This time the opinion on the religious beliefs of Thomas Jefferson:
"The Declaration was written by a man who believed in a very different "creator" than Barton. Remember, Jefferson explicitly condemned the Old Testament God as "cruel, capricious, vindictive and unjust" and rejected the notion that Jesus was divine or part of any trinity."
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/08/more_hindu_prayers.php#more
Just because Jefferson did not believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ doesn't mean he believed in a different Creator, or a "very different" Creator. It is the same Creator, rejecting the second and third person of the Godhead. Jefferson believed in the God of Israel, his error was his perception on the person of Jesus Christ. That Jesus Christ is God, is a distinction of God, just as Jefferson not believing The Holy Spirit is not God. The distortion is Ed Brayton portraying Jefferson as worshiping a different God altogether. Unitarians believe they worship the God of Israel. The Creator is the same, of which Jefferson himself declared he was a unitarian:
"But the population of my neighborhood is too slender, and is too much divided into other sects to maintain any one preacher well. I must therefore be contented to be an Unitarian by myself, although I know there are many around me who would become so, if once they could hear the questions fairly stated."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, January 8, 1825
"The pure and simple unity of the Creator of the universe, is now all but ascendant in the Eastern States; it is dawning in the West, and advancing towards the South; and I confidently expect that the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United States."
Thomas Jefferson to to Rev. James Smith, December 8, 1822.
"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other."
Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803
No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.
Thomas Jefferson in 1803-Hutson (see n. 8) at p. 96, quoting from a handwritten history in possession of the Library of Congress, “Washington Parish, Washington City,” by Rev. Ethan Allen.
Jefferson, was deceived about Christianity and its essentials. But his unitarian God, like that of John Adams, was Yahweh, the God of Israel:
"I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem."
Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, January 1, 1802
This common Father to Christians is the God of Israel. Where is the evidence Jefferson was a universalist while forming the nation? Where is this evidence at any point in his life?
Friday, August 31, 2007
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Why secularists call Adams and Madison Universalists is incorrect...again
"All of the Founders Sali invokes were syncretic universalists who believed many or all world religions were valid ways to God."
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/08/how-the-christian-nation-thesis-hurts-religious-conservativesagain.html
Let us examine if this statement conforms to the evidence. Quoting the Founding Fathers on their religious beliefs MUST BE WHILE THEY FORMED THE GOVERNMENT. The beliefs after these men left office is irrelevant as it has no effect on the nation. This is definitely the situation with John Adams, as any secularist will be hard pressed to find any quotes by him affirming universalism before he left office. The nearest example of Adams portraying a universalist is in 1794:
"To him who believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all powerful Will, discovered by Reason."-- John Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, March 19, 1794. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 377, Library of Congress. Seen in James H. Hutson's, "The Founders on Religion," p. 132.
I have yet to find the access to this quote affirming its reliability, as it is not in the Adams papers, nor does it speak of universalism, but only that God's law can be found from man's conscience, it does not affirm that he believed reason is superior to revelation.
The writings from John Adams indicate he was a Christian Unitarian while helping to form the United States. John Adams believed the Bible was the Word of God, and ONLY the God of Israel is the Law of Nature:
My Religion you know is not exactly conformable to that of the greatest Part of the Christian World. It excludes superstition. But with all the superstition that attends it, I think the Christian the best that is or has been. I would join with those who wish ecclesiastical Tyranny abolished, and the frauds of the Priesthood detested: But in this Country We have little of this. If my feeble Testimony has done any good, rejoice and have my reward.
John Adams to Abigail Adams JAN 28,1799.
Adams believed Christianity the true religion, with superstition obviously the Roman Catholicism he despised. The wickedness of the Romish clergy throughout the centuries is well documented:
"Numberless have been the systems of iniquity The most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the mind of man was framed by the Romish clergy for the aggrandizement of their own Order They even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure ... with authority to license all sorts of sins and Crimes ... or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; nay, with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine the flesh and blood of God himself.
All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude....Of all the nonsense and delusion which had ever passed through the mind of man, none had ever been more extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters, uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas, derived from the canon law, which had thrown such a glare of mystery, sanctity, reverence, and right reverend eminence and holiness around the idea of a priest as no mortal could deserve ... the ridiculous fancies of sanctified effluvia from episcopal fingers."
John Adams, "A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law," printed in the Boston Gazette, August 1765
Prior to his renewed relationship with Thomas Jefferson, he(along with Joseph Priestley) never doubted the miraculous, or that reason superceded revelation, but quite the contrary:
"Thus we are equally obliged to the Supream Being for the Information he has given us of our Duty, whether by the Constitution of our Minds and Bodies or by a supernatural Revelation. For an instance of the latter let us take original sin. Some say that Adams sin was enough to damn the whole human Race, without any actual Crimes committed by any of them. Now this Guiltis brought upon them not by their own rashness and Indiscretion, not by their own Wickedness and Vice, but by the Supream Being. This Guilt brought upon us is a real Injury and Misfortune because it renders us worse than not to be, and therefore making us guilty upon account of Adams Delegation, or Representing all of us, is not in the least diminishing the Injury and Injustice but only changing the mode of conveyance."
John Adams diary August 15, 1756.
The great and almighty Author of nature, who at first established those rules which regulate the World, can as easily Suspend those Laws whenever his providence sees sufficient reason for such suspension. This can be no objection, then, to the miracles of J [Jesus] C [Christ]. Altho' some very thoughtfull, and contemplative men among the heathen, attained a strong persuasion of the great Principles of Religion, yet the far greater number having little time for speculation, gradually sunk in to the grossest Opinions and the grossest Practices.
John Adams diary March 2, 1756
http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=D1&numrecs=6&archive=all&hi=on&mode=&query=%20MARCH%202%2C%201756&queryid=&rec=2&start=1&tag=text#firstmatch
Adams also believed in eternal judgment while forming the nation:
[S]uch compliances [compromises]...of my honor, my conscience, my friends, my country, my God, as the Scriptures inform us must be punished with nothing less than hell-fire, eternal torment; and this is so unequal a price to pay for the honors and emoluments [profits from government]...The duration of future punishment terrifies me. If I could but deceive myself so far as to think eternity a moment only, I could comply and be promoted."
John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1850), Vol II, p. 294, diary entry for February 9, 1772.
His mentor in Unitarianism, Joseph Priestley believed the same:
"All of these things being considered, it appears to me that no facts in the whole compass of history, are so well authenticated as those of the miracles, the death, and the resurrection of Christ, and also what is related of the Apostles in the book of Acts.
Joseph Priestley, Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever, Part Two (Birmingham, 1787)
Adams, along with Priestley, only rejected the person of Jesus Christ as God, but in no way was Adams a rationalist or universalist while serving the United States.
I challenge any secularist to find any of John Adams' writings affirming universalism while he was in office! John Adams became a universalist while unwisely rekindling his relationship with the infidel Thomas Jefferson.
Neither was James Madison a universalist while he helped form this nation:
"To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence.
Memorial and Remonstrance 1785
This miraculous aid is the aid God provided to the early church, as recorded in the Book of Acts. Paul and Peter raising people from the dead, Peter and John healing a lame man, Peter striking dead Ananias and Sapphira with his words, sudden earthquakes, and many other supernatural events like prison locks automatically opening to free the Apostle Paul.
Madison, likewise, referred to God as “The Great Spirit” when speaking to unconverted Indians.>>
Madison made the statement about "The Great Spirit" in 1812, after he helped form the nation, showing it is irrelevant to the discussion, as well as showing again what happens to a Christian man who allow an infidel like Thomas Jefferson to influence their beliefs.
"It’s not Christianity, or even “Judeo-Christianity” that is America’s implicit public religion. Rather America’s Founding political theology is theistic rationalism which prefers to speak of God in generic philosophical terms and encompasses religions outside of the “Judeo-Christian” tradition like Islam, Hinduism, Native American and pagan Greco-Roman spirituality."
This statement is so false, and contrary to established fact, it's amazing some secularists continue to say it.
Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated: There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other. Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)
Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated: Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.” That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]
Constitution of the State of New Hampshire (1784,1792), required senators and representatives to be of the: Protestant religion. (in force until 1877)The Constitution stipulated: Article I, Section VI. And every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good citizens of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the laws. And no subordination of any one sect of denomination to another, shall ever be established by law. [p.469]Constitution of the State of Vermont (1786), stated: Frame of Government, Section 9. And each member [of the Legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: “I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scripture of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the [Christian] religion. And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.” [p.623]
The Constitution of the State of Delaware (until 1792) stated: Article XXII Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust… shall… make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:“I, _______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.” [p.203]
It is obvious what the religion of the framers was, and the evidence of this fact is conclusive.
I do believe the evidence suggests Washington and Franklin were universalists. This leaves two men to support their revisionist dogma. Secularists, please provide some evidence that Thomas Jefferson was a universalist before he left office. Calling John Adams, and James Madison universalists, is neglecting the overwhelming evidence. More of the actual key founders: Rufus King, Samuel Adams, John Jay, John Quincy Adams, George Mason, Elias Boudinot, and Roger Sherman were born again Christians.
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/08/how-the-christian-nation-thesis-hurts-religious-conservativesagain.html
Let us examine if this statement conforms to the evidence. Quoting the Founding Fathers on their religious beliefs MUST BE WHILE THEY FORMED THE GOVERNMENT. The beliefs after these men left office is irrelevant as it has no effect on the nation. This is definitely the situation with John Adams, as any secularist will be hard pressed to find any quotes by him affirming universalism before he left office. The nearest example of Adams portraying a universalist is in 1794:
"To him who believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all powerful Will, discovered by Reason."-- John Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, March 19, 1794. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 377, Library of Congress. Seen in James H. Hutson's, "The Founders on Religion," p. 132.
I have yet to find the access to this quote affirming its reliability, as it is not in the Adams papers, nor does it speak of universalism, but only that God's law can be found from man's conscience, it does not affirm that he believed reason is superior to revelation.
The writings from John Adams indicate he was a Christian Unitarian while helping to form the United States. John Adams believed the Bible was the Word of God, and ONLY the God of Israel is the Law of Nature:
My Religion you know is not exactly conformable to that of the greatest Part of the Christian World. It excludes superstition. But with all the superstition that attends it, I think the Christian the best that is or has been. I would join with those who wish ecclesiastical Tyranny abolished, and the frauds of the Priesthood detested: But in this Country We have little of this. If my feeble Testimony has done any good, rejoice and have my reward.
John Adams to Abigail Adams JAN 28,1799.
Adams believed Christianity the true religion, with superstition obviously the Roman Catholicism he despised. The wickedness of the Romish clergy throughout the centuries is well documented:
"Numberless have been the systems of iniquity The most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the mind of man was framed by the Romish clergy for the aggrandizement of their own Order They even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure ... with authority to license all sorts of sins and Crimes ... or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; nay, with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine the flesh and blood of God himself.
All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude....Of all the nonsense and delusion which had ever passed through the mind of man, none had ever been more extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters, uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas, derived from the canon law, which had thrown such a glare of mystery, sanctity, reverence, and right reverend eminence and holiness around the idea of a priest as no mortal could deserve ... the ridiculous fancies of sanctified effluvia from episcopal fingers."
John Adams, "A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law," printed in the Boston Gazette, August 1765
Prior to his renewed relationship with Thomas Jefferson, he(along with Joseph Priestley) never doubted the miraculous, or that reason superceded revelation, but quite the contrary:
"Thus we are equally obliged to the Supream Being for the Information he has given us of our Duty, whether by the Constitution of our Minds and Bodies or by a supernatural Revelation. For an instance of the latter let us take original sin. Some say that Adams sin was enough to damn the whole human Race, without any actual Crimes committed by any of them. Now this Guiltis brought upon them not by their own rashness and Indiscretion, not by their own Wickedness and Vice, but by the Supream Being. This Guilt brought upon us is a real Injury and Misfortune because it renders us worse than not to be, and therefore making us guilty upon account of Adams Delegation, or Representing all of us, is not in the least diminishing the Injury and Injustice but only changing the mode of conveyance."
John Adams diary August 15, 1756.
The great and almighty Author of nature, who at first established those rules which regulate the World, can as easily Suspend those Laws whenever his providence sees sufficient reason for such suspension. This can be no objection, then, to the miracles of J [Jesus] C [Christ]. Altho' some very thoughtfull, and contemplative men among the heathen, attained a strong persuasion of the great Principles of Religion, yet the far greater number having little time for speculation, gradually sunk in to the grossest Opinions and the grossest Practices.
John Adams diary March 2, 1756
http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=D1&numrecs=6&archive=all&hi=on&mode=&query=%20MARCH%202%2C%201756&queryid=&rec=2&start=1&tag=text#firstmatch
Adams also believed in eternal judgment while forming the nation:
[S]uch compliances [compromises]...of my honor, my conscience, my friends, my country, my God, as the Scriptures inform us must be punished with nothing less than hell-fire, eternal torment; and this is so unequal a price to pay for the honors and emoluments [profits from government]...The duration of future punishment terrifies me. If I could but deceive myself so far as to think eternity a moment only, I could comply and be promoted."
John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1850), Vol II, p. 294, diary entry for February 9, 1772.
His mentor in Unitarianism, Joseph Priestley believed the same:
"All of these things being considered, it appears to me that no facts in the whole compass of history, are so well authenticated as those of the miracles, the death, and the resurrection of Christ, and also what is related of the Apostles in the book of Acts.
Joseph Priestley, Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever, Part Two (Birmingham, 1787)
Adams, along with Priestley, only rejected the person of Jesus Christ as God, but in no way was Adams a rationalist or universalist while serving the United States.
I challenge any secularist to find any of John Adams' writings affirming universalism while he was in office! John Adams became a universalist while unwisely rekindling his relationship with the infidel Thomas Jefferson.
Neither was James Madison a universalist while he helped form this nation:
"To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence.
Memorial and Remonstrance 1785
This miraculous aid is the aid God provided to the early church, as recorded in the Book of Acts. Paul and Peter raising people from the dead, Peter and John healing a lame man, Peter striking dead Ananias and Sapphira with his words, sudden earthquakes, and many other supernatural events like prison locks automatically opening to free the Apostle Paul.
Madison, likewise, referred to God as “The Great Spirit” when speaking to unconverted Indians.>>
Madison made the statement about "The Great Spirit" in 1812, after he helped form the nation, showing it is irrelevant to the discussion, as well as showing again what happens to a Christian man who allow an infidel like Thomas Jefferson to influence their beliefs.
"It’s not Christianity, or even “Judeo-Christianity” that is America’s implicit public religion. Rather America’s Founding political theology is theistic rationalism which prefers to speak of God in generic philosophical terms and encompasses religions outside of the “Judeo-Christian” tradition like Islam, Hinduism, Native American and pagan Greco-Roman spirituality."
This statement is so false, and contrary to established fact, it's amazing some secularists continue to say it.
Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated: There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other. Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)
Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated: Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.” That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]
Constitution of the State of New Hampshire (1784,1792), required senators and representatives to be of the: Protestant religion. (in force until 1877)The Constitution stipulated: Article I, Section VI. And every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good citizens of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the laws. And no subordination of any one sect of denomination to another, shall ever be established by law. [p.469]Constitution of the State of Vermont (1786), stated: Frame of Government, Section 9. And each member [of the Legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: “I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scripture of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the [Christian] religion. And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.” [p.623]
The Constitution of the State of Delaware (until 1792) stated: Article XXII Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust… shall… make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:“I, _______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.” [p.203]
It is obvious what the religion of the framers was, and the evidence of this fact is conclusive.
I do believe the evidence suggests Washington and Franklin were universalists. This leaves two men to support their revisionist dogma. Secularists, please provide some evidence that Thomas Jefferson was a universalist before he left office. Calling John Adams, and James Madison universalists, is neglecting the overwhelming evidence. More of the actual key founders: Rufus King, Samuel Adams, John Jay, John Quincy Adams, George Mason, Elias Boudinot, and Roger Sherman were born again Christians.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Due Credit to Other Founding Fathers
Most of the Founding Fathers, if not all, were in agreement on the Law of Nature,(state of nature) being from the same source, the Bible. In agreement are Born Again Christian "key founders" like: Father of the Bill of Rights George Mason, Author of the House Language of the First Amendment Fisher Ames, Chairman of the House Drafting Committee for the First Amendment Elias Boudinot, Bill of Rights and Constitution Ratifier, Senator Rufus King, Father of the Revolution Samuel Adams, and the First Supreme Court Justice John Jay of New York. How could secular progressives not list Samuel Adams as a key founder? He was most responsible for starting rebellion against England, organizing the Boston Tea Party, Ratifying the Constitution, A Signer of the Declaration of Independence, and helped frame the Articles of Confederation.
It is obvious they have an agenda to suppress the Christian foundation of the United States. Could it be the rest of the framers have different views than Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison on certain issues? From the design of our government(Representative Government, mentioned in Ex 18:21), to separation of church and state, why would the minority view be more authoritative than the majority view? Who they are should be irrelevant since James Madison believed the most important framers were the ones who ratified instruments. Jefferson, it seems, would agree with Madison, that the "key founders" label is incorrect. Being President, or holding an office is irrelevant to who the "key founders" are according to James Madison.
James Monroe believed George Washington was the key to the Constitution, and Madison was initially against a Bill of Rights, until he realized he was on the losing side of the issue. I disagree James Madison is the Father of the Constitution. Even he admitted such:
“Dear Sir,–Your letter of the 18th Ult. was duly received. You give me a credit to which I have no claim, in calling me ” the writer of the Constitution of the U. S.” This was not, like the fabled Goddess of Wisdom, the offspring of a single brain. It ought to be regarded as the work of many heads & many hands."-TO WILLIAM COGSWELL. … MAD. MSS.Montpellier, March 10, 1834.
It is more logical to call Madison one of the distinguished founders, who played a large role in forming the Constitution, rather than claiming he is the Father, or author of the Constitution. How could Madison be the Father of the Constitution, when his idea of it was not most beneficial, and without acceptance from men like: George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Edmund Randolph? There is no legitimate spokesman for the Constitution.
It is obvious they have an agenda to suppress the Christian foundation of the United States. Could it be the rest of the framers have different views than Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison on certain issues? From the design of our government(Representative Government, mentioned in Ex 18:21), to separation of church and state, why would the minority view be more authoritative than the majority view? Who they are should be irrelevant since James Madison believed the most important framers were the ones who ratified instruments. Jefferson, it seems, would agree with Madison, that the "key founders" label is incorrect. Being President, or holding an office is irrelevant to who the "key founders" are according to James Madison.
James Monroe believed George Washington was the key to the Constitution, and Madison was initially against a Bill of Rights, until he realized he was on the losing side of the issue. I disagree James Madison is the Father of the Constitution. Even he admitted such:
“Dear Sir,–Your letter of the 18th Ult. was duly received. You give me a credit to which I have no claim, in calling me ” the writer of the Constitution of the U. S.” This was not, like the fabled Goddess of Wisdom, the offspring of a single brain. It ought to be regarded as the work of many heads & many hands."-TO WILLIAM COGSWELL. … MAD. MSS.Montpellier, March 10, 1834.
It is more logical to call Madison one of the distinguished founders, who played a large role in forming the Constitution, rather than claiming he is the Father, or author of the Constitution. How could Madison be the Father of the Constitution, when his idea of it was not most beneficial, and without acceptance from men like: George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Edmund Randolph? There is no legitimate spokesman for the Constitution.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
A good example of the intolerance of Liberalism...again:
Ed Brayton at his blog, and other secular progressives(positive liberty) make their living attacking anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with their views, calling them ignorant, nutball, etc. But they aren't the only ones, there are many liberal blogs that hate. The hatred for George Bush is an example. Most hard core liberals do not just disagree with Bush's policies, they despise everything about him. This is liberalism to the core, intolerance for any viewpoint contrary to their own, but yet they love to label conservatives bigotted, intolerant, etc., when they are the true bigots! I do not agree with the Presidents policies, nor do I hate him like liberals do, or believe he is a true Christian. There are some people on their websites that do wish evil upon George Bush, I don't ever recall conservatives acting like this to Bill Clinton.
An example on Ed Brayton's blog:
I'm afraid I've tired of Mr. Goswick's ignorant ravings already. We banned him from Positive Liberty (the only one ever banned from there, I might add) and his performance will be no less irritating here. He has his own blog, which I've linked to; let him rant there.
Posted by: Ed Brayton August 13, 2007 08:36 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/08/the_irony_of_david_barton.php#commentsArea
Mr. Brayton, obviously thinks the Founding Fathers ignorant as well, since it is their quotes that bring out his anger, rejecting the obvious will of the Framers to promote his revisionist agenda. There are hundreds of the framers' quotes affiming religion, and morality the foundation of Republican Government, with the religion being Christianity is beyond dispute. Only dishonest liberals reject the United States WAS formed a nation of Christian states, for the state constitutions, besides Virginia, and Pennsylvania mandated Christianity as the religion of their states. It's a wonder I was the only person banned at positive liberty, with the Gospel the most irritating to them.
More hate from Brayton and his blog, this seems a daily occurance:
I hate Carman. Hate him, hate him, hate him. He makes my skin crawl. You simply can't get more fake and ridiculous. He makes Jan Crouch look credible by comparison.
Posted by: Ed Brayton August 11, 2007 07:23 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/08/robert_obrien_trophy_winner_al_1.php
It sounds like Brayton has an issue with a guy named Carman. I doubt Carman hates him. Mr. Brayton should know, hate is a strong word. Jesus said to hate your brother is committing murder in your heart.
The Postive Liberty blog is no exception to intolerance:
# Jason Kuznicki on 18 Jun 2007 at 5:23 pm
James Goswick wrote,
really and truly believe that people should be put to death for loving another person of the same sex?>>
I’m only affirming what the Creator has ordained.
To which I reply,
If someone appeared at my doorstep pushing this line, I’d tell him to get lost. If he didn’t leave, I’d close the door in his face. If he still didn’t leave, I’d call the cops. A blog is just the same, and you are no longer welcome here, Mr. Goswick. You can’t say I didn’t warn you, either. Further posts by you will be deleted.
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/06/let-maryland-be-next.html#comments
Notice this, not only did he ban me, but he is actually banning EVERY Founding Father that gave him the right to ban someone. Consider why he would ban the Founding Fathers from his website. Most likely he would persecute, our Framers for executing justice of biblical law, of which he would be a victim:
That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. CONNECTICUT
The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1808), Book I, p. 295.
[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods. SOUTH CAROLINA
Alphabetical Digest of the Public Statute Laws of South-Carolina (Charleston: John Hoff, 1814), Vol. I, p. 99.
That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death. VERMONT
Statutes of the State of Vermont (Bennington, 1791), p. 74.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101
These statutes, one, declare matters of religion, and morality for the most part, are reserved to the states, and two, their morality was based on the bible, enforcing the belief our Republican government is based on biblical natural law, not the law of reason, or any other law. The conscience inside man does not repeat word for word Lev 20:13, for the prohibition and penalty of homosexuality. This is another proof reason does not refer to the Divine Law.
Some quotes from the Framers on religion and morality mandatory for government:
We have no government armed with 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, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, dated October 11, 1798.
Adams similarly explained:
Statesmen, my dear sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.
Ibid, Vol. IX, p. 401, dated June 21, 1776.
Of all the dispositions and habits which leads to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity [happiness]. Let it simply be asked, "Where is the security for property, for reputation for life, if the sense of religious obligations desert . . . ?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. 'Tis substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it [free government] can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
George Washington
Address of George Washington . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: Christopher Jackson, 1796), pp. 22-24.
It is sad to think what these people would do to George Washington, yet alone Jesus Christ.
An example on Ed Brayton's blog:
I'm afraid I've tired of Mr. Goswick's ignorant ravings already. We banned him from Positive Liberty (the only one ever banned from there, I might add) and his performance will be no less irritating here. He has his own blog, which I've linked to; let him rant there.
Posted by: Ed Brayton August 13, 2007 08:36 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/08/the_irony_of_david_barton.php#commentsArea
Mr. Brayton, obviously thinks the Founding Fathers ignorant as well, since it is their quotes that bring out his anger, rejecting the obvious will of the Framers to promote his revisionist agenda. There are hundreds of the framers' quotes affiming religion, and morality the foundation of Republican Government, with the religion being Christianity is beyond dispute. Only dishonest liberals reject the United States WAS formed a nation of Christian states, for the state constitutions, besides Virginia, and Pennsylvania mandated Christianity as the religion of their states. It's a wonder I was the only person banned at positive liberty, with the Gospel the most irritating to them.
More hate from Brayton and his blog, this seems a daily occurance:
I hate Carman. Hate him, hate him, hate him. He makes my skin crawl. You simply can't get more fake and ridiculous. He makes Jan Crouch look credible by comparison.
Posted by: Ed Brayton August 11, 2007 07:23 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/08/robert_obrien_trophy_winner_al_1.php
It sounds like Brayton has an issue with a guy named Carman. I doubt Carman hates him. Mr. Brayton should know, hate is a strong word. Jesus said to hate your brother is committing murder in your heart.
The Postive Liberty blog is no exception to intolerance:
# Jason Kuznicki on 18 Jun 2007 at 5:23 pm
James Goswick wrote,
really and truly believe that people should be put to death for loving another person of the same sex?>>
I’m only affirming what the Creator has ordained.
To which I reply,
If someone appeared at my doorstep pushing this line, I’d tell him to get lost. If he didn’t leave, I’d close the door in his face. If he still didn’t leave, I’d call the cops. A blog is just the same, and you are no longer welcome here, Mr. Goswick. You can’t say I didn’t warn you, either. Further posts by you will be deleted.
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/06/let-maryland-be-next.html#comments
Notice this, not only did he ban me, but he is actually banning EVERY Founding Father that gave him the right to ban someone. Consider why he would ban the Founding Fathers from his website. Most likely he would persecute, our Framers for executing justice of biblical law, of which he would be a victim:
That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. CONNECTICUT
The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1808), Book I, p. 295.
[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods. SOUTH CAROLINA
Alphabetical Digest of the Public Statute Laws of South-Carolina (Charleston: John Hoff, 1814), Vol. I, p. 99.
That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death. VERMONT
Statutes of the State of Vermont (Bennington, 1791), p. 74.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101
These statutes, one, declare matters of religion, and morality for the most part, are reserved to the states, and two, their morality was based on the bible, enforcing the belief our Republican government is based on biblical natural law, not the law of reason, or any other law. The conscience inside man does not repeat word for word Lev 20:13, for the prohibition and penalty of homosexuality. This is another proof reason does not refer to the Divine Law.
Some quotes from the Framers on religion and morality mandatory for government:
We have no government armed with 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, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, dated October 11, 1798.
Adams similarly explained:
Statesmen, my dear sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.
Ibid, Vol. IX, p. 401, dated June 21, 1776.
Of all the dispositions and habits which leads to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity [happiness]. Let it simply be asked, "Where is the security for property, for reputation for life, if the sense of religious obligations desert . . . ?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. 'Tis substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it [free government] can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
George Washington
Address of George Washington . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: Christopher Jackson, 1796), pp. 22-24.
It is sad to think what these people would do to George Washington, yet alone Jesus Christ.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Deceit of the "key founders" doctine...again:
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Jon Rowe continues to believe the distortion of five people whose beliefs are to be the only beliefs the two hundred-fifty Founding Fathers of the United States had, as well as being the only relevant view. Initially, this sounds incredible, but people actually believe this doctrine, neglecting the will of the most important framers, the men who ratified the founding documents. The views of James Madison:
He believed, as he repeatedly affirmed, that the meaning of a statute must be sought in the intentions of those who ratified it, not of those who drafted it--in the case of the First Amendment in the minds of the members of the state legislatures, not of the members of the First Federal Congress.James Hutson-Library of Congresshttp://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-paper.htm
Doesn't common sense say the "key founders" should be the people who ratify a doctrine, the Constitution, etc? Is James Madison correct or no?
the chief architect of the Constitution (Madison)>>
http://www.positiveliberty.com/index.php
Explain how is Madison the chief architect? He isn't.
the author of the Declaration (Jefferson)>>
Jefferson wrote the rough draft, the principles of which were already known by Congress according to John Adams. Explain how and why Jefferson is the author? He isn't.
and the majority of the drafting board of the Declaration (Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson).>>
Jefferson called himself a Christian, where is the evidence he believed God was every religions god? Adams was a Christian while forming the nation:
But still I dread the Consequences...of my Honour, my Conscience, my Friends, my Country, my God, as the Scriptures inform us must be punished with nothing less than Hell Fire, eternal Torment. And this is so unequal a Price to pay for the Honours and Emoluments in the Power of a Minister or Governor, that I cannot prevail upon myself to think of it. The Duration of future Punishment terrifies me. If I could but deceive myself so far as to think Eternity a Moment only, I could comply, and be promoted.
http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=D16
Gregg Frazer adds Hamilton, Wilson, and G. Morris as theistic rationalists.>>
It seems the poster agrees with Frazer but what do these people have to say about the label? Alexander Hamilton was not a theistic rationalist! (emphasis added)
Alexander Hamilton wrote most likely in 1790-94 after the French Revolution: Opinions, for along time, have been gradually gaining ground, which threatens the foundations of religion, morality and society. An attack was first made upon the Christian revelation; for which natural religion was offered as the substitute. The Gospel was to be discarded as a gross imposture; but the being and attributes of a GOD, the obligations of piety, even the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments were to be retained and cherished.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1385&chapter=92676&layout=html
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.
http://books.google.com/books?id=y1_R-rjdcb0C&pg=PA660&lpg=PA660&dq=have+carefully+examined+the+evidences+of+the+by+hamilton&source=web&ots=TsmAYliko9&sig=tOOp2kl0c5OnO_ONpNNnSOSgNrg
http://www.faithofourfathers.net/hamilton.html
He posts no references regarding Wilson and Morris.
But what does it then say that when Washington, Madison, G. Morris, Hamilton, and Wilson talked about God, they purposefully did so in such a vague and generic way that you couldn’t distinguish their creed from either the orthodox Christians’ or the theistic rationalists’ like Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin?>>
The Born Again Christian framers spoke in those terms, all of them did.
and when it was widely known that many in elite Whig circles secretly trafficked in “infidel principles.”]>>
References please, for all the states.
Their systematic generic way of speaking about God certainly does nothing to forward the “Christian Nation” thesis as posited by Barton, Federer, and Kennedy.>>
It does if the born again Christians used the same terms. It shows that is the way they referred to God, no matter how they believed. The evidence is some of the terms are definitely biblical.
Regarding what the 200 and some odd Founding Fathers believed in as a whole, whether orthodox Christians or theistic rationalists constituted a statistical majority of the Founders is unknown>>
An absolute marvel! Consider what the ratifiers of the first amendment believed about religion:
Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated: There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other. Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)
In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]
Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated: Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.” That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]
The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated: The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion. Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.” Part I, Article III And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]
Constitution of the State of Vermont (1786), stated: Frame of Government, Section 9. And each member [of the Legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: “I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scripture of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the [Christian] religion. And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.” [p.623]
The Constitution of the State of Connecticut (until 1818), contained the wording: The People of this State… by the Providence of God… hath the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State… and forasmuch as the free fruition of such liberties and privileges as humanity, civility, and Christianity call for, as is due to every man in his place and proportion… hath ever been, and will be the tranquility and stability of Churches and Commonwealth; and the denial thereof, the disturbances, if not the ruin of both. [p.179]
The ratifiers make it clear, the First Amendment granted freedom of conscience but the establishment clause only referred to Christianity.
He believed, as he repeatedly affirmed, that the meaning of a statute must be sought in the intentions of those who ratified it, not of those who drafted it--in the case of the First Amendment in the minds of the members of the state legislatures, not of the members of the First Federal Congress.James Hutson-Library of Congresshttp://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-paper.htm
Doesn't common sense say the "key founders" should be the people who ratify a doctrine, the Constitution, etc? Is James Madison correct or no?
the chief architect of the Constitution (Madison)>>
http://www.positiveliberty.com/index.php
Explain how is Madison the chief architect? He isn't.
the author of the Declaration (Jefferson)>>
Jefferson wrote the rough draft, the principles of which were already known by Congress according to John Adams. Explain how and why Jefferson is the author? He isn't.
and the majority of the drafting board of the Declaration (Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson).>>
Jefferson called himself a Christian, where is the evidence he believed God was every religions god? Adams was a Christian while forming the nation:
But still I dread the Consequences...of my Honour, my Conscience, my Friends, my Country, my God, as the Scriptures inform us must be punished with nothing less than Hell Fire, eternal Torment. And this is so unequal a Price to pay for the Honours and Emoluments in the Power of a Minister or Governor, that I cannot prevail upon myself to think of it. The Duration of future Punishment terrifies me. If I could but deceive myself so far as to think Eternity a Moment only, I could comply, and be promoted.
http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=D16
Gregg Frazer adds Hamilton, Wilson, and G. Morris as theistic rationalists.>>
It seems the poster agrees with Frazer but what do these people have to say about the label? Alexander Hamilton was not a theistic rationalist! (emphasis added)
Alexander Hamilton wrote most likely in 1790-94 after the French Revolution: Opinions, for along time, have been gradually gaining ground, which threatens the foundations of religion, morality and society. An attack was first made upon the Christian revelation; for which natural religion was offered as the substitute. The Gospel was to be discarded as a gross imposture; but the being and attributes of a GOD, the obligations of piety, even the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments were to be retained and cherished.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1385&chapter=92676&layout=html
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.
http://books.google.com/books?id=y1_R-rjdcb0C&pg=PA660&lpg=PA660&dq=have+carefully+examined+the+evidences+of+the+by+hamilton&source=web&ots=TsmAYliko9&sig=tOOp2kl0c5OnO_ONpNNnSOSgNrg
http://www.faithofourfathers.net/hamilton.html
He posts no references regarding Wilson and Morris.
But what does it then say that when Washington, Madison, G. Morris, Hamilton, and Wilson talked about God, they purposefully did so in such a vague and generic way that you couldn’t distinguish their creed from either the orthodox Christians’ or the theistic rationalists’ like Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin?>>
The Born Again Christian framers spoke in those terms, all of them did.
and when it was widely known that many in elite Whig circles secretly trafficked in “infidel principles.”]>>
References please, for all the states.
Their systematic generic way of speaking about God certainly does nothing to forward the “Christian Nation” thesis as posited by Barton, Federer, and Kennedy.>>
It does if the born again Christians used the same terms. It shows that is the way they referred to God, no matter how they believed. The evidence is some of the terms are definitely biblical.
Regarding what the 200 and some odd Founding Fathers believed in as a whole, whether orthodox Christians or theistic rationalists constituted a statistical majority of the Founders is unknown>>
An absolute marvel! Consider what the ratifiers of the first amendment believed about religion:
Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated: There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other. Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)
In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]
Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated: Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.” That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]
The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated: The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion. Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.” Part I, Article III And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]
Constitution of the State of Vermont (1786), stated: Frame of Government, Section 9. And each member [of the Legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: “I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scripture of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the [Christian] religion. And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.” [p.623]
The Constitution of the State of Connecticut (until 1818), contained the wording: The People of this State… by the Providence of God… hath the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State… and forasmuch as the free fruition of such liberties and privileges as humanity, civility, and Christianity call for, as is due to every man in his place and proportion… hath ever been, and will be the tranquility and stability of Churches and Commonwealth; and the denial thereof, the disturbances, if not the ruin of both. [p.179]
The ratifiers make it clear, the First Amendment granted freedom of conscience but the establishment clause only referred to Christianity.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Rowe's incorrect view of The State of Nature...Again:
Positive Liberty's Jon Rowe, as well as the secular progressive movement continue to distort our Founding Father's view of the Law of Nature(State of Nature), by violating the Framers and Christian Philosophers' application of words. Rowe's latest post is incorrect because he attributes philosophical wordage, an abandonment of a biblical view.
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/08/the-state-of-nature.html#more-2623
ADDED UPDATE ON JOHN LOCKE, AUG 10, 2007.
John Locke was NOT an adherent of the enlightenment. He fought against it with his many treatises. The true enlightenment thinkers: Hume, Rousseau, Voltaire, etc. were the ones Locke, Blackstone, Grotius, Puffendorf, and Montesquieu rivaled with. The enlightenment thinkers were ones who denied the essentials of the faith, the supernatural, etc. Locke and the other Christian Philosophers did not deny essentials of the salvation of Christianity.
Until Rowe and the secular progressives understand this error, they will continue to misunderstand the Christian beliefs of the Founding Fathers. The framers used philosophical wordage, as well as the Born Again Christian founders:
And let us play the man for our God, and for the cities of our God; while we are using the means in our power, let us humbly commit our righteous cause to the great Lord of the Universe, who loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity... let us joyfully leave our concerns in the hands of him who raiseth up and pulleth down the empires and kingdoms of the world as he pleases; and with cheerful submission to his sovereign will, devoutly say: "Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labor of the olive shall fail, and the field shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls; yet we will rejoice in the Lord, we will joy in the God of our salvation."
John Hancock-Boston Massacre Oration. March 5th, 1774.
Rowe and secular progressives who deny John Locke's Christianity is a betrayal of truth and the promotion of revisionist history. Rowe and secular progressives do not understand Christianity, that's why they doubt John Locke's Christianity. The man was a Theologian, who studied the bible all day long! It's unbelievable how the secular progressive movement perverts the views of the Christian Philosophers. I dare one secular progressive to post the writings of John Locke clearly denying the the Trinity, and Deity of Jesus Christ! Denying original sin, and eternal damnation is not mandatory to be a Christian, as well as claiming someone is of the enlightenment or theistic rationalist leanings. As long as the essentials of Christianity are not violated, it is not heresy. If you read Locke's Second Vindication, you will see his reason for rejecting original sin is that he couldn't believe God would condemn babies who had prematurely died, and humans not attaining the age of accountability. Locke wrongfully assumed God will judge all humans based on original sin. God only judges people that are at the age of accountability. That is why King David believed he would again see his new born son that died, on account of his sin with Bathsheba.
Rowe wrongfully describes the Law of Nature and who the Founders attributed it to:
The idea of the state of nature traces to Hobbes. Though the form that our Founders embraced was Locke’s. This is important: Locke’s state of nature differed from Hobbes’ and provided the model our Founders followed when they declared independence; but the concept of the state of nature itself was nonetheless formulated by Hobbes.>>
The state of nature, which actually is encompassed in the Law of Nations, is derived from the Law of Nature-our Founding Fathers believed it was from God. The concept was understood from the scriptures through Christian Theologians. A Republican form of Government(ruled by law) is straight from the Bible, for it is God's Law that rules from elected representatives, rather than the perverted form of democracy, where Biblical law can be changed by the will of the majority. Under a Republic, murder will always be murder because the Bible says so. The United States is founded on the Religion and morality of the Bible, rather than the perverted liberal enlightenment principles, which attack, and pervert the Bible. A Republican form of Government is based on Deut 1:15-17,
"...made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes..."
This government can only last if the people are moral and virtuous, as the framer's claimed. and the majority rules doctrine, beyond the rule of law is consistent with the Law of Nature. Locke did not form any theories that were not already laid down in the Bible, the jury system of Common Law, and separation of powers is also in the Bible.
Here is another instance of Rowe perverting Christianity, and the views of John Locke:
Now, because Locke 1) has God take a central role in this theory, and 2) called himself a Christian and defended the Christian religion as “reasonable,” otherwise uninformed folks could easy confuse Locke’s teachings from his second treatise with authentically Christian principles. However, they are not...Just because Locke had God play a central role in his liberal democratic theory does not mean there is anything authentically biblical or Christian about Locke’s teachings.>>
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/08/the-state-of-nature.html#more-2623
It doesn't get anymore whacky than this. Because Locke didn't believe in original sin, Rowe uses this to twist Locke's views on Christianity. Denying original sin, or eternal damnation is not a product of the enlightenment or rationalism, it is what Locke wrongly thought the Bible taught. Rowe and the secular progressives need to study the scriptures more and understand original sin is not mandatory to be a Christian, but I doubt they will. There is no clear evidence, I repeat, there is no clear evidence that John Locke denied the Deity of Jesus Christ!
Again Rowe mistakenly assumes:
Just because Locke had God play a central role in his liberal democratic theory does not mean there is anything authentically biblical or Christian about Locke’s teachings.>>
It doesn't get anymore perverted than that statement! John Locke was a Christian Theologian, Yet so heavily did Locke draw from the Bible in developing his political theories that in his first treatise on government, he invoked the Bible in one thousand three hundred and forty nine references; in his second treatise, he cited it one hundred and fifty seven times.
How can so many references to the Bible in Locke's most famous political work be reconciled with the charge that his political philosophies were totally secular? or theistic.
In 1669, John Locke assisted in the drafting of the Carolina constitution under which no man could be a citizen unless he acknowledged God, was a member of a church, and used no “reproachful, reviling, or abusive language” against any religion.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=106
John Locke, A Collection of Several Pieces of Mr. John Locke Never Before Printed or Not Extant in His Works (London: J. Bettenham for R. Francklin, 1720), pp. 3, 41, 45, 46.
Locke went to seminary! How does this refer to secular philosophy?
It only gets worse folks, Rowe again:
And in doing so, arguably they invoked a different God — a benevolent unitarian deity — the God of the theistic rationalists, not the biblical God.>>
Locke's belief in miracles takes care of the theistic rationalist rant:
God only rarely uses miracles. "Though it be easy for omnipotent power to do all things by an immediate overruling will, and to make any instruments work even contrary to their nature, in subserviency to his ends, yet his wisdom is not usually at the expense of miracles . . . but only in cases that require them for the evidencing of some revelation or mission to be from him...If it were not so, the course and evidence of things would be confounded; miracles would lose their force and name; and there could be no distinction between natural and supernatural."
The Reasonableness of Christianity
The reason why Rowe and the secular progressives are so wrong on all the issues is because they do not understand Christianity and the Bible. This proves my point:
Orthodox Christians needed to rely on such an a-biblical Enlightenment system of thought because the Bible simply doesn’t speak to issues with which the Whig republicans were concerned (like a right to revolt).>>
It is in the Bible! Just find where it is and reconcile it. God affirms revolt over an unrighteous kingdom at the beginning of human history in Gen 14:14-20. A Theophany of Jesus Christ(Melchizidek) Priest of the Most High God affirms what Abram did. Righteous revolt over government is in the Bible countless times.
Even orthodox Christians like John Witherspoon, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry and John Jay were influenced by an a-biblical Enlightenment worldview, especially when they argued for republicanism.>>
None of those men denied the Deity of Jesus Christ, and believed the Bible was superior in all matters.
Jesus didn’t overturn one social institution. Not slavery, not any of the illiberal forms of government.>>
Was He supposed to? What was His mission? Is do unto others as you would have them do to you not anti-slavery?
And indeed, Paul instructs Christians, in Romans 13, in no uncertain terms, to obey an illiberal, undemocratic, unelected tyrant who never sought consent to rule over believers.>>
Another incorrect quote. It's amazing so many errors on one post. The context is to be a minster of God to thee for good. Only a just and righteous government has God's approval.
Overall, Rowe and the secular progressive movement are completely wrong about the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, John Locke, The Law of Nature, and practically everything they propose because they lack the true understanding of this universe through the Law of Nature's revelation, the Bible.
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/08/the-state-of-nature.html#more-2623
ADDED UPDATE ON JOHN LOCKE, AUG 10, 2007.
John Locke was NOT an adherent of the enlightenment. He fought against it with his many treatises. The true enlightenment thinkers: Hume, Rousseau, Voltaire, etc. were the ones Locke, Blackstone, Grotius, Puffendorf, and Montesquieu rivaled with. The enlightenment thinkers were ones who denied the essentials of the faith, the supernatural, etc. Locke and the other Christian Philosophers did not deny essentials of the salvation of Christianity.
Until Rowe and the secular progressives understand this error, they will continue to misunderstand the Christian beliefs of the Founding Fathers. The framers used philosophical wordage, as well as the Born Again Christian founders:
And let us play the man for our God, and for the cities of our God; while we are using the means in our power, let us humbly commit our righteous cause to the great Lord of the Universe, who loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity... let us joyfully leave our concerns in the hands of him who raiseth up and pulleth down the empires and kingdoms of the world as he pleases; and with cheerful submission to his sovereign will, devoutly say: "Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labor of the olive shall fail, and the field shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls; yet we will rejoice in the Lord, we will joy in the God of our salvation."
John Hancock-Boston Massacre Oration. March 5th, 1774.
Rowe and secular progressives who deny John Locke's Christianity is a betrayal of truth and the promotion of revisionist history. Rowe and secular progressives do not understand Christianity, that's why they doubt John Locke's Christianity. The man was a Theologian, who studied the bible all day long! It's unbelievable how the secular progressive movement perverts the views of the Christian Philosophers. I dare one secular progressive to post the writings of John Locke clearly denying the the Trinity, and Deity of Jesus Christ! Denying original sin, and eternal damnation is not mandatory to be a Christian, as well as claiming someone is of the enlightenment or theistic rationalist leanings. As long as the essentials of Christianity are not violated, it is not heresy. If you read Locke's Second Vindication, you will see his reason for rejecting original sin is that he couldn't believe God would condemn babies who had prematurely died, and humans not attaining the age of accountability. Locke wrongfully assumed God will judge all humans based on original sin. God only judges people that are at the age of accountability. That is why King David believed he would again see his new born son that died, on account of his sin with Bathsheba.
Rowe wrongfully describes the Law of Nature and who the Founders attributed it to:
The idea of the state of nature traces to Hobbes. Though the form that our Founders embraced was Locke’s. This is important: Locke’s state of nature differed from Hobbes’ and provided the model our Founders followed when they declared independence; but the concept of the state of nature itself was nonetheless formulated by Hobbes.>>
The state of nature, which actually is encompassed in the Law of Nations, is derived from the Law of Nature-our Founding Fathers believed it was from God. The concept was understood from the scriptures through Christian Theologians. A Republican form of Government(ruled by law) is straight from the Bible, for it is God's Law that rules from elected representatives, rather than the perverted form of democracy, where Biblical law can be changed by the will of the majority. Under a Republic, murder will always be murder because the Bible says so. The United States is founded on the Religion and morality of the Bible, rather than the perverted liberal enlightenment principles, which attack, and pervert the Bible. A Republican form of Government is based on Deut 1:15-17,
"...made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes..."
This government can only last if the people are moral and virtuous, as the framer's claimed. and the majority rules doctrine, beyond the rule of law is consistent with the Law of Nature. Locke did not form any theories that were not already laid down in the Bible, the jury system of Common Law, and separation of powers is also in the Bible.
Here is another instance of Rowe perverting Christianity, and the views of John Locke:
Now, because Locke 1) has God take a central role in this theory, and 2) called himself a Christian and defended the Christian religion as “reasonable,” otherwise uninformed folks could easy confuse Locke’s teachings from his second treatise with authentically Christian principles. However, they are not...Just because Locke had God play a central role in his liberal democratic theory does not mean there is anything authentically biblical or Christian about Locke’s teachings.>>
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/08/the-state-of-nature.html#more-2623
It doesn't get anymore whacky than this. Because Locke didn't believe in original sin, Rowe uses this to twist Locke's views on Christianity. Denying original sin, or eternal damnation is not a product of the enlightenment or rationalism, it is what Locke wrongly thought the Bible taught. Rowe and the secular progressives need to study the scriptures more and understand original sin is not mandatory to be a Christian, but I doubt they will. There is no clear evidence, I repeat, there is no clear evidence that John Locke denied the Deity of Jesus Christ!
Again Rowe mistakenly assumes:
Just because Locke had God play a central role in his liberal democratic theory does not mean there is anything authentically biblical or Christian about Locke’s teachings.>>
It doesn't get anymore perverted than that statement! John Locke was a Christian Theologian, Yet so heavily did Locke draw from the Bible in developing his political theories that in his first treatise on government, he invoked the Bible in one thousand three hundred and forty nine references; in his second treatise, he cited it one hundred and fifty seven times.
How can so many references to the Bible in Locke's most famous political work be reconciled with the charge that his political philosophies were totally secular? or theistic.
In 1669, John Locke assisted in the drafting of the Carolina constitution under which no man could be a citizen unless he acknowledged God, was a member of a church, and used no “reproachful, reviling, or abusive language” against any religion.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=106
John Locke, A Collection of Several Pieces of Mr. John Locke Never Before Printed or Not Extant in His Works (London: J. Bettenham for R. Francklin, 1720), pp. 3, 41, 45, 46.
Locke went to seminary! How does this refer to secular philosophy?
It only gets worse folks, Rowe again:
And in doing so, arguably they invoked a different God — a benevolent unitarian deity — the God of the theistic rationalists, not the biblical God.>>
Locke's belief in miracles takes care of the theistic rationalist rant:
God only rarely uses miracles. "Though it be easy for omnipotent power to do all things by an immediate overruling will, and to make any instruments work even contrary to their nature, in subserviency to his ends, yet his wisdom is not usually at the expense of miracles . . . but only in cases that require them for the evidencing of some revelation or mission to be from him...If it were not so, the course and evidence of things would be confounded; miracles would lose their force and name; and there could be no distinction between natural and supernatural."
The Reasonableness of Christianity
The reason why Rowe and the secular progressives are so wrong on all the issues is because they do not understand Christianity and the Bible. This proves my point:
Orthodox Christians needed to rely on such an a-biblical Enlightenment system of thought because the Bible simply doesn’t speak to issues with which the Whig republicans were concerned (like a right to revolt).>>
It is in the Bible! Just find where it is and reconcile it. God affirms revolt over an unrighteous kingdom at the beginning of human history in Gen 14:14-20. A Theophany of Jesus Christ(Melchizidek) Priest of the Most High God affirms what Abram did. Righteous revolt over government is in the Bible countless times.
Even orthodox Christians like John Witherspoon, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry and John Jay were influenced by an a-biblical Enlightenment worldview, especially when they argued for republicanism.>>
None of those men denied the Deity of Jesus Christ, and believed the Bible was superior in all matters.
Jesus didn’t overturn one social institution. Not slavery, not any of the illiberal forms of government.>>
Was He supposed to? What was His mission? Is do unto others as you would have them do to you not anti-slavery?
And indeed, Paul instructs Christians, in Romans 13, in no uncertain terms, to obey an illiberal, undemocratic, unelected tyrant who never sought consent to rule over believers.>>
Another incorrect quote. It's amazing so many errors on one post. The context is to be a minster of God to thee for good. Only a just and righteous government has God's approval.
Overall, Rowe and the secular progressive movement are completely wrong about the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, John Locke, The Law of Nature, and practically everything they propose because they lack the true understanding of this universe through the Law of Nature's revelation, the Bible.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Jon Rowe Betrays our Founders and Hindus...Again:
Jon Rowe, the secular progressive, attacks Judge Roy Moore for his correct statement about the Christian foundation of the United States, then posts this:
Hindus, like Christians claim to worship one God."
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html
Yes folks, the man, with his fellow secular progressives, continue to distort the Christian heritage of the United States as well as the Law of Nature, Separation of Church and State, the First Amendment, and now, if you can believe it, Hinduism.
The contradiction of Hinduism starts in their scriptures known as the Vedas. These Vedas are a mass of contradictions worthy of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. The last part of the Vedas teach pantheism, karmic retribution, and reincarnation-the Bhapavad-Gita seems monotheistic, contradicting the earlier vedas. The earlier vedas are:
"definitely pantheistic (all of existence is, in some way, divine) and perhaps even monistic (all of existence is one, whether any divinity exists at all).
Walter Martin, The Kindgom of the Cults. Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 55438. 1997, p. 388.
The Hare Chrishnas have promoted the monotheism of Hinduism, while others believe everything is god, and still others believe in a multitude of gods. Reincarnation, common to all Hindus-Rowe's comment that Hindus worship one god, is as accurate as the pagan catholics claiming the earth is flat! Hinduism is the epitome of contradiction, Hindus believing in a creator god, and others believing everything is god-this false religion is a disgrace to the Christian foundation of the United States Judge Roy Moore spoke about. Judge Moore's issue is with a pagan religion(prayer) in a nation founded on the precepts of the Bible.
Yes, the Law of Nature in the Declaration of Independence is the God of the Bible as the Christian Philosophers, and our Founding Fathers claimed.
[The] "Law of nature" is a role of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator and existing prior to any postive precept [human law]....These...have been established by the Creator and are, with a peculiar felicity of expression, denominated in Scripture, "ordinances of heaven."
Noah Webster(1758-1843) was among the first to call for the Constitutional Convention (1785)and was responsible for the copyright and patent protection clause found in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.
Oh, I forgot, only Rowe and secular progressives' "key founders" Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin, are the only ones that matter, or who can speak for the other two hundred fifty Founding Fathers.
Rowe's quotes is most likely from the ISKCON sect of Hinduism, where Krishna is supreme in the Godhead. To ISKCON, Jesus Christ is Krishna's son, but not the unique Son of God. The Hare Krishnas pick and choose parts of the bible just like Jefferson and Adams did.
I had to throw this quote in here showing how deceived Rowe and the secular progressives are about our Founding Fathers:
Completely wrong. If anything, the political theology of the Founding suggests the Founders granted religious freedom to all precisely because they believed all religions -- Muslims, Hindus, Native Americans, etc. -- worshipped the same God they did."
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html
When Rowe says this, he means only Jefferson and Adams can speak for the Framers, not the other two hundred framers, like Rufus King, who drafted the First Amendment, Drafted and Ratified the Constitution :
[In o]ur laws...by the oath which they prescribe, we appeal to the Supreme Being so to deal with us hereafter as we observe the obligation of our oaths. The Pagan world were and are without the mighty influence of this principle which is proclaimed in the Christian system."
Reports of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821, Assembled for the Purpose of Amending The Constitution of the State of New York (Albany: E. and E. Hosford, 1821), p. 575, Rufus King, October 30, 1821.
King, only Drafted and Ratified the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, but he isn't Jefferson, or Adams, so he shouldn't be quoted, and doesn't know what he's talking about! James Madison believed the "key founders" were those who ratified these documents like Rufus King:
He believed, as he repeatedly affirmed, that the meaning of a statute must be sought in the intentions of those who ratified it, not of those who drafted it--in the case of the First Amendment in the minds of the members of the state legislatures, not of the members of the First Federal Congress.
James Hutson-Library of Congress
http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-paper.htm
Madison seems to destroy the "key founders" of Rowe and the secular progressives, as well as their dogma of the First Amendment referring to any religion becoming the National Church. Rowe and the secular progressives can push their schemes all they want, but it's deceit. Rowe asks:
Why would the Biblical God grant men an unalienable right to break his commandments? Arguably, He wouldn't. Hence arguably, the rights granting "Nature's God" of the key Founders is not the Biblical God.>>
This is a perfect example of one who needs to study a lot more. Rowe is confusing the Old and New Testaments, the First Commandment ONLY applied to the theocracy of Israel, not the freedom of conscience embodied in the Christian Philosophers' Law of Nature. The Biblical God grants an unalienable right to break his commandments because this isn't Israel, and the United States is not a Theocracy. Religion is left to the States, and the key Founders' God is the Biblical God.
Rowe's final statement claims:
challenge Roy Moore or anyone sympathetic to his view to find one quotation from Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, or Franklin clearly expressing the belief that Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, or any non-Christians worship false Gods. (I'll give you a hint: They can't because they don't exist.)>>
Why should I try to find any quotes from anyone else, they aren't "key founders", so they do not matter.
Hindus, like Christians claim to worship one God."
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html
Yes folks, the man, with his fellow secular progressives, continue to distort the Christian heritage of the United States as well as the Law of Nature, Separation of Church and State, the First Amendment, and now, if you can believe it, Hinduism.
The contradiction of Hinduism starts in their scriptures known as the Vedas. These Vedas are a mass of contradictions worthy of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. The last part of the Vedas teach pantheism, karmic retribution, and reincarnation-the Bhapavad-Gita seems monotheistic, contradicting the earlier vedas. The earlier vedas are:
"definitely pantheistic (all of existence is, in some way, divine) and perhaps even monistic (all of existence is one, whether any divinity exists at all).
Walter Martin, The Kindgom of the Cults. Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 55438. 1997, p. 388.
The Hare Chrishnas have promoted the monotheism of Hinduism, while others believe everything is god, and still others believe in a multitude of gods. Reincarnation, common to all Hindus-Rowe's comment that Hindus worship one god, is as accurate as the pagan catholics claiming the earth is flat! Hinduism is the epitome of contradiction, Hindus believing in a creator god, and others believing everything is god-this false religion is a disgrace to the Christian foundation of the United States Judge Roy Moore spoke about. Judge Moore's issue is with a pagan religion(prayer) in a nation founded on the precepts of the Bible.
Yes, the Law of Nature in the Declaration of Independence is the God of the Bible as the Christian Philosophers, and our Founding Fathers claimed.
[The] "Law of nature" is a role of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator and existing prior to any postive precept [human law]....These...have been established by the Creator and are, with a peculiar felicity of expression, denominated in Scripture, "ordinances of heaven."
Noah Webster(1758-1843) was among the first to call for the Constitutional Convention (1785)and was responsible for the copyright and patent protection clause found in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.
Oh, I forgot, only Rowe and secular progressives' "key founders" Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin, are the only ones that matter, or who can speak for the other two hundred fifty Founding Fathers.
Rowe's quotes is most likely from the ISKCON sect of Hinduism, where Krishna is supreme in the Godhead. To ISKCON, Jesus Christ is Krishna's son, but not the unique Son of God. The Hare Krishnas pick and choose parts of the bible just like Jefferson and Adams did.
I had to throw this quote in here showing how deceived Rowe and the secular progressives are about our Founding Fathers:
Completely wrong. If anything, the political theology of the Founding suggests the Founders granted religious freedom to all precisely because they believed all religions -- Muslims, Hindus, Native Americans, etc. -- worshipped the same God they did."
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html
When Rowe says this, he means only Jefferson and Adams can speak for the Framers, not the other two hundred framers, like Rufus King, who drafted the First Amendment, Drafted and Ratified the Constitution :
[In o]ur laws...by the oath which they prescribe, we appeal to the Supreme Being so to deal with us hereafter as we observe the obligation of our oaths. The Pagan world were and are without the mighty influence of this principle which is proclaimed in the Christian system."
Reports of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821, Assembled for the Purpose of Amending The Constitution of the State of New York (Albany: E. and E. Hosford, 1821), p. 575, Rufus King, October 30, 1821.
King, only Drafted and Ratified the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, but he isn't Jefferson, or Adams, so he shouldn't be quoted, and doesn't know what he's talking about! James Madison believed the "key founders" were those who ratified these documents like Rufus King:
He believed, as he repeatedly affirmed, that the meaning of a statute must be sought in the intentions of those who ratified it, not of those who drafted it--in the case of the First Amendment in the minds of the members of the state legislatures, not of the members of the First Federal Congress.
James Hutson-Library of Congress
http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-paper.htm
Madison seems to destroy the "key founders" of Rowe and the secular progressives, as well as their dogma of the First Amendment referring to any religion becoming the National Church. Rowe and the secular progressives can push their schemes all they want, but it's deceit. Rowe asks:
Why would the Biblical God grant men an unalienable right to break his commandments? Arguably, He wouldn't. Hence arguably, the rights granting "Nature's God" of the key Founders is not the Biblical God.>>
This is a perfect example of one who needs to study a lot more. Rowe is confusing the Old and New Testaments, the First Commandment ONLY applied to the theocracy of Israel, not the freedom of conscience embodied in the Christian Philosophers' Law of Nature. The Biblical God grants an unalienable right to break his commandments because this isn't Israel, and the United States is not a Theocracy. Religion is left to the States, and the key Founders' God is the Biblical God.
Rowe's final statement claims:
challenge Roy Moore or anyone sympathetic to his view to find one quotation from Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, or Franklin clearly expressing the belief that Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, or any non-Christians worship false Gods. (I'll give you a hint: They can't because they don't exist.)>>
Why should I try to find any quotes from anyone else, they aren't "key founders", so they do not matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)