. He says "Congress APPROVED the printing of these Bibles...not THAT Congress printed these Bibles with soul purpose to be distributed in the schools...Barton NEVER said that Rodda is playing word games. She claims Barton lies about timeframes of when he began his translation of the Bible...it says right on Barton website EXACTLY the same dates she is discussing. On the title page of the Bible it has all the copyright dates which coincide with what Barton expresses...THEN Barton has a copy of a letter FROM congress he has a copy of right there that says:
Philadelphia September 10th, 1782
Honorable James Duane, Esq. Chairman, and the other Honorable gentlemen of the Committee of Congress on Mr. Aitken's Memorial (or Recommendation)
Whereupon, RESOLVED, THAT the United States Congress assembled highly approved the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to th einterst of religion, as well as instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.
Cha. Thompson, Sec'y
This endorsement was signed by Chairman Thompson who was Sec'y of the Continetal Congress of the time. The endorsement was signed by Charles Thomson, who was Secretary of the Continental Congress. Thomson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, is also famous for "Thomson's Bible," the first American translation of the Greek Septuagint, published in 1808 (Thomson was an accomplished theologian, publishing such works as "A Regular History of the Conception, Birth, Doctrine, Miracles, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus Christ.")
So show me the facts where he and OTHER like minded people are LYING.
So...I just cannot go one step farther in even giving Rodda ANY credence whatsoever. Her agenda is so clearly driven by the hate for this position that it blinds her.
You say you like to deal in fact Doug, so I am trying to find ANYWHERE Rodda's credentials as an authoritative historian. I cannot find it. She is an atheist activist and an author but I wonder how one person can discredit another on the basis of being a pseudo-historian...when I can find NOTHING in her background which would make her a viable source of authority on any of these topics. I could be wrong but Wikipedia has virtually nothing about that & I'm seeing nothing else but her book & blog out there that rant & rave.
Why I am so stuck on the Barton & Rodda thing is because...I can sit here & listen to a person like Rodda ramble on & on & not ONCE refer to a source where it quotes something that a Founder explained the position she is citing as fact...to be fair, it's hard stomaching her so I only got through her 1st video blog BUT even her writing is so smug & nasty...it's difficult for me. But in witnessing her 1st lauch, I found MUTIPLE inaccuracies & that was just in her launching her attacks! It scares me to think what sources she is using for her "facts!" Again, Barton has been around for 20 years! When Barton or Levin make a point they ALWAYS back it up with the source they got it from. That is why I personally find them so reliable. I can listen to opinion all day but "show me" the facts. NOW, if you want to refute the works they cite (when discussing the WORDS of the Founder's or the Constitution itself...they read FROM it) and SOURCE it! So Rodda can call someone like me a fool (which she does multiple times) but she just expects me to take HER word as fact. Can't STAND people like this. This is where OPINIONS are playing such a part. She sat there & in 5 mins slandered a man 5times as a liar & she was either 1) lying herself or 2) so inaccuarte she discredits herself.
So based on HER argument which it seems you prescribe to on position on of the concept of "seperation of Church & State" and Constituational structure of "Natural Law" we are ALWAYS going to be miles apart. In reading what I have & on the topic so far (which my desire to learn more is never ending) I have YET to see contradicting evidence which would even make me take pause as to consider anything other understanding of our history.
Before the 60's the Founder's were taught in our schools to the children & they were regarded as hero's. American History class changed to "Social Studies" & the Founder's became regarded as prejudice, doddering old, rich, greedy land & slave owners who were only out to make money & gain power. What a shame. We can go back & forth forever on these things but honestly, you will never get me to change my position on this. But thanks for the debate!
(I have to keep going back to your post & take it in parts...so many points to address) In regard to "Natural Law" & me making much OF it...Cicero is who the Founder's looked to & were completely influenced by on this topic (as it says in THEIR words) & Cicero, as I have quoted at length in prior posts absolutely believes that Natural Law is given to us by the Creator. I can continue quoting chapter & verse on the topic (because it goes over SO much & in great detail) but I will add this from Dr. William Ebenstein of Princeton says:
"The only Roman political writer who has exercised enduring influence is Cicero (106-43 BC) Cicero studied law in Rome, and philosophy in Athens...He became the leading lawyer of his time and also rose to the highest office of state (Roman Consul)." Per "The 5,000 Year Leap" again: (pg 38) "Cicero wrote landmark books on the "Republic" and the "Laws." In these writing he projected the grandeur and promise of some future society based on Natural Law.
The American Founding Fathers obviously shared a profound appreciation of Cicero's dream because they envisioned just such a commonwealth of prosperity and justice for themselves and their prosperity." ON page 39 & 40 it goes on to say: Cicero says: Natural Law is "true law". True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoings by its prohibitions...It is a sin to try and alter it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need to look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will be no different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now or in the future, but ONE ETERNAL AND UNCHANGEABLE LAW WILL BE VALID FOR ALL NATIONS AND ALL TIMES, AND THERE WILL BE ONE MASTER AND RULER, THAT IS GOD, OVER US ALL, for He is the author of this law the promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment. (Quoted in Ebenstein, "Great Political Thinkers", p. 133)
In these few lines, the student encounters concepts which were repeated by the American Founders a thousand times. The Law of Nature of Nature's God is eternal in its basic goodness; it is universal in its application. It is code of "right reason" from the Creator Himself. It cannot be altered. It cannot be repealed. It cannot be abandoned by legislators or the people themselves, even though they may pretend to do so. In Natural Law we are dealing with factors of absolute reality. It is basic in its principals, comprehensible to the human mind, and totally correct and morally right in its general operation.
To the Founding Fathers as well as to Blackstone, John Locke, Montesuieu, and Cicero, this was a monumental discovery.
Doug, I actually agree with you on many points about the hard facts of our Constitution. I by no means suggest that the Founders based the ENTIRE American Constitution & the framework of our nation on their faiths ...my position is that the American experiment was solidly grounded in Natural Law (along with aspects of Mosaic Law, and Peoples Law) which there is no question of in origins & belief that the final rule of law is the Creator.
In regard to the "seperation between Church & State" debate & the Constitution being a "Living Document" is DIRECTLY related...if we continue to claim that the document is "Living" that menas it is changeable...my suggestion that the concept of "speration between Church & State" has been changed today from its original intent to suit our current society...
I also did some more research on the Aitken bible to see if I could find some objective source to either support a Barton's view or a Rodda's & came across this website http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/colonial-bibles.html "Bibles of Colonial America" which said this about the Aitken Bible:
Robert Aitken
Robert Aitken had immigrated from Dalkeith in Scotland in 1769 to settle in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There, he opened a bookshop and also began publication of “The Pennsylvania Magazine” to which Thomas Paine often contributed. By 1776, Robert Aitken was the official printer of the Journals of Congress for the United States Congress. Aitken was a bold patriot, and it disturbed him greatly to see his country without copies of the scripture. In 1771, he produced the first English language New Testament printed in America. It was eagerly received, and went through a second edition printing in 1778, a third in 1779, a fourth in 1780, and a fifth in 1781.
On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken petitioned the Unites States Congress to authorize, and if possible even fund, the printing of a complete Bible in the English language of the King James Version. On September 10, 1782, Aitken received authorization from the United States Congress to commence his American printing of the Bible in English. This is the only instance in history of the U.S. Congress authorizing the printing of a Bible. In subsequent years, that session was often mockingly referred to as “The Bible Congress.” Thus, in 1782, Robert Aitken produced the first English language Bible printed in America. In 1783, George Washington wrote a letter commending Robert Aitken for his Bible. The Robert Aitken Bible is known as the “Bible of the American Revolution” and it remains the most rare and valuable of early American English Bibles."
which echo's Barton's position exactly. I'm not familiar with the validity of this site, just found it interesting having a whole website devoted to the topic & holding exact same position...
I JUST found some more information looking for the actual prayer that was used across the country in the schools (I knew I had heard it somewhere before) & in looking I came across THIS website
http://www.squidoo.com/banning-prayer-public-school-decline-morality-america
Which states:
"Most people today do not realize the role that religion played in the founder's plans for the first really free nation in modern times. The founding fathers planned for religion to play a big part in our country both then and now.
Have you ever heard of the Northwest Ordinance? It was very important to the founders to have religion and morality taught in the schools and this document underscores that.
Here is a quote from the Northwest Ordinance:
"Article 3: Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."
They did not single out any one sect or denomination but knew that most of the major religions embraced the same tenets. This is what they wanted to be taught in the schools:
1. Religion: "fundamental system of beliefs concerning man's origin and relationship to the cosmic universe as well as his relationship to his fellowman."
2. Morality: "a standard of behavior distinguishing right from wrong."
3. Knowledge: "an intellectual awareness and understanding of established facts relating to any field of human experience or inquiry (i.e., history, geography, science, etc.)."
It was their belief that our type of government would only work with a virtuous people. They did not think that you could have morality without religion so they wanted this always to be taught. Their goal was to have public virtue. A moral and educated people is a free people. Freedom was their ultimate goal in everything they did.
The Northwest Ordinance followed the principles outlined by Thomas Jefferson in the Ordinance of 1784, and was passed by Congress in 1787. The authors of the Northwest Ordinance are thought to be Nathan Dane and Rufus King."
I found this very interesting....still looking for that prayer though...
Here is a GREAT source
http://earlyamericanhistory.net/church_and_state.htm
Liz,
I applaud you for undertaking to check out Rodda's critique of Barton. I agree with you, as well, that Rodda is difficult to listen to. I can understand how she may come across as patronizing. My difficulty is more related to the patience and frustration involved in listening to her carefully present his (and other's) representations, typically by quoting them at great length, and then tediously march step by step through the facts and documents to reveal their omissions, misinterpretations, misrepresentations, etc. It generally requires many more words to reveal and explain a lie than it does to tell the lie.
I must correct you, though. After reading your comment, I took the trouble to listen to her videotape regarding the Aitken Bible, and in it both Beck and Barton state repeatedly, in those very words, that Congress printed the Bible. That is flat out false. Score Rodda. Even saying Congress, as you note Barton says, "approved the printing of these Bibles" is a stretch. At a time when local printers could hardly compete with British printers because of a reputation for poor quality, Aitken petitioned Congress in 1782, asking that his Bible "be published under the Authority of Congress," that he "be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend" editions of the Bible, and that Congress purchase some of his Bibles and distribute them to the states. Congress did not grant any of these requests and instead helped him only by passing the resolution you quote, recommending his edition based on its chaplain's report of the satisfactory "care and accuracy" of his work and authorizing him to publish that recommendation.
Rodda is not a "historian" in the sense of one trained in academia. She makes that clear. Indeed, when Beck once dismissed her as "some professor," she went to the trouble of "correcting the record" and confirming she is not a professor. Nor, it should be noted, is Barton a "historian" in that sense, even though he is often labeled one. He has a BA in religious education.
As for original sources, Rodda refers to many. Indeed, that is her modus operandi. She takes Barton's claims, point by point, and details--tediously at times--how they conflict with the facts as revealed by original sources. Moreover, she has made her book (which is easier to take, perhaps, than her videotapes and goes into even greater detail) available online free, along with full copies of all the many documents cited.
I agree with your overarching thesis that the founders would not establish a government that is inherently at odds with their religious convictions, which were largely Christian in nature. Moreover, given the republican nature of our government, I think it is only natural and expected that the laws enacted by our government--in both the founders' time and today--largely reflect Christianity's dominant influence in our society.
That said, there is no reason to suppose that Christianity or theism is an inherent aspect of our constitutional government. Indeed, any such claim is antithetical to the constitutional principle against government establishment of religion. By founding a secular government and assuring it would remain separate, in some measure at least, from religion, the founders basically established government neutrality in matters of religion, allowing individuals to freely choose and exercise their religions and thus allowing Christianity (and other religions) to flourish or founder as they will. As noted above, it is to be expected that the values and views of the people, shaped in part by their religions, will be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires or calls for this; it is simply a natural outgrowth of the people's expression of political will in a republican government. To the extent that the people's values and views change over time, it is to be expected that those changes will come to be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent this; indeed, just the opposite--the Constitution establishes a government designed to be responsive to the political will of the people. It is conceivable, therefore, that if Christianity's influence in our society wanes relative to other influences, that may lead to changes in our laws. Nothing in the Constitution would prevent that--and moreover the establishment clause would preclude Christians from using the government to somehow "lock in" (aka establish) Christianity in an effort to stave off such an eventuality.
Hey Doug, like I said...if you go to Barton's website he has the ACTUAL letter from Aitken TO Congress & their response from CONGRESS which I painstakingly re-typed here & here it is again...the Congress said they "recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.
Cha. Thompson, Sec'y"
Aitken was a PRINTER....hence his offer to do so!
Another source I found on the topic said this:
"On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken petitioned the Unites States Congress to authorize, and if possible even fund, the printing of a complete Bible in the English language of the King James Version. On September 10, 1782, Aitken received authorization from the United States Congress to commence his American printing of the Bible in English. This is the only instance in history of the U.S. Congress authorizing the printing of a Bible. In subsequent years, that session was often mockingly referred to as “The Bible Congress.” Thus, in 1782, Robert Aitken produced the first English language Bible printed in America. In 1783, George Washington wrote a letter commending Robert Aitken for his Bible. The Robert Aitken Bible is known as the “Bible of the American Revolution” and it remains the most rare and valuable of early American English Bibles." The full site is: http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/colonial-bibles.html
So a completely unrelated site AGREES with Barton and expressed his facts EXACTLY as he did.
Rodda is radical extremist who had to take a lot time to argue her position because folks like her are driven by their agenda. She is an atheist extremist who by her very nature could NEVER allow herself to believe the ACTUAL facts of our history. To actually believe that the Founder’s based their entire political philosophy on Natural Law (which originates from Mosaic Law) one must accept the fact that our entire basis of law was derived from the idea that the ONLY laws all humans should EVER follow are the laws set forth to protect the RIGHTS given to us by God & God alone. An atheist could never accept the concept of Natural Law or their entire belief system of our government would crumble. She MUST believe their motivation was secular because her beliefs won't allow the alternative. An activist like Rodda MUST spend countless hours attempting to refute the Founder's writing because the alternative would be too crushing. All other religious people, if they are TRULY people of God (that is any God that does not advance the idea of killing other humans) respect other religious people because the basic tenets of all world religions are similar. The ONLY folks who cannot abide by or accept the beliefs of other belief systems are radical atheists. If they could, they would accept the fact that our nation was created by God and for God in that we were free to pursue our life as we saw fit as freemen within the parameters of our “God given rights.” The hardcore secular world cannot accept that…that is why they have created their OWN rights (manmade rights if you will) like healthcare for all (just one glaring example out of thousands)
God bless ya Doug & Merry Christmas!!
Now who is not accepting facts and resorting to opinion rather than original sources? It matters not one wit whether others echo Barton's mistakes or lies. Indeed, that serves only to demonstrate that there are many "liars for Jesus" as Rodda provocatively puts it.
The plain fact is that Congress did not print the Bible, as Barton has repeatedly asserted. By its resolution, Congress did NOT print or authorize the printing or pay for the printing of the Bible. Parse the words. Congress "highly approved" Aitken's undertaking (i.e., his plan to print Bibles in the former colonies), "recommend[ed]" his edition based on a report of his care and accuracy in performing his work, and "authorize[d]" him to publish Congress's recommendation. By its resolution, Congress did not require or direct or pay Aitken to print Bibles or, indeed, do anything at all. The resolution reveals--on its face--that Congress did not print the Bible, contrary to the assertions of Barton (and any others who say the same).
Finally, separation of church and state is not an atheist concept. Hardly. While the religious views of various founders are subjects of some uncertainty and controversy, it is safe to say that many founders were Christian of one sort or another. In assessing the nature of our government, though, care should be taken to distinguish between society and government and not to make too much of various founders’ individual religious beliefs. Their individual beliefs, while informative, are largely beside the point. Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that establishes a secular government and separates it from religion as noted earlier. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion. That, indeed, is just what the founders did.
It is instructive to recall that adoption of the First Amendment reflected, at the federal level, a "disestablishment" political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the 1830s. It is worth noting, as well, that this disestablishment movement largely coincided with another movement, the Great Awakening. The people of the time saw separation of church and state as a boon, not a burden, to religion.
This sentiment was recorded by a famous observer of the American experiment: "On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point." Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).
The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion.
Post a Comment