Author Topic: Who would our Founders endorse for president today?  (Read 10403 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The_Professor

  • Guest
Who would our Founders endorse for president today?
« 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.


Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who would our Founders endorse for president today?
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2007, 05:06:24 PM »
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.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who would our Founders endorse for president today?
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2007, 05:11:59 PM »
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?
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who would our Founders endorse for president today?
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2007, 07:07:23 PM »


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?

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who would our Founders endorse for president today?
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2007, 08:31:47 PM »
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.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who would our Founders endorse for president today?
« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2007, 08:41:24 AM »
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 .

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who would our Founders endorse for president today?
« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2007, 09:30:39 AM »

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.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who would our Founders endorse for president today?
« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2007, 10:24:38 AM »
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.

 
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who would our Founders endorse for president today?
« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2007, 10:38:21 AM »
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.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who would our Founders endorse for president today?
« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2007, 10:44:31 AM »
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.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who would our Founders endorse for president today?
« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2007, 10:55:47 AM »
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.



"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who would our Founders endorse for president today?
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2007, 11:16:09 AM »
"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.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who would our Founders endorse for president today?
« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2007, 11:17:50 AM »
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."
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

The_Professor

  • Guest
Re: Who would our Founders endorse for president today?
« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2007, 12:23:31 PM »

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.

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who would our Founders endorse for president today?
« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2007, 06:34:46 PM »

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?
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--