DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: The_Professor on April 05, 2007, 12:41:54 PM
-
Our Founders' recommendations for president
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 5, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Who would our Founders endorse for president today? What would they look for in elected officials?
On May 26, 1790, I believe we were given some answers to those questions, before an auspicious audience such as Massachusetts Governor, former President of the Constitutional Congress and signer of the Declaration of Independence, John Hancock, and Lieutenant Governor and another signer of the Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams, as well as the then entire legislature of both governmental Massachusetts' Houses.
Rev. Daniel Fosters' inspirational address to these magistrates is a must read for anyone concerned with the future of our country and criteria for properly appointed representatives. Pay particular attention to the end of his message where he speaks to each of those listed above.
A primer for the presidency
Foster was a New Braintree pastor, who was invited to deliver a sermon before the newly-elected officials – a governmental tradition in the founding years of our Republic.
The words he shared that day were not only stirring but reflective of a general consensus and credo of what citizens (not just clergy) expected of their legislative leaders. Its components still contain what I would call a primer for the election of the presidency or any other chosen representative.
Such an elementary leadership text would include, but not be exclusive to, the following:
''Select and prefer Christians''
For Foster and our Founders, government is a ''divine appointment,'' an ordained institution of God, and ''an important mean of delivering us from the evils of the apostasy; and designed to prepare us for the more encouraging restraints the gospel enjoins.'' As such, it too has Jesus Christ, not some nebulous and neutered god, as its head.
He being commissioned by the Father to manage the great affairs of Empire, as well as of Zion. "Yet have I set my King upon my holy Hill of Zion." – "The government shall be upon his shoulders."
Subsequently, governmental leaders are to be regarded as ministers or servants of God, unless they refrain from obeying and executing his laws.
And as magistrates are honored by Christ, and act under his banner, they should be careful to be his glory, and support his religion in the world. ... If they rule for God, and for good to the people, they are to be subjected to, otherwise, "we ought to obey God, rather than men.''
Foster warned, ''If religion is not honored and supported by men in places of public trust, the glory of the Lord will soon depart, and the fire of God be scattered over the city.''
Though the Framers opposed the reign of kings or priests, they advocated and intermingled their Christian faith and politics. As John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, wrote to Jedidiah Morse on Feb. 28, 1797, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
Lead by ''wisdom''
The key text of Foster's sermon was Proverbs 8:16 in the Bible, "By Me princes rule, and nobles, all who judge rightly.'' ''In the text, the person speaking is doubtless Jesus Christ,'' Foster unabashedly declared, pointing out that he is Wisdom personified and the God upon whom governmental leaders should lean.
The text leads us to speak of civil government, as ordained of God, in the hands of the mediator; of civil rulers, as holding their commission and authority under Christ; of their duty and dignity as his Ministers, and of the duty and privilege of the people under their administration.
Unlike today, no politician then would have ever even thought of Foster's words as religiously pejorative or prejudice, for Christianity was the only religion upon which our Republic was founded. It was clergy, not imams, who were called to speak before legislatures. Even Jefferson did not propose a separation between mosque and state, just as he could never have imagined a democracy in which its congressmen were sworn into government upon a Quran.
Upholding three primary duties
According to Foster, in order to rule rightly, governmental leaders are to maintain three chief obligations:
It is their duty to uphold the kingdom of Christ, which consists in "righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."
It is the duty of Christian rulers, to preserve and secure to the people, their liberties and properties. (Which I'm certain included their national borders!)
The Christian ruler will hear the complaints, and redress the grievances of the people he governs.
Can you imagine if our present governmental leaders were obliged to these codes of conduct? Civility just might be obtained by civil government!
Foster concluded:
The attention Christian rulers pay to religion in their hearts, and in their government, will be their support when they are called to lay down their commission, and their lives; it will brighten the scene before them, and embalm their memories when they are dead. ... Religion is, and ever has been, considered the glory of a people; as it insures the favor and protection of Heaven.''
Who should be our next president?
Foster's message was welcomed with a rousing reception among this esteemed Massachusetts' collection of America's Founders, 14 years after the Declaration of Independence and the same year that Rhode Island completed the 13-state, three-year ratification of the United States Constitution.
The spirit of those proceedings, as well as the remaining Founding Fathers, still beckon us to raise our criteria for electing governmental leaders beyond charisma, articulation, education, and background experience. They call us to appoint godly men and women.
-
Jefferson and Franklin at least, were Deists. I suspect Madison Monroe and many others were as well.
One cannot actually run for president and not state that one is some sort of believer, or one will not be elected.
I have not noticed any correlation whatever between religiousity or declarations thereof, and morality of anyone I know.
-
I heard a funny comment the other day, referencing just how bad all the current crop of Presidential candidates are, by way of indicating Bob Dole could beat Hillary or Obama in a general election, and that Mondale could beat McCain or Gulliani ;) Accurate?
-
One cannot actually run for president and not state that one is some sort of believer, or one will not be elected.
Does this prove anything about us?
-
One cannot actually run for president and not state that one is some sort of believer, or one will not be elected.
===============================
Does this prove anything about us?
=================================
I don't know that this "proves" anything, but it seems to me that Americans tend to believe (1) the US is the greatest nation, culture, etc. that exists or ever has existed and that (2) the rest of the world that is not so great is inferior to the US because they are different from the US and almost certainly are not nearly as buddy-buddy with God.
Observe the belief that somehow Iraq, which has had some sort of government for well over 5000 years and has never managed to have a two-party democracy such as the US, could be greatly improved to the advantage of all its people, if only it had a government like the US. This is a supremely arrogant view, as well as an extremely defective one.
There are many nations that have more people than the US, that have more freedoms of political expression than the US, even nations more prosperous than the US, but none of them seem to be nearly so evangelistic in their desire to have other nations emulate them.
The fact is that the US, like every country, has a unique culture, and would not function as well as the US or even function at all if it were to emulate the US. Not even Canada or Australia ort New Zealand, that have similar cultures.
-
One cannot actually run for president and not state that one is some sort of believer, or one will not be elected.
===============================
Does this prove anything about us?
=================================
I don't know that this "proves" anything, but it seems to me that Americans tend to believe (1) the US is the greatest nation, culture, etc. that exists or ever has existed and that (2) the rest of the world that is not so great is inferior to the US because they are different from the US and almost certainly are not nearly as buddy-buddy with God.
Observe the belief that somehow Iraq, which has had some sort of government for well over 5000 years and has never managed to have a two-party democracy such as the US, could be greatly improved to the advantage of all its people, if only it had a government like the US. This is a supremely arrogant view, as well as an extremely defective one.
There are many nations that have more people than the US, that have more freedoms of political expression than the US, even nations more prosperous than the US, but none of them seem to be nearly so evangelistic in their desire to have other nations emulate them.
The fact is that the US, like every country, has a unique culture, and would not function as well as the US or even function at all if it were to emulate the US. Not even Canada or Australia ort New Zealand, that have similar cultures.
You went in a direction I was not expecting.
Hmmmm.
I think it is strong evidence that we are ad have always been a Christian Nation . Therefore it is good that a leader who was evidently unfreindly to Christianity would not be chosen .
As you say this can be understood as our culture , tho I wasn't thinking that .
-
I think it is strong evidence that we are ad have always been a Christian Nation .
I think evidence points to America having always been a secular nation. With a strong Christian influence perhaps, but secular nonetheless. Personally, I hope it remains a secular nation. I find the multitude of calls for America to be a Christian nation "again" or to be "taken back" by the conservative Christians to be somewhat worrisome. I also find it a little sad to see the article imply that there is something inherently wrong with a U.S. Congressman being sworn in with a Koran. Of course, I suppose I should expect that from an author who also thinks closed American borders is the duty of Christian rulers. I find it hard to believe that Christ would approve of such an Us vs. Them attitude.
Rather than go on, which would likely result in the use of mean words and phrases indicating my extreme disagreement with the author of the article and maybe a few other people, I'll just end here.
-
The US was not founded to be and never has been a Christian country. In the 1950's, some ratwingers decided to mandate "In God We Trust" on the money, which is somewhat silly, considering Jesus' attitude towards coinage, and to stick the phrase "under God" in, of all things, the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. This was also pretty silly, if you think about it.
I don't see any reason to refer to the Supreme Being on either the coinage or a loyalty oath, especially when the latter only states that the nation is under God, not that God is being sworn to in the oath.
Either the whole universe is under God, or it isn't. It's not like failing to mention this would make the Flag Oath or the coinage satanic or anything like that.
I don't think that either of these is sufficiently annoying for me to get all het up over, but I will mention that they are silly.
I don't think the US elect a leader who is hostile to any religion. Theodore Roosevelt took God off the money, saying that God did not belong on the coinage, which is unrelated to anything spiritual.
On the other hand, it is rather amusing when some presidential candidate who has never been in any way religious, suddenly becomes so when he is running for the presidency. Ronald Reagan was a prime example of this. He claimed all sorts of religious crap, including that the End was so Nigh that appinting a clown, James Watt, who believed that raping the national forests was okay, being as the World would end soon anyway. I do have a problem with Apocalyptic Christians when they start doing crap like Watt did. I think we all should.
Reagan never attended church, always claiming that security prevented it. It had not prevented Carter, and has not prevented Clinton, Olebush or even Juniorbush. I am not sure who is or was more full of it.
-
Theodore Roosevelt took God off the money, saying that God did not belong on the coinage, which is unrelated to anything spiritual.
This is the second time I've had to point this out.
Teddy Roosevelt would have found it easy to take God off the money, since God wasn't on the money at any time during his presidency, nor was it on any money for years before his presidency.
It would be like me saying that George Bush banished vampires during his presidency, and just as true.
-
Reagan never attended church, always claiming that security prevented it.
This is a lie as well.
While Reagan did not attend church regularly while in Washington, he did do so occasionally (which is more than "never"). NBC even has footage that was shown at one time of he and Nancy leaving an Easter service in DC. Also, Reagan and Nancy attended church regularly in California when they were there.
This is similar to Bush - he only attends church infrequently while in DC, but attends regularly when he is back home in Texas.
-
Here is the story about the coinage:
The original motto of the United States was secular. "E Pluribus Unum" is Latin for "One from many" or "One from many parts." It refers to the welding of a single federal state from a group of individual political units -- originally colonies and now states.
On 1776-JUL-4, Congress appointed John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson to prepare a design for the Great Seal of the United States. The first design, submitted to Congress on 1776-AUG-10 used the motto "E Pluribus Unum." It was rejected. Five other designs also failed to meet with Congress' approval during the next five years. In 1782, Congress asked Mr. Thomson, Secretary of Congress, to complete the project. Thomson, along with a friend named Barton, produced a design that was accepted by Congress on 1782-JUN-10. It included an eagle with a heart-shaped shield, holding arrows and an olive branch in its claws. The motto "E Pluribus Unum" appeared on a scroll held in its beak. The seal was first used on 1782-SEP-16. It was first used on some federal coins in 1795. 1
horizontal rule
The replacement motto: "In God We Trust:"
The war of 1812 was an unusual conflict. Both sides claimed victory. The winner depends upon which history books or which country's schools you attended. Also, the war lasted well beyond 1812.
During 1814, Francis Scott Key (a.k.a. Frank) had an eventful September. "Traveling under a white flag, Key met with both an enemy general and admiral, recovered a war prisoner, became a war prisoner, watched a historical bombardment, lost a night’s sleep, and wrote" what eventually became the American national anthem: The Star Spangled Banner. 1
The final stanza reads:
"And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'
And the Star Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave."
In 1864, the words were shortened to "In God We Trust" and applied to a newly designed two-cent coin.
Almost a century and a half ago, eleven Protestant denominations mounted a campaign to add references to God to the U.S. Constitution and other federal documents. Rev. M.R. Watkinson of Ridleyville PA was the first of many to write a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase in 1861 to promote this concept. 2 Watkinson suggested the words "God, Liberty, Law." 3 In 1863, Chase asked the Director of the Mint, James Pollock to prepare suitable wording for a motto to be used on Union coins used during the Civil War. Pollock suggested "Our Trust Is In God," "Our God And Our Country," "God And Our Country," and "God Our Trust." Chase picked "In God We Trust" to be used on some of the government's coins. The phrase was a subtle reminder that the Union considered itself on God's side with respect to slavery. Congress passed enabling legislation. Since a 1837 Act of Congress specified the mottos and devices that were to be placed on U.S. coins, it was necessary to pass another Act to enable the motto to be added. This was done on 1886-APR-22. "The motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909, and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since" 1908-JUL-1. 3
Decades later, Theodore Roosevelt disapproved of the motto. In a letter to William Boldly on 1907-NOV-11, he wrote:
"My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."
In 1956, the nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution to replace the existing motto with "In God we Trust." The president signed the resolution into law on 1956-JUL-30. The change was partly motivated by a desire to differentiate between communism, which promotes Atheism, and Western capitalistic democracies, which were at least nominally Christian. The phrase "Atheistic Communists" has been repeated so many times that the public has linked Atheism with communism; the two are often considered synonymous. Many consider Atheism as unpatriotic and un-American as is communism. The new motto was first used on paper money in 1957, when it was added to the one-dollar silver certificate. By 1966, "In God we Trust" was added to all paper money, from $1 to $100 denominations. 3
So what if Reagan occasionally went to church? The fact is, he was presented to the voters as some sort of super religious apocalyptian and did not walk the walk. This was most likely because the only thing the old fart ever did was read the script, and that included talking the talk, but not walking the walk.
He was an actor, hired to act. When they put it in the script, he went to church, especially on Easter. You can call it a sign of his deep, transcendent faith, but I call it pandering to the pulpit.
-
"The motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909, and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since" 1908-JUL-1. 3
Thank you for proving my point. Teddy left office in March, 1909, so he could not have removed the motto from the money. I don't doubt that he was against the use of the motto on our money (as am I) but your claim is a lie.
So what if Reagan occasionally went to church?
It shows that your claim that Reagan never went to church is a lie.
-
You can call it a sign of his deep, transcendent faith, but I call it pandering to the pulpit.
Please demonstrate where I said that Ronny had a "deep, transcendent faith."
-
I think it is strong evidence that we are ad have always been a Christian Nation .
I think evidence points to America having always been a secular nation. With a strong Christian influence perhaps, but secular nonetheless. Personally, I hope it remains a secular nation. I find the multitude of calls for America to be a Christian nation "again" or to be "taken back" by the conservative Christians to be somewhat worrisome. I also find it a little sad to see the article imply that there is something inherently wrong with a U.S. Congressman being sworn in with a Koran. Of course, I suppose I should expect that from an author who also thinks closed American borders is the duty of Christian rulers. I find it hard to believe that Christ would approve of such an Us vs. Them attitude.
Rather than go on, which would likely result in the use of mean words and phrases indicating my extreme disagreement with the author of the article and maybe a few other people, I'll just end here.
BTW, sue me, but I deliberately left off the author's name so as to not prejudice any responses. The author served six years as the undefeated World Middleweight Karate Champion, the first man ever in the Western Hemisphere to be awarded an 8th degree Black Belt Grand Master recognition in the Tae Kwon Do system. This was a first in 4,500 years of tradition.
Obviously, he is Chuck Norris.
-
BTW, sue me, but I deliberately left off the author's name so as to not prejudice any responses. [...] he is Chuck Norris.
What does any of that have to do with my comments?
-
Nuthun' particularly. However, I dispute that the nation's history is not closely intertwined with Christinaity. Read "The Light and the Glory" by Peter Marshall and David Manual. They are providing historical examples of America being a Christian Nation guided by God to fulfill its destiny in God's plan as a Puritan City on A Hill or a New Israel. Millions of Americans both past and present have believed in such a destiny and these authors present this view well. Are they biased? Yes. But not anymore than Marxist, revisionist, feminist, or multi-cultural historians.
-
However, I dispute that the nation's history is not closely intertwined with Christinaity.
I did not say that it wasn't. However, America is not a theocracy. We are not ruled by priests. While many if not most voters here in America would likely not vote for an atheist or a Pagan, there is no religious qualification in the law for public office. America is a secular nation, and we are the better for it.
Lead "The Light and the Glory" by Peter Marshall and David Manual. They are providing historical examples of America being a Christian Nation guided by God to fulfill its destiny in God's plan as a Puritan City on A Hill or a New Israel. Millions of Americans both past and present have believed in such a destiny and these authors present this view well. Are they biased? Yes. But not anymore than Marxist, revisionist, feminist, or multi-cultural historians.
I am not curious enough to add that book to my already considerable reading list, but I am curious as to upon what this notion of America as having some sort of God-planned destiny is based. I don't recall seeing America mentioned in the Bible. Was there some divine revelation that I missed? I am not saying America is not a nation blessed by God, but I am skeptical that America has a destiny as a "Puritan City on A Hill" or a "New Israel". Prophesy in the Bible speaks of God's plan for a future world of goodness and light, but none of it points to that world being America or led by Americans or anything of that sort. So, I frankly just don't buy this whole destiny notion. America is what we make it. The responsibility for America's future rests with us, not with God. And that is as it should be.
-
UP, if you're interested, Google "Dominionism" and "Reconstructionism." That is where I remember reading about these ideas.
-
I think it is strong evidence that we are ad have always been a Christian Nation .
I think evidence points to America having always been a secular nation. With a strong Christian influence perhaps, but secular nonetheless. Personally, I hope it remains a secular nation. I find the multitude of calls for America to be a Christian nation "again" or to be "taken back" by the conservative Christians to be somewhat worrisome. I also find it a little sad to see the article imply that there is something inherently wrong with a U.S. Congressman being sworn in with a Koran. Of course, I suppose I should expect that from an author who also thinks closed American borders is the duty of Christian rulers. I find it hard to believe that Christ would approve of such an Us vs. Them attitude.
Rather than go on, which would likely result in the use of mean words and phrases indicating my extreme disagreement with the author of the article and maybe a few other people, I'll just end here.
You have it wrong .
The Government is secular , but the Government is not the nation.
The Nation is the set of people that must consent to be governed , I like that our system allows the people to be influential in the selection of the government.
The Nation has most definately been Christian since before the foundation of the Government , I consider the distinction between Nation and Government to be important and seminal to the theroy exressed in the Declaration of Independance that the Government governs by he consent of the governed.
That the Governed are mostly Christian is indisputable , that something is wrong with the people demanding a government freindly to themselves is a misunderstanding of democracy.
Tolerance of minority is gnerally a good idea but not if it comes to be an intolerace of Majority.
-
You have it wrong .
[...]
The Nation has most definately been Christian since before the foundation of the Government , I consider the distinction between Nation and Government to be important and seminal to the theroy exressed in the Declaration of Independance that the Government governs by he consent of the governed.
There is a difference between a nation of Christians and a Christian nation.
That the Governed are mostly Christian is indisputable , that something is wrong with the people demanding a government freindly to themselves is a misunderstanding of democracy.
Tolerance of minority is gnerally a good idea but not if it comes to be an intolerace of Majority.
I have little if any objection to Christians seeking a government friendly to themselves. Being a Christian, I hope that the government is friendly toward us. I do, however, have an objection to Christians seeking to use government to enforce religious preferences. Because while I want the government to be friendly toward us, I also want the government friendly toward the Pagans and the atheists and the Zensunni (sorry, been reading Dune novels). As a Christian, I see Christ's admonitions "whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them," and "love your neighbor as yourself" to be extremely important in regard to how Christians are supposed to interact with others at a social level. And in the gospels I don't see Jesus getting pissed off when someone was too lenient toward adulteresses or to people of different faiths. I do see Jesus reaching out to those people, the adulteress and the woman at the well and the tax collectors, and trying to help them. I don't see Jesus trying to make the government officials Jewish so they could all impose Jewish ideas on everyone else. I do see Jesus condemning those who tried to make the religion into burdensome laws imposed on others for their supposed own good.
I frequently do not see that attitude amongst those who talk the loudest about America being a Christian nation. Instead I usually see people who want to use Christianity as an excuse to impose social programs on the nation or to deny people who are not like us the liberty to marry in an unapproved fashion. Each group, of course, certain of the righteousness of its desire to protect society.
I am not trying to mute anyone or keep anyone from expressing his opinion. But I find more and more lately that the majority of contributions to the national discussion of America being a Christian nation seem less about Christian ideas and more about promoting a political agenda of control. Which doesn't seem all that Christian to me, but what the frak do I know?
-
[
There is a difference between a nation of Christians and a Christian nation.
You will have to explain that a bit more , as stated, I do not see it as true.
I have little if any objection to Christians seeking a government friendly to themselves. Being a Christian, I hope that the government is friendly toward us. I do, however, have an objection to Christians seeking to use government to enforce religious preferences.
That is enough.
NO one in America is trying to enforce conversion.
-
There is a difference between a nation of Christians and a Christian nation.
You will have to explain that a bit more , as stated, I do not see it as true.
Do we allow Muslims and Wiccans to worship in this country? Of course we do. Do we have in our law basic Christian tenets such as "You shall have no other gods before Me"? No, of course not. America may be (mostly) a nation of Christians, but it is not a Christian nation.
I have little if any objection to Christians seeking a government friendly to themselves. Being a Christian, I hope that the government is friendly toward us. I do, however, have an objection to Christians seeking to use government to enforce religious preferences.
That is enough.
NO one in America is trying to enforce conversion.
I did not say a word about conversion. I said I have an objection to Christians seeking to use government to enforce religious preferences.
-
"...I did not say a word about conversion. I said I have an objection to Christians seeking to use government to enforce religious preferences."
A little late. This has been done since our Founding. CHRISTIAN views and preferences are written into the very fabric of our culture, our legal system and on and on....might as well try holding back the tide.
-
"...I did not say a word about conversion. I said I have an objection to Christians seeking to use government to enforce religious preferences."
A little late. This has been done since our Founding. CHRISTIAN views and preferecnes are written into the very fabric of our culture, our legal system and on and on....might as well try hlolding back the tide.
That something has been done for a very long time does not make it right or unstoppable.
-
That something has been done for a very long time does not make it right or unstoppable
Of course it isn't unstoppable. The same democratic process that ot these laws enacted is available to get them repealed.
All it takes is the votes.
-
There is a difference between a nation of Christians and a Christian nation.
You will have to explain that a bit more , as stated, I do not see it as true.
Do we allow Muslims and Wiccans to worship in this country? Of course we do. Do we have in our law basic Christian tenets such as "You shall have no other gods before Me"? No, of course not. America may be (mostly) a nation of Christians, but it is not a Christian nation.
I have little if any objection to Christians seeking a government friendly to themselves. Being a Christian, I hope that the government is friendly toward us. I do, however, have an objection to Christians seeking to use government to enforce religious preferences.
That is enough.
NO one in America is trying to enforce conversion.
I did not say a word about conversion. I said I have an objection to Christians seeking to use government to enforce religious preferences.
[color]America may be (mostly) a nation of Christians, but it is not a Christian nation.[/color]
Huh?
You have confused government with nationhood.
If we are a nation mostly of Christians then we are a Christian nation.
We find it meet to be tolerant and to choose that our government not have a religious voice , I agree that this is the way to govern.
But how can you say that we are not a Christian nation in the same sentance that admits we are mosty Christians?
-
You have confused government with nationhood.
If weare a nation mostly of Christians then we are a Christian nation.
We find it meet to be tolerant and to choose that our government not have a religious voice , I agreethat this is the way to govern.
But how can you say that we are not a Christian nation in the same sentance that admits we are mosty Christians?
This is not an esoteric concept. We, as a nation, do not enforce strict adherence to Christian theology. And, no irony intended, thank God for that. We are not a Christian nation. A majority of people identify with the Christian religion, but we are a secular nation filled with many religions and even those who claim no religion at all.
And you are trying way too hard hard to separate the nation from the government.
-
This is not an esoteric concept. We, as a nation, do not enforce strict adherence to Christian theology. And, no irony intended, thank God for that. We are not a Christian nation. A majority of people identify with the Christian religion, but we are a secular nation filled with many religions and even those who claim no religion at all.
And you are trying way too hard hard to separate the nation from the government.
[/quote]
Way too hard?
These are two diffrent things else ,the Declaration of Independence makes no sense.
I think it good that a nation of Christians has discovered the value of tolerance , I think it good that have not forbidden even our leadership to determine their own church.
I think you are struggleing hard to confuse the definition fo "Nation " and "Government " because their sepration destroys your arguement , if they are really the same thing ,then I have been misunderstanding the whole concept for a long time.
-
You have confused government with nationhood.
If weare a nation mostly of Christians then we are a Christian nation.
We find it meet to be tolerant and to choose that our government not have a religious voice , I agreethat this is the way to govern.
But how can you say that we are not a Christian nation in the same sentance that admits we are mosty Christians?
This is not an esoteric concept. We, as a nation, do not enforce strict adherence to Christian theology. And, no irony intended, thank God for that. We are not a Christian nation. A majority of people identify with the Christian religion, but we are a secular nation filled with many religions and even those who claim no religion at all.
And you are trying way too hard hard to separate the nation from the government.
Gee, this was good, UP. All this talk about DIVERSITY and PLURALISM without mentioning those terms. Bteer get on the PC bandwagon. Or, is this simply yet another PC attack?
-
These are two diffrent things else ,the Declaration of Independence makes no sense.
[...]
I think you are struggleing hard to confuse the definition fo "Nation " and "Government " because their sepration destroys your arguement , if they are really the same thing ,then I have been misunderstanding the whole concept for a long time.
I did not say they were the same thing, and I'm not trying to make them synonyms. I do think they are related to each other, particularly in this odd political experiment called the United States of America. But please, I would like for you to explain how one keeps a nation entirely separate from its government. Particularly a nation with a democratic republican government such as we have.
-
Gee, this was good, UP. All this talk about DIVERSITY and PLURALISM without mentioning those terms. Bteer get on the PC bandwagon. Or, is this simply yet another PC attack?
No. This isn't an attack of any sort or an attempt at political correctness. Sorry to have confused you.
-
My bad then, as they say.
-
These are two diffrent things else ,the Declaration of Independence makes no sense.
[...]
I think you are struggleing hard to confuse the definition fo "Nation " and "Government " because their sepration destroys your arguement , if they are really the same thing ,then I have been misunderstanding the whole concept for a long time.
I did not say they were the same thing, and I'm not trying to make them synonyms. I do think they are related to each other, particularly in this odd political experiment called the United States of America. But please, I would like for you to explain how one keeps a nation entirely separate from its government. Particularly a nation with a democratic republican government such as we have.
As stated in the Declaraton it is the right of a nation to establish or destroy a government .
-
As stated in the Declaraton it is the right of a nation to establish or destroy a government .
One, that isn't quite what the Declaration of Independence says. Two, that does not explain how a nation, in particular a democratic republic, is entirely separate from its government. You'll have to work harder to make your case effectively.
-
As stated in the Declaraton it is the right of a nation to establish or destroy a government .
One, that isn't quite what the Declaration of Independence says. Two, that does not explain how a nation, in particular a democratic republic, is entirely separate from its government. You'll have to work harder to make your case effectively.
If a naion has a right to establish a governmet or change it then the existance of a nation does not depend on the existance of its government .
Government on the other hand , existing with a nation is possible and without is not.
-
If a naion has a right to establish a governmet or change it then the existance of a nation does not depend on the existance of its government .
Government on the other hand , existing with a nation is possible and without is not.
Yes, and?
I should, I suppose, take a moment to say that a key factor you're still missing is that if the government exists at the will of the nation, or as the Declaration says, the people, then the government represents the will of the people (or at least a majority of them), or in your terminology, the nation. This is especially so in a democratic republic as we have in America. Thus your attempt to completely separate the nation from the government is fundamentally flawed.
-
If a naion has a right to establish a governmet or change it then the existance of a nation does not depend on the existance of its government .
Government on the other hand , existing with a nation is possible and without is not.
Yes, and?
I should, I suppose, take a moment to say that a key factor you're still missing is that if the government exists at the will of the nation, or as the Declaration says, the people, then the government represents the will of the people (or at least a majority of them), or in your terminology, the nation. This is especially so in a democratic republic as we have in America. Thus your attempt to completely separate the nation from the government is fundamentally flawed.
You will have to point out what the flaw is .
If I can't make a distinction between an apple and an apple tree , if I can't make a distinction between a car and an asdsembly line , if I can't make a distinction between a product and its producer then I can't make a distinction between a government and its people.
I am sure that King George III would consider this to be wrong , he himself was England , but the Attitude that the Government is for the people and not that the people are for the government is more in line with the sprit of '76, more like what I agree with.
I might be misunderstandig you , but you seem to be claiming that gobvernment and nationhood are inseprable , if so I could certainly point out several instances of governmental change that did not change the nation or people.
-
You will have to point out what the flaw is .
Um, okay. If the government exists at the will of the nation, or as the Declaration says, the people, then the government represents the will of the people (or at least a majority of them), or in your terminology, the nation. This is especially so in a democratic republic as we have in America. Thus your attempt to completely separate the nation from the government is fundamentally flawed.
If I can't make a distinction between an apple and an apple tree , if I can't make a distinction between a car and an asdsembly line , if I can't make a distinction between a product and its producer then I can't make a distinction between a government and its people.
I am sure that King George III would consider this to be wrong , he himself was England , but the Attitude that the Government is for the people and not that the people are for the government is more in line with the sprit of '76, more like what I agree with.
I might be misunderstandig you , but you seem to be claiming that gobvernment and nationhood are inseprable , if so I could certainly point out several instances of governmental change that did not change the nation or people.
Yes, you are misunderstanding me to a ridiculous degree. I must not be communicating clearly. I am not now nor have I ever said or tried to say or implied that a nation and its government are coterminous in any way. I have, however, suggested that they are more than slightly or coincidently related.
Your comparisons of government to an apple or a product are not valid. A government is not something that is made and then it goes away, never again to be part of what made it. No, a government and a nation are not the same thing. No, a government and a nation are not inseparable. However, this nation and this nation's government, whose members are from and elected by the nation, are connected in a manner such that the government is an integral and functioning part of this nation. Therefore, your attempt separate them as if there was little more than a tenuous connection between them is incorrect.
-
You will have to point out what the flaw is .
Um, okay. If the government exists at the will of the nation, or as the Declaration says, the people, then the government represents the will of the people (or at least a majority of them), or in your terminology, the nation. This is especially so in a democratic republic as we have in America. Thus your attempt to completely separate the nation from the government is fundamentally flawed.
If I can't make a distinction between an apple and an apple tree , if I can't make a distinction between a car and an asdsembly line , if I can't make a distinction between a product and its producer then I can't make a distinction between a government and its people.
I am sure that King George III would consider this to be wrong , he himself was England , but the Attitude that the Government is for the people and not that the people are for the government is more in line with the sprit of '76, more like what I agree with.
I might be misunderstandig you , but you seem to be claiming that gobvernment and nationhood are inseprable , if so I could certainly point out several instances of governmental change that did not change the nation or people.
Yes, you are misunderstanding me to a ridiculous degree. I must not be communicating clearly. I am not now nor have I ever said or tried to say or implied that a nation and its government are coterminous in any way. I have, however, suggested that they are more than slightly or coincidently related.
Your comparisons of government to an apple or a product are not valid. A government is not something that is made and then it goes away, never again to be part of what made it. No, a government and a nation are not the same thing. No, a government and a nation are not inseparable. However, this nation and this nation's government, whose members are from and elected by the nation, are connected in a manner such that the government is an integral and functioning part of this nation. Therefore, your attempt separate them as if there was little more than a tenuous connection between them is incorrect.
No, a government and a nation are not the same thing. No, a government and a nation are not inseparable.
Thus I state that the Nation is Christian and the government is secular.
The nation is the people nd the people are mostly Christian .
The goernment is the product of the peope and has no independant existace from them , so that the people have chosen a secular government for a Christian Nation.
-
No, a government and a nation are not the same thing. No, a government and a nation are not inseparable.
]
Thus I state that the Nation is Christian and the government is secular.
The nation is the people nd the people are mostly Christian .
The goernment is the product of the peope and has no independant existace from them , so that the people have chosen a secular government for a Christian Nation.
Um, no. You are working very hard to ignore what I have said, or you don't care. Either way, you're not refuting what I said, merely repeating your original argument. And this conversation is therefore obviously at a dead end. Thanks, it's been... fun. Yeah.
-
No, a government and a nation are not the same thing. No, a government and a nation are not inseparable.
]
Thus I state that the Nation is Christian and the government is secular.
The nation is the people nd the people are mostly Christian .
The goernment is the product of the peope and has no independant existace from them , so that the people have chosen a secular government for a Christian Nation.
Um, no. You are working very hard to ignore what I have said, or you don't care. Either way, you're not refuting what I said, merely repeating your original argument. And this conversation is therefore obviously at a dead end. Thanks, it's been... fun. Yeah.
Oh well, I don't win anything just bedcause you don't "get it".
What I don't get is your asmission that the government and th nation are not the same entity ,but still insisting that they must both be secular because one of them is.
-
"..are connected in a manner such that the government is an integral and functioning part of this nation. "
Is this what you considered key?
One could easily point out that the Christian church is an integral and functioning part of our nation , but I doubt that you would have such difficulty in making a distinction at its borders.
But the Nation is the people thereof , what describs the People describes the Nation.
-
What describes the nation does not describe the people.
-
What describes the nation does not describe the people.
How so?
-
Because although we are a nation comprised of a larger percentage of whites than any other race, we don't call ourselves a White Nation. Same with Protestant Nation.
-
Because although we are a nation comprised of a larger percentage of whites than any other race, we don't call ourselves a White Nation. Same with Protestant Nation.
Not really , the White Majority is not as large or as important as the Christian majority.
How indeed would you describe the nation at all?
Would you call us an athiest nation ?
-
Not really , the White Majority is not as large or as important as the Christian majority.
Are you seriously suggesting that our European heritage has not had a significant impact on our history?
Also, the majority is roughly equal Plane. The United States is 76% Christian and 75% White. I'd say that is close enough to consider them very similar for statistical purposes.
How indeed would you describe the nation at all?
A fickle mob ;)
Seriously, the concept of a nation is ambiguous enough without getting into a pedantic or semantic argument. Think about Honolulu, Hawaii then Nome, Alaska, then Hollywood, California, then Nashville, Tennessee. Those are all within the nation of the United States of America, but can you seriously use adjectives to describe the people there in very specific terms?
Would you call us an athiest nation ?
Polling data would suggest not. But again, Protestantism itself is extremely disparate in thought. So what is the point of ascribing one set of descriptions to the entire nation?
-
The United States is 76% Christian
Not counting the Mormons as Christian?
The United States is ... 75% White.
World Fact Book says 82% white.
-
Not counting the Mormons as Christian?
Actually I'm not sure. It was from the 2001 Statistical Abstract of the United States, but apparently from a private survey, so the 76% are self-identified. There are apparently other surveys that have it at around 80% and 78%.
-
Not counting the Mormons as Christian?
Actually I'm not sure. It was from the 2001 Statistical Abstract of the United States, but apparently from a private survey, so the 76% are self-identified. There are apparently other surveys that have it at around 80% and 78%.
World Fact Book claims 52% Protestant, 24% RC, 2% Mormon. That's 78%. Same source claims 82% white. Last update was 2007.
-
The US may have a majority Christian population, but it was decided at the beginning that there would be no official national religion. The mother country, England, had an established religion (the Church of England), as did the Netherlands (Dutch Reformed), Scotland (Presbyterian) and Ireland (which was mostly Roman Catholic, but there were eventually two establish religions, Presbyterian in Ulster, and Church of England in the South) and nearly every other state in Europe.
The context of Europe and England was a series of bloody religious wars. In Europe these were between the Catholics and the Protestants, but England first had the Catholics duke it out with the Church of England (Queens Mary and Elizabeth) and later between the Caviliers (Anglicans) and then Roundheads (Cromwell's Separatists). The Founding Fathers decided that it was best to avoid this whole bloody shebang by agreeing to disagree as individuals and to keep the state out of religion. I think the Church of England was officially the established church of Maryland for a time, but it had no major effect on the state or the nation as a whole.
Who would the Founders endorse?
I think they would be baffled by the changes. I see Franklin and Jefferson avoiding the entire matter for several years until each got his website up. Washington would hardly be impressed by any need to keep troops in Iraq. He was very much in favor of 'avoiding foreign entanglements', and I don't see him having a high opinion of NAFTA or CAFTA.
I see them all as likely to have a deep interest in how Canada turned out.
Remember, about half of our founding fathers found slavery acceptable, and all found it tolerable.
-
I think the Church of England was officially the established church of Maryland for a time, but it had no major effect on the state or the nation as a whole.
Not likely, since that colony was founded by Cæcilius Calvert as a refuge for Roman Catholics.
And, of course, I go look it up and you're right. However, most of the colonies had the Anglican Church as the "official" religion written into their charters, because they were land grants from the King of England. NC, SC, and a bunch of others had Anglican as their "official" religion on that basis.
However, what I said still stands - the King wanted to get rid of Cæcilius Calvert, and since lords can't vote in Parliament if they were living in the colonies, he gave Lord Baltimore (Cæcilius Calvert) the land grant for Maryland. Since he and his family were Roman Catholic, they solicited colonists from Germany and Ireland, where the members of the Roman Catholic faith were being persecuted at the time.
His son, Charles Calvert (who became Lord Baltimore on the death of his father) governed the colony, and attempted to repress the Protestants. Interestingly enough, Cæcilius Calvert never got to see Maryland, having died before he actually came over.
-
How indeed would you describe the nation at all?
A fickle mob ;)
Seriously, the concept of a nation is ambiguous enough without getting into a pedantic or semantic argument. Think about Honolulu, Hawaii then Nome, Alaska, then Hollywood, California, then Nashville, Tennessee. Those are all within the nation of the United States of America, but can you seriously use adjectives to describe the people there in very specific terms?
Would you call us an athiest nation ?
Polling data would suggest not. But again, Protestantism itself is extremely disparate in thought. So what is the point of ascribing one set of descriptions to the entire nation?
I agree that the term "people " and "Nation" are not as specific as "government ".
Are you describeing the People and Nation ?