Restoring America: Start with distinguishing "government" from "society"

[downzero]

The country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and beliefs

Funny they never made it into our founding document.

You have been fed a complete bunch of nonsense. I suggest you that you read the Constitution, sir.

 

[Project972]

putin is on thecapitalistic kick, says other stuff does'nt work.

 

[mrjarrell]

Funny they never made it into our founding document.

You have been fed a complete bunch of nonsense. I suggest you that you read the Constitution, sir.

Sadly there are people like David Barton and Glenn Beck who promote this revisionist pseudo history. And too many people who listen to it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Funny they never made it into our founding document.

You have been fed a complete bunch of nonsense. I suggest you that you read the Constitution, sir.

I see two competing truths. For example, one among many quotes leading to the same conclusion:

"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

As I see it, the founders were both believers in pious values and also wise enough to understand that such values have to come from the people and not the government. I see no flaw in observing that our government did spring from the aforementioned religious values. I also see that the founding documents did not provide for establishing or enforcing such values. In the end, limit government is limited and values cannot be enforced externally. The problem is that in practice, we have a largely unlimited government, Constitution notwithstanding, and groups with radically different values each trying to impose their values on everyone. This isn't going to end well.

 

[IndyDave1776]

putin is on thecapitalistic kick, says other stuff does'nt work.

Probably because Russia already got hit upside the head with the truth.

 

[downzero]

I see two competing truths. For example, one among many quotes leading to the same conclusion:

I think that's just the wrong way of looking at it. It doesn't matter what they thought, what matters is what they DID.

They purposely constructed a document that made no reference at all to religion for a reason! Does anyone really believe that was an accident?

They spoke through the text. And they left God out of it!

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think that's just the wrong way of looking at it. It doesn't matter what they thought, what matters is what they DID.

They purposely constructed a document that made no reference at all to religion for a reason! Does anyone really believe that was an accident?

They spoke through the text. And they left God out of it!

Yes they did, while understanding the consequences that would follow in a free society with no moral compass. They left it out as being beyond the proper reach of government while at the same time realizing the consequences which we are now experiencing.

 

[poptab]

Funny they never made it into our founding document.

You have been fed a complete bunch of nonsense. I suggest you that you read the Constitution, sir.

Sadly there are people like David Barton and Glenn Beck who promote this revisionist pseudo history. And too many people who listen to it.

How exactly is he wrong? The country was not limited to just the founding fathers. And who is going to argue the founding fathers were themselves not from a 'Judeo- Christian' background?

Exactly what values and beliefs is our country founded on?

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

"The rights of the colonists as Christians...may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institution of The Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament."

-Samuel Adams

From the day of the Declaration...they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct.

-John Quincy Adams

The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion

-John Adams

By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.

-Sam Chase

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God Governs 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?

-Ben Franklin

I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.

-Alexander Hamilton

In circumstances dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that, whilst every prudent Measure should be taken to ward off the impending Judgements....All confidence must be withheld from the Means we use; and reposed only on that GOD who rules in the Armies of Heaven, and without whose Blessing the best human Counsels are but Foolishness--and all created Power Vanity

-John Hancock

Shall I stop now or do you need more convincing?

 

[poptab]

It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.

-Patrick Henry

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

-John Jay

I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest system of morality that has ever been taught but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invented

-Thomas Jefferson

 

[downzero]

Yes they did, while understanding the consequences that would follow in a free society with no moral compass. They left it out as being beyond the proper reach of government while at the same time realizing the consequences which we are now experiencing.

I think you're wrong. It's easy to try to place them in the 21st century, but that's NOT the world they lived in.

 

[NYFelon]

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom


Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

 

[Trooper]

I see two competing truths. For example, one among many quotes leading to the same conclusion:



As I see it, the founders were both believers in pious values and also wise enough to understand that such values have to come from the people and not the government. I see no flaw in observing that our government did spring from the aforementioned religious values. I also see that the founding documents did not provide for establishing or enforcing such values. In the end, limit government is limited and values cannot be enforced externally. The problem is that in practice, we have a largely unlimited government, Constitution notwithstanding, and groups with radically different values each trying to impose their values on everyone. This isn't going to end well.

For the two hundred years before we were officially a constitutional republic, the nation was led by religious leaders in the communities. Often the minister was the most educated man in the community. Harvard and Yale were founded to educate clergy.

That shifted after 1805. Jefferson was instrumental in shifting the society towards secularism and greed. He also attacked the freemasons who made up most of the founders (Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison).

One might say that the constitution has a much from the freemasons as it does from the Bible. The freemasons gave us the idea of the office remains while the men move on. The Bible gave us the pattern of a federal republic (Book of Judges). Blackstone's commentaries on the law was the foundation for our laws and it was based on the Torah.

Even so, it is not government's job to keep us moral and ethical. That is our function. If we fail that then the constitution can not protect us.

 

[Trooper]

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom


Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

But Jefferson did not write the constitution. He was sent to France for the express purpose of keeping him out of the country during that convention. Washington, Franklin, Hamilton and Madison did not trust him. he was not a Freemason. Plus many of his views were weird.

Maybe you like his other idea of having a constant revolution where every elite is executed like the French did.

 

[Liberty1911]

I see two competing truths. For example, one among many quotes leading to the same conclusion:



As I see it, the founders were both believers in pious values and also wise enough to understand that such values have to come from the people and not the government. I see no flaw in observing that our government did spring from the aforementioned religious values. I also see that the founding documents did not provide for establishing or enforcing such values. In the end, limit government is limited and values cannot be enforced externally. The problem is that in practice, we have a largely unlimited government, Constitution notwithstanding, and groups with radically different values each trying to impose their values on everyone. This isn't going to end well.

I couldn't have said it better.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think you're wrong. It's easy to try to place them in the 21st century, but that's NOT the world they lived in.

I don't understand their point. Their own words establish their faith, the belief that religion is necessary for a free society, and the absence of it from the founding documents. It seems pretty clear to me. At minimum, freedom only works among decent people and they apparently saw God as the primary source of that decency, yet did not impose it by law. No, I am not going to waver on this one.

 

[poptab]

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom


Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

I am a big fan of Jefferson but I know that he is not infallible and I think here he is incorrect. I think the common law developed as it did in part due to Judeo-Christian principals.

When and where did common law develop? What were the general principals and beliefs that guided that society?

I think many people make the mistake of attributing the founding fathers with some angelic inhuman qualities that no human could possibly posses.

They were fallible human beings and the form of government they came up with was flawed and ultimately incoherent. Since all forms of government are flawed and ultimately incoherent. Since violating my property rights in the name of protecting them is incoherent.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Something about Jefferson that often gets overlooked is that most of his remarks downplaying a connection between church and states were issued in the context of assorted preachers being concerned essentially about jockeying for position, which is exactly what the establishment clause was intended to prevent. The issue was that of government meddling in church, not the contemporary notion that government is a radically atheistic institution. It is simply called to operate under its own auspices without either the undue influence the papacy often had on government in Catholic countries or the state-sponsored monopoly the Anglican Church enjoyed in England at the expense of serving as a subsidiary of the government.

 

[downzero]

I don't understand their point. Their own words establish their faith, the belief that religion is necessary for a free society, and the absence of it from the founding documents. It seems pretty clear to me. At minimum, freedom only works among decent people and they apparently saw God as the primary source of that decency, yet did not impose it by law. No, I am not going to waver on this one.

I mean, refuse to waiver all you want. If they wanted a king, they already had one. They opposed one, and wanted everyone to share in their free society, Christian and heathen alike. I fail to see the problem with that.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I mean, refuse to waiver all you want. If they wanted a king, they already had one. They opposed one, and wanted everyone to share in their free society, Christian and heathen alike. I fail to see the problem with that.

Who said there is a problem? They simply codified freedom into law with the knowledge that a certain amount of moral fiber was required for it to last, much in the same way that you can give resources to the incompetent, but should not expect a positive return on the investment.

I should also mention that my perspective on the matter concerns interaction (i.e., not using freedom as a vehicle to abuse others) and not living to theocratic standards. You may notice that there was a standard of decency common to our society even among those who were not 'religious', but with a respect for traditional values, which eroded with the most clear example being the events of the '60s. The mercenary attitude which has taken root sense is the foundation that makes the politics of division and the problem with those who vote for a living possible.

 

[downzero]

Who said there is a problem? They simply codified freedom into law with the knowledge that a certain amount of moral fiber was required for it to last, much in the same way that you can give resources to the incompetent, but should not expect a positive return on the investment.

I should also mention that my perspective on the matter concerns interaction (i.e., not using freedom as a vehicle to abuse others) and not living to theocratic standards. You may notice that there was a standard of decency common to our society even among those who were not 'religious', but with a respect for traditional values, which eroded with the most clear example being the events of the '60s. The mercenary attitude which has taken root sense is the foundation that makes the politics of division and the problem with those who vote for a living possible.

I've been thinking about this post, and I really don't think we're that far apart. I do, however, think it's a mistake to equate religion with morality. I think there's an agnostic brilliance to our Constitution, in that its values are stuck to natural law without mentioning a "creator" or anything like that.

I agree with you that it's hard to look at the pre-Constitution England and the United States as a secular society when, for example, non believers couldn't even testify in court. But I think you can see my side on the idea that those who wrote and ratified the constitution were aware that religious spats had divided the people and lead to war and other fights throughout recent history, and it was just easier to focus on simpler, potentially-agnostic values rather than to enforce their vision of religion.

I also somewhat disagree with you that our society has degraded to the point that there's no common morality. I think the modern United States is obvious proof that people of all sorts of religious backgrounds and national origin, for example, can agree about certain morals, even while arguing about others.

As much as I admire the founders as thoughtful men, I would never give up my place in 2012 America for the world in which they lived, either, but that's a topic for another thread.