Having an intelligent debate on why the Founding Fathers formed Christian States is tough to come by these days. I have definitely learned my lesson posting on blogs. Ed Brayton's blog, Dispatch From The Culture Wars, posted an article about Chris Rodda and Rep. Randy Forbes' battle for the "Christian Heritage" resolutions. Although it isn't much of a fair debate, I tried to start a dialogue with Chris about my core defense of the Christian State Constitutions, which I believe is the best apologetic, however it never became a meaningful debate; the bloggers dismissed my posts without sufficiently refuting them with verbal attacks seen in a Martin Scorsese film.
I posted Maryland's State Constitution that prohibited a religious test, and established Christianity as the State Religion. Obviously, the religious test had to refer to only a Christian denominational test. Chris' response to the Christian State Constitutions was:
"So now all you need to do is explain why virtually all of the states admitted after the U.S. Constitution was written put the same "no religious test clause" in their state constitutions, many in exactly the same words as the U.S. Constitution. All of those states, writing brand new state constitutions, had a choice, and they chose to copy the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on religious tests and other guarantees of religious freedom."
Maryland's State Constitution, and the Christian religion established, along with most of the others states, was in effect years after the Constitution was ratified, so Chris, how does a religious test have any bearing when Maryland, et al. established Christianity? It obviously is consistent with a religious test.
Religion was left to the States, therefore, whatever the religion the majority of States established should determine what kind of religious country we were. If no religion was mentioned, I couldn't declare that, but if: Lord, Christian, Protestant, Christ, etc. are mentioned, it's indicative of what kind of establishment it is. Getting into other areas of debate such as: wording in the Constitution, Republican Government, etc. is meaningless. The fact that the majority of framers were not heterodox should quell the false assumption of what kind of Christianity was established.
Chris, on this basis alone, I would be happy to debate you. On what other basis could I proclaim the Nation was formed on Christianity?
Showing posts with label state constitutions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label state constitutions. Show all posts
Friday, July 31, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Orthodox Christianity Left To The States
Why was our nation formed on Orthodox Christian, and not heretical principles? First, Christianity was left to the States to practice as they wished, however, heterodox Christian principles were never a part of the incorporation of legal Christianity, neither in the State or Federal Documents; the heterodox were given freedom of conscience like everyone else, but their minority, at this time, had no inclusion in ANY founding government document.
The various State Constitutions were Orthodox in nature; the heterodox minority in Massachusetts were years away from the Dedham decision of 1820. The majority understood Unitarianism was not part of the Protestant Reformation, having been kicked to the curb by Luther and Calvin, and forever cast out by the Synod of Dort in 1619. Furthermore, the Reformation denounced all forms of Unitarianism, Arianism, and Socinianism, starting with the Gnostics, which were never considered Christian. The majority "Protestant" framers of Massachusetts understood their history. Yes, it's true, a Unitarian wrote most of the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, however John Adams is only one man, while the ratifiers of that Constitution are most important.
Notice the State Constitution of a Mid-Atlantic State where heterodoxy was a small minority, perhaps non-existent:
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) [bold face mine].
Not only were the vast majority of Founding Fathers Orthodox, the majority philosophers they studied were as well, including: Arminianist Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, Richard Hooker, Samuel de Puffendorf, and perhaps John Locke. Yes, Arminius believed in Total Depravity. His only beef with Calvin was free will.
It's true, Locke failed to espouse Church Creeds, or essentials, but so did the Apostles. At Pentecost, there was no Westminster Confession, only faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Clarification of Church Doctrine wasn't made until the 2nd to 3rd Centuries. Notice, Jared Sparks, the former President of Harvard, and his opinion of Locke's faith:
"And Locke must still be considered a Unitarian, till he can be proved a Trinitarian ; a task, which it is not likely you will soon undertake. At all events, he had no faith in the assemblage of articles which you denominate the essence of christianity, and without believing which, you say, no one can be called a Christian. His whole treatise on the Reasonableness of Christianity bears witness to this truth. For the leading object of that work is to show, that "the Gospel was written to induce men into a belief of this proposition, 'that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah,' which if they believed, they should have life."* He says nothing about total depravity, the atonement, the "sanctifying spirit of an Almighty Surety," nor any of your peculiar doctrines. Yet who has done more to elucidate the sacred Scriptures, or to prove the consistency and reasonableness of the religion of Jesus? Your rule, however, will take from him the Christian name."[bold face mine]
Sparks shows his understanding of Christian Theology. The Apostles had no assemblage of articles, and "without believing", has nothing to do with salvation, rather, it's the rejection of certain articles the indwelt Holy Spirit cannot affirm.
Did Locke have some unorthodox views regarding the unessential state of nature? Yes. Did he believe in inerrancy? Yes. Did he indirectly defend the Trinity? Yes. Furthermore, Locke could be a heretic, but more serious inquiry is needed to make a clear declaration as to John Locke's faith.
The various State Constitutions were Orthodox in nature; the heterodox minority in Massachusetts were years away from the Dedham decision of 1820. The majority understood Unitarianism was not part of the Protestant Reformation, having been kicked to the curb by Luther and Calvin, and forever cast out by the Synod of Dort in 1619. Furthermore, the Reformation denounced all forms of Unitarianism, Arianism, and Socinianism, starting with the Gnostics, which were never considered Christian. The majority "Protestant" framers of Massachusetts understood their history. Yes, it's true, a Unitarian wrote most of the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, however John Adams is only one man, while the ratifiers of that Constitution are most important.
Notice the State Constitution of a Mid-Atlantic State where heterodoxy was a small minority, perhaps non-existent:
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) [bold face mine].
Not only were the vast majority of Founding Fathers Orthodox, the majority philosophers they studied were as well, including: Arminianist Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, Richard Hooker, Samuel de Puffendorf, and perhaps John Locke. Yes, Arminius believed in Total Depravity. His only beef with Calvin was free will.
It's true, Locke failed to espouse Church Creeds, or essentials, but so did the Apostles. At Pentecost, there was no Westminster Confession, only faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Clarification of Church Doctrine wasn't made until the 2nd to 3rd Centuries. Notice, Jared Sparks, the former President of Harvard, and his opinion of Locke's faith:
"And Locke must still be considered a Unitarian, till he can be proved a Trinitarian ; a task, which it is not likely you will soon undertake. At all events, he had no faith in the assemblage of articles which you denominate the essence of christianity, and without believing which, you say, no one can be called a Christian. His whole treatise on the Reasonableness of Christianity bears witness to this truth. For the leading object of that work is to show, that "the Gospel was written to induce men into a belief of this proposition, 'that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah,' which if they believed, they should have life."* He says nothing about total depravity, the atonement, the "sanctifying spirit of an Almighty Surety," nor any of your peculiar doctrines. Yet who has done more to elucidate the sacred Scriptures, or to prove the consistency and reasonableness of the religion of Jesus? Your rule, however, will take from him the Christian name."[bold face mine]
Sparks shows his understanding of Christian Theology. The Apostles had no assemblage of articles, and "without believing", has nothing to do with salvation, rather, it's the rejection of certain articles the indwelt Holy Spirit cannot affirm.
Did Locke have some unorthodox views regarding the unessential state of nature? Yes. Did he believe in inerrancy? Yes. Did he indirectly defend the Trinity? Yes. Furthermore, Locke could be a heretic, but more serious inquiry is needed to make a clear declaration as to John Locke's faith.
Friday, February 13, 2009
What is Separation of Church and State Anyway?
Many, if not all Americans continue to believe and promote the false notion of Separation of Church and State. I understand this is taught at every level in the schools, the evidence of, the very elites of government and power believe. The separation dogma is infested on the blogosphere, including this recent post by judecowell, at his blog: Jude's Threshold. I have to mention this particular post since the blogger makes an assertion but provides no evidence for its support. Here is the jist of the post:
"Otherwise religious persecution wouldn’t have been long in coming which would have negated our basic tenet of ’separation of church and state’ which the Founding Fathers embedded within our freedom documents…not the exact words, mind you, but their wishes were made clear."
With that logic, I could say Hinduism is not embedded within our freedom documents, but their wishes were clear. Where is the talk of this separation doctrine at the Constitutional Convention, in the various State Ratifying Conventions, or in any of the ratifiers' writings?
Another blog of note is Faith in Public Life. They, like most everyone else, assume separation of church and state, but provide no support for it. This author is named Kristin. She wrote a post the other day as though separation of church and state is common knowledge. The recent stimulus by our government was the pretext to refer to the separation dogma:
"This is standard practice, not some assault on Christianity. Also, it's standard practice that sensibly rooted in our Constitution, which protects against the establishment of religion (which some people seem to forget)."
Not only does Kristin fail to provide any support for separation of church and state, the stimulus does discriminate against people of faith. Proponents of the Stimulus Bill could be trying to save money, but ultimately, it still is discrimination by exempting any monies for rennovating buildings that house religious worship. Christians are no doubt the target. On the same page as Kristin's article, former Vice President Al Gore supports separation of church and state in the schools. Contrary to Al Gore, the government, and media, the Founding Fathers mandated teaching the Bible in all schools, as well as spent tax dollars to promote Christianity to the Indians, et al. It is only recently that uninformed politicians have perverted the will of the Founding Fathers.
Inspired, at Journey of Cross and Quill posts the Father of American Medicine's: Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical by Benjamin Rush, a notable Founding Father. Will one day the American people be educated on the real definition of Separation of Church and State?
"Otherwise religious persecution wouldn’t have been long in coming which would have negated our basic tenet of ’separation of church and state’ which the Founding Fathers embedded within our freedom documents…not the exact words, mind you, but their wishes were made clear."
With that logic, I could say Hinduism is not embedded within our freedom documents, but their wishes were clear. Where is the talk of this separation doctrine at the Constitutional Convention, in the various State Ratifying Conventions, or in any of the ratifiers' writings?
Another blog of note is Faith in Public Life. They, like most everyone else, assume separation of church and state, but provide no support for it. This author is named Kristin. She wrote a post the other day as though separation of church and state is common knowledge. The recent stimulus by our government was the pretext to refer to the separation dogma:
"This is standard practice, not some assault on Christianity. Also, it's standard practice that sensibly rooted in our Constitution, which protects against the establishment of religion (which some people seem to forget)."
Not only does Kristin fail to provide any support for separation of church and state, the stimulus does discriminate against people of faith. Proponents of the Stimulus Bill could be trying to save money, but ultimately, it still is discrimination by exempting any monies for rennovating buildings that house religious worship. Christians are no doubt the target. On the same page as Kristin's article, former Vice President Al Gore supports separation of church and state in the schools. Contrary to Al Gore, the government, and media, the Founding Fathers mandated teaching the Bible in all schools, as well as spent tax dollars to promote Christianity to the Indians, et al. It is only recently that uninformed politicians have perverted the will of the Founding Fathers.
Inspired, at Journey of Cross and Quill posts the Father of American Medicine's: Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical by Benjamin Rush, a notable Founding Father. Will one day the American people be educated on the real definition of Separation of Church and State?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)