- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
We have the illusion that our government does not have total control, but in fact they can toss you in the clink without anything more than a suspicion of you being a terrorist or not have health care.
If you choose not to put a seat belt on they fine you for it.
If you exercise your first amendment right for freedom of speech you can go to jail if it offends a Muslim, or is reported to offend a Muslim.
After you buy your land you must pay a lease on that land to the government or they have the right to take it away.
Churches must provide birth control to there workers, even when there belief is that its wrong to use it. You cannot honor your dead with a cross on the side of the road because someone gets offended by it. Churches must marry gays or have the threat of lawsuits based on discrimination. Where did the first amendments freedom of religion go?
We live in a society that is becoming more and more bold in its totalitarianism, but it has been present for many years disguised as a form of taxation or security for us. Or more insidiously as a benefit for the common good such as imminent domain laws, anti-trust laws and others like this.
History will once again repeat, and with that there is hope that once again freedom will re-emerge. The only questions are the time span of suffering and what it will take to once again ignite the passions of freedom and demonstrate to enough people the folly of statism.
Regards,
O.A.
Nothing would please me more than to see those who have violated the constitution and their oath to protect and defend it, hanging from their ankles like Mussolini, but how can this be accomplished without violating our own principles, ending up in prison, or shot for treason? Until a mass uprising or change in the leadership brings charges, those now in power would surely see any small rebellion put down. We see those who have violated the Constitution as treasonous, but any violent actions against those in power would surely be seen by them and apparently 51% of the ignorant electorate as treasonous on the part of the rebels even though they would stand for upholding the Constitution/ supreme law of the land. Small uprisings would likely result in a police state and greater oppression. Remember what happened to Timothy McVeigh (lethal injection) and his cadre? the Branch Dividians? Randy Weaver? the ensuing fear mongering and oppression of citizen militias?
The government used these events to their advantage, gained more power and the ability to further oppress the liberties of innocent Americans. That is not to say that what McVeigh did was honorable. Killing innocents is not honorable whether it is McVeigh bombing the A.P. Murrah building or the government killing the Davidians or Weaver and family.
Since we are not still in the early 1800s we cannot dispense with the statists as easily as Aaron Burr did with Hamilton. Today a man of honor who challenged Obama or any other usurper in such a manner would not be seen as a man of honor but a potential assassin. If this were not the case today there are many who believe themselves patriots who would gladly risk their lives for the sake of posterity.
As much as I wish it were not so, the times do not look favorably for men of this nature. Our populace is far too timid and the overwhelming power usurped by government is the reason for the apprehension. No it will take martyrs or calamity to rally enough patriots as long as the bread and circuses continue to placate so many. When the bread runs out, and it will, then even the dullards will awaken.
I share your passion but find little safe recourse, short of a political epiphany among the electorate. Do you have a plan that doesn’t endanger what freedom we still possess?
You remind me of not only J.B. Books, but of Patrick Henry!
Respectfully,
O.A.
Regards,
O.A.
THAT'S the point. (Religion aside.)
that aside, people don't see parallels -some even in here-and we're too pc to call a spade a spade.
What the founders were most certainly fearful of was the idea that the government was going to regulate your adherence to particular practices of religion. But does this mean they founded the country on humanist principles? There is no way I can agree with that. Humanism is a philosophy which has no place for a God. Yet they worked God into the Declaration on purpose.
“The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”
Benjamin Franklin - Constitutional Convention of 1787.
The sparrow reference, of course, is from the Bible. Quoted by the deist.
I will agree that the Bible was influential. Which Bible, though? Jefferson's 12 pager?
You quote Franklin from one time in his life (not the time of construction of founding documents) and I can point to a dissertation he wrote in earlier life called "A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain,"
or "Some books against deism fell into my hands;...the arguments for deists... appeared to be much stronger than the refutation; in short, I soon became a thorough deist." BF's autobiography
Both men were right, there is some truth there, but there is some falsehood as well.
The founders were religious, they believed in a creator, and most believed in a christian creator. There was much discussion in letters of the time period about the 10 commandments but our founders in there wisdom attempted to create a basis to work from that they called "The religion of America" and several used that term in correspondence. It was Ben Franklin who first put to pen the 5 points of this religion to paper.
1. Recognition and worship of a Creator who made all thing
2. That the Creator has revealed a moral code of behavior for happy living which distinguishes right from wrong.
3. That the Creator holds mankind responsible for the way they treat each other
4. That all mankind live beyond this life.
5. That in the next life individuals are judged for their conduct in this one.
Check out this article for more information http://www.latterdayconservative.com/art...
Also a great book to read "The making of America". It reads like a class text book but is by far the most complete book on the founders I have ever read or seen.
Even with all of this, much of what was put into the constitution, and discussed was from Sir William Blackstone's ideas on natural law (gods law) which started the idea of inalienable rights and lists out many, three of which were the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of property (note the founders changed this to happiness) which only has the religious connection in that they were refereed to as gods law, and later as natural law and the ideas that led to them had been carried down and nurtured by Christianity.
My point is while many of the founders accepted Christianity only in part, the 5 points above were nearly universal in there acceptance and a base line to which they attempted to base the philosophy for a free people to exist upon.
Virtually all religions (save atheism and Buddhism) that I am aware of accept these basic 5 tenants. Some core philosophy that the rule of law can be based on is required in order to have a civil, honest and ethical society. Perhaps the best thing the founders could have done that they did not do was expand this idea into a full philosophy, well documented and detailed to guide the judgements of society 200 years down the road.
1. Worship Creator 2. Creator revealed a moral code
Both of these tenants are the antithesis of the Declaration of Independence. I challenge you to show me where these are in there. I do not deny the influence of Christianity culturally, but I see the framers (read Thomas Paine on point, but they ALL said it, with the exception of Hamilton) that they were very skeptical off all organized religion; they felt it to be harmful especially combined with government. That's why we have the 1st Amendment. I find it a huge shout out tht they did NOT include references to the 10 Commandments, your second tenet, the word God is not included-Creator is a broad term that could mean most anything. The whole idea behind natural rights is that morality CAN be determined by Reason and is the fundamental basis of our government.
We are not a theocracy. Every theocracy ends up in mass genocide.
Those 5 points are not mine, they came from Ben Franklin. I linked to an article and that article is referenced. I also referenced a book which talks about it in greater detail.
I am also stating that while Christianity was a huge influence on our country it was the founders who decided to separate it from government. They did discuss the 10 commandments, and decided not to include them in government documents. It was not by chance, but a conscious decision on there part. One I consider very appropriate.
The only thing I want government to do is insure that I can worship how where and what I want, and that you can do the same.
I agree with your last statement. I did read the article and checked out the book the article cites mostly. But it is not a blalanced article. The author picks and chooses quotations from individuals who wrote ALOT over many years. And makes broad statements regarding intentions without citing in all cases.
1. the article ignores Natural Rights, which are the fundemental basis of the Declaration.
2. Thomas Paine was a main contributor/thinker to the beginning of our nation. He wrote a book on Deism as did Franklin. That's not Christian.
3. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=312
this is my article, which I grant is also biased. but may provide more contect to the argument.
I think one of the critical things missing from our society that we had back in the founders days is best summed up by the last sentence of the 13th article of faith from the Mormon church. "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."
Our founders could see things in both Deism and Christianity that were praiseworthy and they pulled from both. They also pulled from the work of Blackstone on natural law, Works of Cicero and Montesquieu on governments and a wide range of philosophies that had developed over the years. They looks to any source that looked to be praiseworthy or of good report. Today to many are unwilling to get out of there religion, there political party, there <insert collective organization here> and see what others have learned that they can incorporate into themselves. Most people just no longer seem capable of that.
To attempted to separate Christianity, Deism or Natural Law out of the creation of our country is not rational. They were all large factors on how the country was formed. It would also be irrational to attempt to give Christians some special place in civil society, just as it is irrational that Muslim countries give special privileges to Muslims. That is not praiseworthy but rather condemnable. The god whom I believe helped men to think and rationally come to the design of the constitution would not want a favoritism towards the believers over the non-believers.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I think we largely agree, but we do approach from different angles. its a big topic and cannot be fully addressed here in a text based communication. It would be great to have a voice to voice discussion on the subject as I think you are well read and I would learn a great deal from the discussion.
Thank you for your responses, and the article.
I agree with this. I do not deny tht Christianity had strong influence. But rationally, I can take under dicernment important tenents of Christianity which are not included. I take it one step further, and say that was done on purpose.
Finally, going back to the original post, (sorry Kathy-guess I owe you a post), the idea that morality is revealed to a rational man outside of his own reason is absurd to me. For those who believe that, what does that say about moral individuals who do not practice a religion or have faith in a God? They are just picking up their morals from a Christian (or any other religious) culture? Intelligent, rational people are drawn to other intelligent, rational people. They foster relationships, they learn and so grow through learning, disapline, endeavor and also through trial and error. This maturation does not need a religious environment in order to thrive. But I acknowledge that other intelligent people have faith and I am respectful of that as long as it does not encroach on the laws of any land in the world.
We "allowed" and "acknowledged" Iraq and Afganistan to draw up their own Constitutions that incorporate many laws and rules we in this country would rationally say is not a free nation, in fact a theocracy. We did so because we wanted to respect the culture dominant in those places. It was a huge mistake. Just huge. That's why Im pressing here. thanks for the discussion
Thank you both for some wonderful perspectives and thought provoking discussion. I will be thinking about this today at work.
Locke was clearly influential, natural law, in defining the relationship between people and their government, based on reason, not religion.
I would include among all the major influences already listed, Adam Smith. His work “The Wealth of Nations” was published in 1776 and by the time of the Constitutional convention many were well versed. Jefferson, Madison, Wilson, and Hamilton were among those who quoted the work.
I think you would also appreciate a book in my library that gives great support for the influence of Christianity on our founding. “Christian Life & Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States” Benjamin Franklin Morris, is 800+ pages of quotes and historical documentation. It was out of print for 100 years but you can get a reprint or download it. http://archive.org/details/ChristianLife...
Regards,
O.A.
How is "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" consistent with Christianity? I will let the Scriptures speak for themselves here.
John 10:10 - The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. (Jesus)
2 Cor 3:17 - Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
James 1:25 - But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.
Eccl 9:7-9 - Go then, eat your bread in happiness and drink your wine with a cheerful heart; for God has already approved your works. Let your clothes be white all the time, and let not oil be lacking on your head. Enjoy life with the woman whom you love all the days of your fleeting life which He has given to you under the sun; for this is your reward in life and in your toil in which you have labored under the sun.
I will not argue for original sin - I believe this is a false doctrine.
Christianity may well NOT be consistent with your concept of owning your life. This depends on your viewpoint, I suppose. In once sense Christianity teaches that you don't own yourself - God does. But on the other hand this only comes about because of ones decision to follow that "perfect law of liberty". The Christian is always in the driver's seat of their life. If they were not, it would be most unjust for God to judge their life at the end.
YOU: you are arguing for free will. but this concept is completely incompatible with an all knowing, all powerful, God.
ME: No, it's not.
YOU: Nothing can happen without His action.
ME: Yes, it can.
YOU: It is immoral for God to judge you, because He decides.
ME: You can do better than this.
YOU: Christianity is built on fundamental concepts. can't pick and choose this "is" this "isn't"
ME: Yes, you certainly can. Using your very own brain. This is the basis of how denominations formed. When men drew conclusions from the Scripture that others felt erroneous, and then required others to believe them by attesting to a creed or some other manner, groups split apart to worship in a manner consistent with their brain.
YOU: Original sin is fundamental to the concept/idea the resurrection and to Jesus' life -period.
ME: SIN is the fundamental concept. I already agree with your objection to the 'original' aspect.
It has been misrepresented by major denominations for centuries. When the Scripture speaks of Adam's sin and its effect on mankind, it has to do with God's standard of justice applying equally to all men. He judges us for our sins in a manner consistent with Adam's judgment.
YOU: yes there is a Creator. that creator has no influence on your day to day life.
ME: Well, that depends on you, the Christian would say. Ben Franklin certainly thought he had something to do with their success in starting the new country.
YOU: morality is built around reason and logic and is human-centered not God-centered. that's is the crux of natural rights.
Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education … reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
George Washington - 1796 Farewell Address
Morality and religion in the big scheme, by any objective measure, has not lived up.
Ayn Rand showed morality is not based on something we can't know, can't comprehend. Natural rights and morality are based on Reason. You can no more come up with a moral system that is good for humans WITHOUT reason, any more than you can discover physics by studying the Bible.
The reason this discussion is relevant in this post, is the authoress specifically talked about the lack of morality in her community after Hitler outlawed religion. I wanted to make a comment that regardless of religion, overall cultural morals slacking is due to individuals not exercising reason in their actions (which is admittedly more difficult under a dictatorship) rather than her cloistered raising by a convent. and that IS an overall theme in the story, she mentions it several times. IT is not the only theme and there were many interesting points about how Austria came under Hitler's rule, and then how the children were separated from their parents to be raised by the State as much as possible.
You should consider starting a new thread to discuss this subject.
You may garner more comments, though this subject matter is not unfamiliar here.
Respectfully,
O.A..
I think if he starts a new thread you will have more help digging in the trenches! Not that you need any. I enjoy the part of these discussions when the arguments are reduced to mysticism. That's when the fun begins.
Regards,
O.A.
The US is as much a christian nation as algebra is arab math. :)