Message: 1
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 11:06:28 +0100
From: Graham Weeks <weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
Subject: Canada - a sad day.
http://www.globeandmail.ca/
--
Graham J Weeks M.R.Pharm.S.
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/
My homepage of quotations
http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
Our church
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/Christiansquoting Daily quotes
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/speeches_for_sale.htm My speech writing service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean.-- G.K. Chesterton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
Click
Here!
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ChaletKuyper-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 4 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Canada - a sad day.
From: "vinefigtree"
<Kevin4VFT@aol.com>
2. Re: Canada - a sad day.
From: Graham Weeks
<weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
3. Re: Canada - a sad day.
From: "vinefigtree"
<Kevin4VFT@aol.com>
4. Re: Canada - a sad day.
From: Graham Weeks
<weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 18:46:46 -0000
From: "vinefigtree" <Kevin4VFT@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Canada - a sad day.
--- In ChaletKuyper@y..., Graham Weeks <weeks-g@d...> wrote:
> http://www.globeandmail.ca/
> --
When I pull up this link I get the front page
with lots of links to lots of different stories.
Which one did you have in mind?
Kevin Craig
http://VFT.isCool.net/
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 22:03:02 +0100
From: Graham Weeks <weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Canada - a sad day.
>--- In ChaletKuyper@y..., Graham Weeks <weeks-g@d...> wrote:
>
>> http://www.globeandmail.ca/
>> --
>
>When I pull up this link I get the front page
>with lots of links to lots of different stories.
>Which one did you have in mind?
>
>
>
>Kevin Craig
The one about the court telling a RC school that they could not
prohibit a homosexual student from bringing a male partner to the
school prom.
--
Graham J Weeks M.R.Pharm.S.
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/
My homepage of quotations
http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
Our church
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/Christiansquoting Daily quotes
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/speeches_for_sale.htm My speech writing service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean.-- G.K. Chesterton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 06:49:55 -0000
From: "vinefigtree" <Kevin4VFT@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Canada - a sad day.
--- In ChaletKuyper@y..., Graham Weeks <weeks-g@d...> wrote:
>
> The one about the court telling a RC school that they could not
> prohibit a homosexual student from bringing a male partner to the
> school prom.
More than one article on the subject here:
http://www.globeandmail.ca/education
An interesting response is the one at the bottom
of the page:
http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate?
tf=tgam/common/FullStory.html&cf=tgam/common/FullStory.cfg&configFileL
oc=tgam/config&vg=BigAdVariableGenerator&date=20020511&dateOffset=&hub
=education&title=Education&cache_key=education¤t_row=6&start_row
=6&num_rows=1
It says:
Hanover, Ont. -- What an excellent decision by Mr. Justice Robert
MacKinnon to allow [homosexual student] Marc Hall to attend his high-
school prom. It boils down to being required to follow public rules
if you are accepting public funds. It's difficult to understand why
the Durham Catholic School Board can't see this almost axiomatic
principle.
Government money = government strings.
This is why not a few Christians oppose vouchers,
despite the good it is hoped they might do in
assaulting the government education monopoly.
Catholic schools have also had to compromise
their curriculum in many place because of the
government money they have accepted.
Of course, one wonders what "public rule" the writer
above has in mind. Is there a "public rule"
that says private organizations throwing a party
must invite whomever the government wants to invite
simply because the organization has received
something from the government? Even mail or
use of roads?
Did Kuyper contribute to this mess in small way
by accepting some kind of "pluralism" and failing
to advance a more self-conscious theocratic view?
Kevin Craig
http://VFT.isCool.net/
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 21:45:57 +0100
From: Graham Weeks <weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Canada - a sad day.
>
>
>Of course, one wonders what "public rule" the writer
>above has in mind. Is there a "public rule"
>that says private organizations throwing a party
>must invite whomever the government wants to invite
>simply because the organization has received
>something from the government? Even mail or
>use of roads?
>
>Did Kuyper contribute to this mess in small way
>by accepting some kind of "pluralism" and failing
>to advance a more self-conscious theocratic view?
>
>
>
>Kevin Craig
>http://VFT.isCool.net/
I do not think this is an example of any kind of pluralism but of the
absolute intolerance of the humanistic state.
--
Graham J Weeks M.R.Pharm.S.
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/
My homepage of quotations
http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
Our church
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/Christiansquoting Daily quotes
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/speeches_for_sale.htm My speech writing service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean.-- G.K. Chesterton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
Click
Here!
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ChaletKuyper-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 2 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
From: Kevin4VFT@aol.com
2. Re: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
From: Brian
Burchett <bburchet@darwin.helios.nd.edu>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 18:50:18 EDT
From: Kevin4VFT@aol.com
Subject: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
In a message dated 5/13/2002 3:06:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Graham Weeks <
weeks-g@dircon.co.uk> writes:
>
> I do not think this is an example of any kind of pluralism but of the
> absolute intolerance of the humanistic state.
Most non-Christians who promote "pluralism"
believe that Christianity is against pluralism,
and therefore pluralism requires intolerance
toward Christianity. Minow, a Harvard
law professor, recognized this paradox:
> One of the paradoxes of liberal societies arises from the commitment to
> tolerance. A society committed to respecting the viewpoints and customs of
> diverse people within a pluralistic society inevitably encounters this
> challenge: will you tolerate those who themselves do not agree to respect
> the viewpoints or customs of others? Paradoxically, the liberal commitment
> to tolerance requires, at some point, intolerance for those who would
> reject that very commitment.
Minow, M. (1990). Putting up and putting down: Tolerance reconsidered.
Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 28, 409-448.
Ultimately, from a Christian perspective, pluralism is impossible.
There can never be absolute freedom of religion.
The sincere and devout Cannibal will not be allowed to
practice his religion in a Christian legal order.
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/pluralism.htm
Thus, Christianity must (logically) be opposed by
those committed to pluralism. The "intolerant
humanistic state" is therefore the logical
culmination of "pluralism," and Christians who
wish to avoid the former must oppose the latter.
Kevin Craig
http://VFT.isCool.net/
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 08:40:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Burchett <bburchet@darwin.helios.nd.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
On Mon, 13 May 2002 Kevin4VFT@aol.com wrote:
>Ultimately, from a Christian perspective, pluralism is impossible.
>There can never be absolute freedom of religion.
>The sincere and devout Cannibal will not be allowed to
>practice his religion in a Christian legal order.
That there are limits to what we can tolerate is one thing, but that is
different than saying that pluralism is impossible.
Brian B.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
Click
Here!
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ChaletKuyper-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 3 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
From: Kevin4VFT@aol.com
2. Re: Re: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
From: Brian
Burchett <bburchet@darwin.helios.nd.edu>
3. Re: Re: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
From: Kevin4VFT@aol.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 13:06:33 EDT
From: Kevin4VFT@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
On Tue, 14 May 2002 08:40:22 -0500 (EST) Brian Burchett <
bburchet@darwin.helios.nd.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2002 Kevin4VFT@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Ultimately, from a Christian perspective, pluralism is impossible.
> >There can never be absolute freedom of religion.
> >The sincere and devout Cannibal will not be allowed to
> >practice his religion in a Christian legal order.
>
> That there are limits to what we can tolerate is one thing, but that is
> different than saying that pluralism is impossible.
>
> Brian B.
>
What is the difference?
To say that there are "limits" is to acknowledge that
one religion is dominant over another, that the subordinate
religion is being judged by the dominant religion, that the
dominant religion imposes its standards on the lesser.
Absolute freedom of religion (pluralism) is impossible
in any legal order. Pure pluralism means chaos.
Theocracy -- the establishment of a religion -- is inescapable.
Kevin Craig
http://VFT.isCool.net/
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 13:58:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Burchett <bburchet@darwin.helios.nd.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
On Wed, 15 May 2002 Kevin4VFT@aol.com wrote:
>bburchet@darwin.helios.nd.edu> wrote:
>> That there are limits to what we can tolerate is one thing, but that is
>> different than saying that pluralism is impossible.
>What is the difference?
>
>To say that there are "limits" is to acknowledge that
>one religion is dominant over another, that the subordinate
>religion is being judged by the dominant religion, that the
>dominant religion imposes its standards on the lesser.
>
>Absolute freedom of religion (pluralism) is impossible
>in any legal order. Pure pluralism means chaos.
>
>Theocracy -- the establishment of a religion -- is inescapable.
Kevin,
You are building an argument on a straw man. "Absolute freedom ... is
impossible." "Pure pluralism means chaos." I must ask
you, at the risk
of sounding confrontational -- so what? That's a rather elementary point
that you are making.
In actual practice, most of us in the West live in societies that are
generally pluralistic and generally tolerant, especially compared with
non-Western regimes. I.e., in actual practice pluralism *is*
possible.
If we are going to respect individuals as image-bearers, and if we
recognize that people often see circumstances very differently it seems to
me that we have no other real choice but to allow a rather large degree of
pluralism. (I certainly don't want anyone on this list to decide that
there is only one church that I am allowed to attend. or mosque.)
Obviously there must be boundaries or limits, otherwise our community will
lose order. But since order is never lost for very long (because people
prefer tyranny to chaos & anarchy) someone, or some group will step in an
establish new boundaries.
Pardon me if you can, but I don't see your point as very significant, nor
of much practical value.
Brian B.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 22:56:07 EDT
From: Kevin4VFT@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
On Wed May 15, 2002 at 11:58 am, Brian Burchett wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> You are building an argument on a straw man. "Absolute freedom
... is
> impossible." "Pure pluralism means chaos." I
must ask you, at the risk
> of sounding confrontational -- so what? That's a rather elementary
point
> that you are making.
If it's elementary, it's surprising that so few people understand it.
If I say I'm against pluralism (such opposition being based on
the "elementary" truth that pluralism leads to chaos) most people
will be quite surprised. Most people think pluralism is good, not
that it leads to chaos.
> In actual practice, most of us in the West live in societies that are
> generally pluralistic and generally tolerant, especially compared with
> non-Western regimes. I.e., in actual practice pluralism *is*
> possible.
"Generally" tolerant . . . except when a Christian school wants
to tell its students that no homosexual conduct will be
permitted at the school prom (which is what started this thread).
Why is it that when a "generally pluralistic" nation becomes
MORE pluralistic, it becomes LESS or anti-Christian?
Why is it that Western (read: "Christian") societies have
liberty and non-Christian regimes are characterized by
chaos and/or tyranny?
> If we are going to respect individuals as image-bearers, and if we
> recognize that people often see circumstances very differently it
> seems to
> me that we have no other real choice but to allow a rather large
> degree of pluralism.
Liberty is what we need, not "pluralism."
Liberty is a fruit of Christianity, not pluralism.
Pluralism is the idea that all religions, including
the most tyrannical and oppressive, are equally good
(or equally bad, or equally irrelevant, depending on
the pluralist making this assertion). Pluralism is the
denial that Christianity is true. Historically only
Christianity has led to liberty; all other religions
are essentially humanistic, and lead to tyranny.
Christianity places concrete limits on compulsion,
and therefore limits on "the State." These limits
create liberty. Other religions are without such
a revelation from God; they lack a workable standard.
> (I certainly don't want anyone on this list to decide that
> there is only one church that I am allowed to attend. or mosque.)
As Christianity has matured and purged itself of humanistic
remnants of Greco-Roman "classicism," it has come to see
that compulsion in the area of worship is not Biblical.
All other religions, as they become "epistemologically
self-conscious," embrace compulsion and coercion.
Even the religion of Secular Humanism embraces coercion
in the area of worship, closing down unregistered churches
and requiring attendance at the Lenin's Day Parade (which is
as liturgical as it is militaristic).
> Obviously there must be boundaries or limits, otherwise our community will
> lose order.
But what is the source or standard of these limits?
Buddha? Muhammad? Autonomous Man? "The People?"
If we deny that Christianity is the source of limits in our
society and affirm "pluralism," we have denied the existence
of ANY absolute standard, and have opened the door for
tyranny.
> But since order is never lost for very long (because people
> prefer tyranny to chaos & anarchy) someone, or some group will step
> in an establish new boundaries.
In other words, human society is fated to oscillate between
one religious tyranny and another? Shouldn't Christians
be working to avoid the extremes of chaos and tyranny
by pointing out the necessity of building civilization upon
Christianity?
> Pardon me if you can, but I don't see your point as very significant,
> nor
> of much practical value.
>
> Brian B.
Tell that to 9 million Chinese in the Laogai (slave labor camps).
Tell that to the parents who wanted a good educational environment
for their children and were told that their children must be exposed
to the virtues of homosexuality in the interests of "pluralism."
Kevin Craig
http://VFT.isCool.net/
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
Click
Here!
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ChaletKuyper-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is 1 message in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Re: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
From: Brian
Burchett <bburchet@darwin.helios.nd.edu>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 08:36:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Burchett <bburchet@darwin.helios.nd.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
On Wed, 15 May 2002 Kevin4VFT@aol.com wrote:
>will be quite surprised. Most people think pluralism is good, not
>that it leads to chaos.
Kevin, you are forcing particular meanings on these words, rather than
using them as most people do in day-to-day conversations. It quite right
for you to point out that in some Western countries the dominant culture
is intolerant of Christian belief and practice in certain situations. But
that doesn't prove that "pluralism" is a dirty word. It proves
that some
pluralists cannot consistently follow what they purport to believe.
>Why is it that when a "generally pluralistic" nation becomes
>MORE pluralistic, it becomes LESS or anti-Christian?
I don't know that this is true.
>As Christianity has matured and purged itself of humanistic
>remnants of Greco-Roman "classicism," it has come to see
>that compulsion in the area of worship is not Biblical.
It's more complicated than this. Locke, Rousseau and others in the
Western tradition had something to do with our societies becoming less
theocratic.
>> Obviously there must be boundaries or limits, otherwise our community
will
>> lose order.
>
>But what is the source or standard of these limits?
>Buddha? Muhammad? Autonomous Man? "The People?"
Yes, it is quite possible for communities to find an equilibrium that they
are content with, even if the source of their boundaries/limits is
tradition or a non-Christian religion. That doesn't mean that the
limits
they hold to are true, but even misguided rules can (and do) provide order
and safety.
>If we deny that Christianity is the source of limits in our
>society and affirm "pluralism," we have denied the existence
>of ANY absolute standard, and have opened the door for
>tyranny.
Well, perhaps. Most political theorists/philosophers have traditionally
distinguished between a tyrant and a monarch, and between democracy and
the mob. It's not necessary for a king to embrace Christianity in order
to avoid ruling as a tyrant.
>> But since order is never lost for very long (because people
>> prefer tyranny to chaos & anarchy) someone, or some group will step
>> in an establish new boundaries.
>In other words, human society is fated to oscillate between
>one religious tyranny and another? Shouldn't Christians
>be working to avoid the extremes of chaos and tyranny
>by pointing out the necessity of building civilization upon
>Christianity?
Nothing to do with 'fate.' It's the way we are. When our political
societies lose cohesion we will accept order, even if it brings injustice
along with it. We cannot live with chaos, but we can find ways to live
with unjust circumstances if the laws are applied consistently and
predictably.
Brian B.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
Click
Here!
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ChaletKuyper-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is 1 message in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
From: Kevin4VFT@aol.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 01:23:41 EDT
From: Kevin4VFT@aol.com
Subject: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
In a message dated Thu, 16 May 2002 08:36:40 -0500 (EST), Brian Burchett <
bburchet@darwin.helios.nd.edu> writes:
> On Wed, 15 May 2002 Kevin4VFT@aol.com wrote:
>
> >will be quite surprised. Most people think pluralism is good, not
> >that it leads to chaos.
>
> Kevin, you are forcing particular meanings on these words, rather than
> using them as most people do in day-to-day conversations.
Of course! That's my point. Most people think pluralism
is good. I think it's bad. Not that I think *liberty* is bad,
but only Christianity leads to liberty. Pluralism puts
liberty and tyranny on a par.
Most people think "democracy" is a good word.
America's Founders disagreed.
http://www.americanvision.org/biblical_worldview/BWV_00/BWV08-3.html
> It quite right
> for you to point out that in some Western countries the dominant culture
> is intolerant of Christian belief and practice in certain situations.
But
> that doesn't prove that "pluralism" is a dirty word. It
proves that some
> pluralists cannot consistently follow what they purport to believe.
Yes, that's precisely my point. Pluralists and humanists
cannot consistently follow what they purport to believe. We
should not praise any idea that would lead to chaos if
consistently followed. Pluralism, if consistently followed
would lead to chaos. Pluralism holds that the Buddhist
doctrine that killing is wrong is equally as valid as the
Cannibalistic doctrine that ritual human sacrifice is
good. Civilization crumbles under consistent pluralism.
>
> >Why is it that when a "generally pluralistic" nation becomes
> >MORE pluralistic, it becomes LESS or anti-Christian?
>
> I don't know that this is true.
The best example is America. Non-Christian religions
had more freedom in this Christian nation even than in
nations of their own religion. Why is there a move for
"pluralism" in the nation which already grants the
greatest freedom for all religions? Answer: to
attack Christianity.
> >As Christianity has matured and purged itself of humanistic
> >remnants of Greco-Roman "classicism," it has come to see
> >that compulsion in the area of worship is not Biblical.
>
> It's more complicated than this. Locke, Rousseau and others in the
> Western tradition had something to do with our societies becoming less
> theocratic.
Not Locke. Rousseau, yes, and his influence has been disastrous.
Rousseau (1712-78) stands in the tradition of the French Revolution.
Locke in the tradition of Calvin and the American Revolution. These two
Revolutions shared a word but not a philosophy. Similarly, the
French Republic was a republic in name only, according to the most
astute American thinkers. The best place to start on this is Friedrich
Gentz, who, like de Tocqueville, gives a foreigner's objective
assessment of American thought. "With Burke, and with John
and John Quincy Adams, Gentz perceived that disaster would
come from the fallacies of Turgot and Condorcet and Rousseau
and Paine
and other movers of the French Revolution. His essay,
The American and French Revolutions Compared, contrasts
the theories and the course of the two movements."
(Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, pp. 396-401)
This American doctrine of toleration had the sanction of experience in the
New World; it embodied what already, with a few exceptions, had become
practice in the several states of the new Republic. This principle owed
almost nothing to the theories of the Enlightenment, then popular in France.
So far as this doctrine was derived from any modern philosopher, it came from
Locke—not from Voltaire or Diderot.
(Kirk, p. 437)
[John] Adams sneers at Diderot and Rousseau for their praise of idyllic
savagery, their pretended discovery "that knowledge is corruption; that
arts,
sciences, and taste have deformed the beauty and destroyed the felicity of
human nature, which appears only in perfection in the savage state—the
children of nature." Yet we cannot expect formal education radically to
alter
the common impulses of the heart; only the much more difficult inculcation
of morality, which comes from the snail-slow influence of historical example
and just constitutions rather than from deliberate legislation, can effect
that moral improvement which is the real progress of humanity. "There is no
necessary connection between knowledge and virtue.
Simple intelligence has no
association with morality. What connection is there between the mechanism of
a clock or watch and the feeling of moral good and evil, right or wrong? A
faculty or quality of distinguishing between normal good and evil, as well as
physical happiness and misery, that is, pleasure and pain, or in other words
a conscience—an old word almost out of fashion—is essential to
morality."
(Kirk, p. 97)
Locke was, by today's standards, a Theocrat, pure and simple.
He wrote almost as many commentaries on the Bible as he
did political treatises. The Constitution he wrote for South
Carolina barred atheists from public office. More here:
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/locke.htm
The less of a Christian Theocracy a nation becomes,
the more it veers toward tyranny and chaos.
"Theocracy" comes from two Greek words meaning
"God Rules." God's cosmic curse comes down on
every nation that will not put itself under God's Rule.
America's greatness stems from its being a Christian
Theocracy, a nation "under
God."
http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/theocracy.htm
> >> Obviously there must be boundaries or limits, otherwise our
community
> will
> >> lose order.
> >
> >But what is the source or standard of these limits?
> >Buddha? Muhammad? Autonomous Man? "The People?"
>
> Yes, it is quite possible for communities to find an equilibrium that they
> are content with, even if the source of their boundaries/limits is
> tradition or a non-Christian religion. That doesn't mean that
the limits
> they hold to are true, but even misguided rules can (and do) provide order
> and safety.
Christians are to be salt and light (Matthew 5). That means
giving a culture guidance. You cannot build a lasting civilization
on "misguided" rules. True Guidance comes only from God's
Word, not from a pluralistic "consensus" between liberty and
tyranny, order and chaos.
> >If we deny that Christianity is the source of limits in our
> >society and affirm "pluralism," we have denied the existence
> >of ANY absolute standard, and have opened the door for
> >tyranny.
>
> Well, perhaps. Most political theorists/philosophers have
traditionally
> distinguished between a tyrant and a monarch, and between democracy and
> the mob. It's not necessary for a king to embrace Christianity in
order
> to avoid ruling as a tyrant.
Yes it is. That's precisely my point. Sure, if a king is an
atheistic communist he might not be a *consistent* atheistic
communist and no reign of terror will ensue. But we cannot
depend on non-Christians to be inconsistent with their
religious beliefs. We must urge upon all men consistency with
the Truth. The Bible says a king must build his reign on
God's Truth (Deuteronomy 17:18ff.). Civilization cannot
be built on a mixture of truth and error, liberty and
tyranny.
> >> But since order is never lost for very long (because people
> >> prefer tyranny to chaos & anarchy) someone, or some group will
step
> >> in an establish new boundaries.
>
> >In other words, human society is fated to oscillate between
> >one religious tyranny and another? Shouldn't Christians
> >be working to avoid the extremes of chaos and tyranny
> >by pointing out the necessity of building civilization upon
> >Christianity?
>
> Nothing to do with 'fate.' It's the way we are. When our
political
> societies lose cohesion we will accept order, even if it brings injustice
> along with it. We cannot live with chaos, but we can find ways to
live
> with unjust circumstances if the laws are applied consistently and
> predictably.
>
> Brian B.
??? This is your policy recommendation? "Learn to live with it?"
This is hardly the philosophy that led to the birth of America.
Don't Christians have something more concrete to say?
America's Founding Fathers certainly did.
Kevin Craig
http://VFT.isCool.net/
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
Click
Here!
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ChaletKuyper-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 2 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
From: Graham Weeks
<weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
2. Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
From: Dick McMullen
<Dick@Stillwater-McMullens.net>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 08:14:36 +0100
From: Graham Weeks <weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
I think it might be helpful if we avoided using the world theocracy
as it seems connotations of an established church ruling the state
in an oppressive way.
Some of us believe that secular government without reference to God
may be even more oppressive and wish to therefore critique the status
quo.
We may theorize about how we would like the state to be. I would
certainly like to see an establishment of Trinitarian Christianity as
public truth with no denomination preferred. i believe this was the
intention of the American founding fathers. But how to go from here
to there is a matter of practical politics. Debaters of these issues
are usually long on rhetoric and short on practicalites.
In England the situation is different. Episcopalianism is established
at law. Scotland has a Presbyterian establishment which is different.
Wales and N Ireland have neither though the latter has more
Christians than the other three countries.
Situations differ in different countries and practicalities need to
be addressed. In England, the present situation serves us well and
no-one is disadvantaged with the exception of a Roman Catholic
wanting to marry a member of the royal family or a member of that
family converting to become RC.I know of no other discrimination at
present from our establishment of Anglicanism. I prefer it to a
change which would inevitably be an establishment of secularism.
--
Graham J Weeks M.R.Pharm.S.
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/
My homepage of quotations
http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
Our church
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/Christiansquoting Daily quotes
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/speeches_for_sale.htm My speech writing service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean.-- G.K. Chesterton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 07:34:53 -0500
From: Dick McMullen <Dick@Stillwater-McMullens.net>
Subject: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
All,
At 5/18/02 02:14 AM, Graham Weeks wrote:
>We may theorize about how we would like the state to be. I would
>certainly like to see an establishment of Trinitarian Christianity as
>public truth with no denomination preferred. i believe this was the
>intention of the American founding fathers.
This is a common belief, but I am not sure it is true. My understanding of
American history suggests that the Christian consensus existed among some
of the citizens prior to the (allegedly sinful) American revolution, but
that America's political leaders in the late 1700s where almost to a man
Deist, believing in a God, but not the Christian Trinitarian doctrine.
Examples: John Adams, one of my favorite presidents, called the doctrine
of the deity of Christ an "awful blasphemy." Franklin didn't pay
such
details much attention; Washington spoke eloquently of God but rarely
attended church, and Jefferson, most people already know, did not believe
any of the miraculous accounts in the New Testament. Other leaders held
similar positions.
Also, if a Trinitarian formulation was their intent, something of the sort
would have appeared in our constitution.
The practical success of our system is its unique ability to limit power,
and prevent mischief. Its does little to promote good, except to allow the
citizenry freedom to live good lives, if their convictions urge them to do so.
Dick McMullen
Stillwater, Minnesota
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
Click
Here!
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ChaletKuyper-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 6 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
From: Graham Weeks
<weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
2. Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
From: PhilB1703@aol.com
3. Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
From: Dick McMullen
<Dick@Stillwater-McMullens.net>
4. Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
From: Dick McMullen
<Dick@Stillwater-McMullens.net>
5. Re: Re: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
From: Graham Weeks
<weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
6. Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
From: Graham Weeks
<weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 20:11:09 +0100
From: Graham Weeks <weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
Not being from your side of the pond I am no expert. I agree that
many were deists so I should take Trinitarian out of their purposes,
but I still believe they wanted a Christian establishment, even if
for some of them it was not Trinitarian.
BTW I am realistic enough to admit to my friends that if I had been
in new England around 1776 I would have been much exercised as to
which side to take but I think I would have probably
rebelled....against the advice of my wife :-) I often do.
Remind me, which side did most Presbyterians take, or are you going
to tell me they were all Congregationalists?
Graham
>All,
>
>At 5/18/02 02:14 AM, Graham Weeks wrote:
>
>>We may theorize about how we would like the state to be. I would
>>certainly like to see an establishment of Trinitarian Christianity as
>>public truth with no denomination preferred. i believe this was the
>>intention of the American founding fathers.
>
>This is a common belief, but I am not sure it is true. My
understanding of
>American history suggests that the Christian consensus existed among some
>of the citizens prior to the (allegedly sinful) American revolution, but
>that America's political leaders in the late 1700s where almost to a man
>Deist, believing in a God, but not the Christian Trinitarian doctrine.
>
>Examples: John Adams, one of my favorite presidents, called the
doctrine
>of the deity of Christ an "awful blasphemy." Franklin didn't
pay such
>details much attention; Washington spoke eloquently of God but rarely
>attended church, and Jefferson, most people already know, did not believe
>any of the miraculous accounts in the New Testament. Other leaders
held
>similar positions.
>
>Also, if a Trinitarian formulation was their intent, something of the sort
>would have appeared in our constitution.
>
>The practical success of our system is its unique ability to limit power,
>and prevent mischief. Its does little to promote good, except to allow
the
>citizenry freedom to live good lives, if their convictions urge them to do
so.
>
>Dick McMullen
>Stillwater, Minnesota
--
Graham J Weeks M.R.Pharm.S.
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/
My homepage of quotations
http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
Our church
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/Christiansquoting Daily quotes
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/speeches_for_sale.htm My speech writing service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean.-- G.K. Chesterton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 17:44:10 EDT
From: PhilB1703@aol.com
Subject: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
In a message dated 5/18/2002 7:36:54 AM Central Daylight Time,
Dick@Stillwater-McMullens.net writes:
>
> Examples: John Adams, one of my favorite presidents, called the
doctrine
> of the deity of Christ an "awful blasphemy."
I have just read the new biography on Adams by McCullough and have a new
admiration for the 2nd President. Can you suggest some resources where I can
further understand his theology?
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 22:19:44 -0500
From: Dick McMullen <Dick@Stillwater-McMullens.net>
Subject: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
I don't understand his theology well, although I understand that he was a
church goer all of his life. Some years ago I read an excellent biography
of John and Abigail Adams by Irving Stone called Those Who Love.
Beyond that, I don't have any recommendations.
Dick McMullen
At 5/18/02 04:44 PM, you wrote:
>In a message dated 5/18/2002 7:36:54 AM Central Daylight Time,
>Dick@Stillwater-McMullens.net writes:
>
>
>>
>>Examples: John Adams, one of my favorite presidents, called the
doctrine
>>of the deity of Christ an "awful blasphemy."
>
>
>I have just read the new biography on Adams by McCullough and have a new
>admiration for the 2nd President. Can you suggest some resources where I
>can further understand his theology?
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 22:30:10 -0500
From: Dick McMullen <Dick@Stillwater-McMullens.net>
Subject: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
Good question--I have no idea what the correct answer is. I have never
seen an account of how the various denominations participated in America's
revolution. I would guess (and this is just a guess) that the revolution
failed to inspire universally. So, support for the King may have sat
side-by-side with independence in many churches.
Some people in Virginia still say they've been English much longer than
they've been American. Perhaps America is unique in allowing or fostering
such sentiments and not penalizing people for them.
Dick McMullen
At 5/18/02 02:11 PM, you wrote:
>Remind me, which side did most Presbyterians take, or are you going
>to tell me they were all Congregationalists?
>
>Graham
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 06:46:41 +0100
From: Graham Weeks <weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
>
>
>Obviously there must be boundaries or limits, otherwise our community will
>lose order. But since order is never lost for very long (because
people
>prefer tyranny to chaos & anarchy) someone, or some group will step in
an
>establish new boundaries.
>
>Pardon me if you can, but I don't see your point as very significant, nor
>of much practical value.
>
>Brian B.
But who is to set the boundaries and on what basis? What is the
ethical/ philosophical basis of the state and its lawmaking?
Kuyper's life was devoted to the Anti-revolutionary Party, opposing
the secularism of the heirs of the French revolution. They are now
the powers that be in liberal democracies. Holland has forgotten its
greatest modern leader, its renaissance man.
--
Graham J Weeks M.R.Pharm.S.
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/
My homepage of quotations
http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
Our church
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/Christiansquoting Daily quotes
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/speeches_for_sale.htm My speech writing service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean.-- G.K. Chesterton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 08:48:58 +0100
From: Graham Weeks <weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Canada - a sad day (pluralism)
I have this memory that quite a number of the Presbyterians were
loyalists but others were for a new freedom. (I have tried to use
non-pejorative terminology).
I wonder just how much the conflict split communities and even
families. This was certainly the case in the English civil war.
As to divided loyalties, for a long time British people have been
granted dual citizenship, two passports. Until recently that was not
the case for Americans.
Graham
>Good question--I have no idea what the correct answer is. I have never
>seen an account of how the various denominations participated in America's
>revolution. I would guess (and this is just a guess) that the
revolution
>failed to inspire universally. So, support for the King may have sat
>side-by-side with independence in many churches.
>
>Some people in Virginia still say they've been English much longer than
>they've been American. Perhaps America is unique in allowing or
fostering
>such sentiments and not penalizing people for them.
>
>Dick McMullen
>
>
>At 5/18/02 02:11 PM, you wrote:
>
>>Remind me, which side did most Presbyterians take, or are you going
>>to tell me they were all Congregationalists?
>>
> >Graham
>
--
Graham J Weeks M.R.Pharm.S.
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/
My homepage of quotations
http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
Our church
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/Christiansquoting Daily quotes
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/speeches_for_sale.htm My speech writing service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean.-- G.K. Chesterton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
In a message dated Sat, 18 May 2002
07:34:53 -0500, Dick McMullen <Dick@Stillwater-McMullens.net> writes:
At 5/18/02 02:14 AM, Graham Weeks wrote:
>We may theorize about how we would like the state to be. I would
>certainly like to see an establishment of Trinitarian Christianity as
>public truth with no denomination preferred. i believe this was the
>intention of the American founding fathers.
This is a common belief, but I am not sure it is true. My understanding
of
American history suggests that the Christian consensus existed among some
of the citizens prior to the (allegedly sinful) American revolution, but
that America's political leaders in the late 1700s where almost to a man
Deist, believing in a God, but not the Christian Trinitarian doctrine.
Actually, Dick, I think your belief is more common than Graham's,
but I have to agree with Graham. Not a single deist signed the
U.S. Constitution, at least if "deist" is defined in a very non-
Presbyterian sense as belief in a "clockmaker god" who
created the world and then stood back to watch history
tick away under impersonal "natural law" without ever
intervening in history, especially in a "miraculous" way.
Out of 250 men who might be identified as "Founding Fathers,"
only a couple (maybe 3) believed in this brand of "deism."
The rest would be considered staunch Calvinists or even
rabid fundamentalists by today's ACLU-tainted standards.
The Los Angeles Times published an op-ed piece a
few years ago entitled "America's Unchristian Beginnings,"
which advanced this "deism" theory.
I have interacted with it here:
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/morris.htm
More here:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=29
Examples: John Adams, one of my favorite presidents, called the doctrine
of the deity of Christ an "awful blasphemy."
I'd like to find a primary source reference for this quote, which
appears on every atheist website on the Internet. The reason
I'm skeptical appears on the Morris page above, as well as
this page:
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/adams.htm
Some quotes by Adams have been taken totally out
of context. Some mean *the exact opposite* of how
atheists represent them. Others are complaints against
clergy, complaints with which most Christians who
oppose the myth of "separation of church and state"
would agree. Corrupt clergy have always been a
problem.
On March 6, 1799, President Adams proclaimed a
national day of prayer. That proclamation is here:
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/Adams13.htm
Notice that the proclamation is explicitly Trinitarian.
Notice that the very act of such a proclamation is
completely counter to the ACLU's version of things.
Even if Adams doubted the doctrine of the Trinity,
he did not doubt the propriety of the government
encouraging belief in it.
Although Adams late in life moved toward Unitarianism,
even that is miles away from the atheism of the ACLU.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/deism.htm#unitarianism
Unitarianism at this point in time did not represent a
denial of the Bible but rather a desire to come closer
to its true meaning.
Franklin didn't pay such
details much attention;
Franklin's famous plea for prayer in the Constitutional
Convention is completely un-deistic:
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/Franklin-prayer.htm
Washington spoke eloquently of God but rarely
attended church,
There is eyewitness testimony to the contrary:
http://wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=13
and Jefferson, most people already know, did not believe
any of the miraculous accounts in the New Testament. Other leaders held
similar positions.
Jefferson was clearly not the norm. Virtually no other leaders
held Jefferson's theology. And yet even Jefferson was not as
anti-Christian as he is often portrayed. A fair analysis of
the issues of his day and the issues of ours puts him
much more in the camp of Pat Robertson than the ACLU.
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/TJ.htm
Also, if a Trinitarian formulation was their intent, something of the sort
would have appeared in our constitution.
Not true. Each of the States had Trinitarian formulations,
to the degree that the States themselves thought appropriate.
The States simply would not have ratified the Constitution
if there was the slightest hint that the federal government
was going to set up a national religion. Therefore the
drafters stayed away from religion. States' rights
were defended as strongly as the right to not use the
Church of England's book of common prayer.
Nevertheless, the Constitution still acknowledges
that America was a Christian nation. Sundays are
excluded from the time the President has to veto
Congressional bills (Art. I, sec. 7). The reference
to the Lord Jesus Christ at the end of the Constitution
is in stark contrast to the constitution of the French
republic, which attempted to re-start the entire
calendar. The Founders were not unaware of
these secularistic ideologies. Daniel Dreisbach,
writing in the Baylor Law Review (48:927), notes:
The
framers resisted the temptation often encountered by architects of new orders
and indeed, the course adopted in the French revolutionary constitution, which
was to institute a wholly new calendar dated not from the birth of Christ but
from the revolutionary moment. The new French calendar commenced with the
"autumnal equinox, the day after their republic was proclaimed."[note
omitted] The French, of course, went much further in stripping the public
calendar of religious holy day; the Christian Sabbath, for example, was
abolished and replaced by a festival every tenth day.[n.o.]
The constitutional mention of the lordship of Jesus Christ . . . was ascribed
great significance by selected nineteenth-century commentators. In this slight
but solemn reference, [Jaspar] Adams . . . concluded, "the people of the
United States professed themselves to be a Christian nation."[n.o]
Elaborating on this point, Adams argued that the word "our" preceding
"Lord" "refers back to the commencing words of the Constitution;
to wit, 'We the people of the United States.'"
[I]f the Constitution was deliberately secular or hostile to traditional
religion, the reference to Jesus Christ could have been avoided. [The Framers]
could have just as easily omitted the reference to Christ in the dating clause.
It cannot be denied, therefore, that the date denotes that Christ was, perhaps
subconsciously, a reference point for the architects of an ambitious new order.
[note 183: In response to those who dismiss the assertion that this clause is a
"persuasive argument for the Constitution's Christian character," one
commentator has asked what would the "discerning scholar" say "if
the clause had read: 'Done . . . in the year of Baal (or Astarte, or Buddha, or Reason,
or any other false god) . . .'?" Such language, no doubt, would provoke a
"commentary on the nature and implications of the religious-philosophy
signified by the clause."]
In 1783 the US and Britain ended the war with the Paris Peace Treaty.
America, the victor in the war, was able to impose terms on
the vanquished. The treaty was written by John Adams, John Jay,
and Ben Franklin. Its very first words are
In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.
It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts . . .
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/paris.htm
The practical success of our system is its unique ability to limit power,
and prevent mischief. Its does little to promote good, except to allow
the
citizenry freedom to live good lives, if their convictions urge them to do so.
Dick McMullen
Stillwater, Minnesota
I am a radical libertarian. I support all limits on power
-- that is to say, all limits on mischief. I am much
more libertarian than the Founders, who generally
believed that the government should endorse
and
promote
the true
religion, Christianity. Jefferson
appropriated money to be given to Christian
missionary societies to evangelize the heathen
(i.e., the Indians, as a tool of foreign policy to
minimize conflict and the strain on the new
nation's defense budget). I would not support
such government appropriations. But there
is not a scintilla of evidence to support the
ACLU's view that the Founders believed the
federal judiciary has the power to order
local schools to remove copies of the 10
Commandments and stop beginning the
school day with prayer and Bible reading.
Kevin Craig
http://VFT.isCool.net/
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7
In
a message dated Sun May 19, 2002 12:48 am, Graham Weeks <weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
writes:
>
I have this memory that quite a number of the Presbyterians were
> loyalists but others were for a new freedom. (I have tried to use
> non-pejorative terminology).
Lorraine Boettner wrote:
With this background we shall not be surprised to find that the Presbyterians
took a very prominent part in the American Revolution. Our own historian
Bancroft says: "The Revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by
religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the natural outgrowth of the
principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the
English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch
Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster." So intense, universal, and
aggressive were the Presbyterians in their zeal for liberty that the war was
spoken of in England as "The Presbyterian Rebellion." An ardent
colonial supporter of King George III wrote home: "I fix all the blame for
these extraordinary proceedings upon the Presbyterians. They have been the chief
and principal instruments in all these flaming measures. They always do and
ever will act against government from that restless and turbulent
anti-monarchial spirit which has always distinguished them everywhere."
When the news of "these extraordinary proceedings" reached England,
Prime Minister Horace Walpole said in Parliament, "Cousin America has run
off with a Presbyterian parson" (John Witherspoon, president of
(Calvinist Presbyterian) Princeton, signer of Declaration of Independence).
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a397351b419af.htm
New
York anticipated the prayer of Boston. Its people, who had received the port act
direly from England, felt the wrong to that town as a wound to themselves, and
even the lukewarm kindled with resentment. From the epoch of the stamp act,
their Sons of Liberty, styled by the royalists "the Presbyterian junto,"
had kept up a committee of correspondence.
George
Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol.4,
Chapter 1: America Sustains the Town of Boston, May 1774, p.9
Also by loyalists.
In Supplement Extradinary to the NY Journal/General Advertiser,
August 25, 1774, likening the New York Sons of Liberty to
a “Presbyterian junto,” the writer continues, “You will have discovered
that I am no friend to Presbyterians, and that I fix all the blame
of those extraordinary American proceedings upon them.”
During the war, the British army routinely used Presbyterian,
Baptist, and Reformed churches as stables, barracks, and prisons.
See original copies of the newspaper here:
http://independence.nyhistory.org/item.php?item_no=80
Excellent article by Steve Wilkins:
http://www.gbt.org/wilkins/presbyterians_and_the_war_of_ind.htm
On the impact of Calvinism in general on American politics:
http://members.aol.com/VFTfiles/thesis/commentators/Calvin/impact.htm
Kevin Craig
http://VFT.isCool.net/
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7
In a message dated Sat, 18 May 2002
08:14:36 +0100, Graham Weeks <weeks-g@dircon.co.uk> writes:
I think it might be helpful if we avoided using the world theocracy
as it seems connotations of an established church ruling the state
in an oppressive way.
I always defer to list owners, but with this warning:
Whatever word we use to describe a Biblical Government
will be attacked by atheists and secularists. They will
use scare tactics to create misconceptions in the public
mind in order to drum up opposition to Biblical Government.
If we refuse to use any word that secularists have
freighted with bad connotations in the minds of some,
there will be no words left to use to advance our position.
I say we should use the right word and create the
right connotations in the minds of as many people
as we can. I've heard it said that "bad publicity is
better than no publicity at all." I find it an effective
conversation starter to announce to friends, "Well,
I've decided to support THEOCRACY." Works better
than "My broker is E.F. Hutton, and E.F Hutton says . . ."
at getting listening ears (an American commercial:
everybody in the bus station would stop talking
and turn to hear what E.F. Hutton advised). Then
I simply explain that "theocracy" has nothing to do
with priests, ayatollahs, and the taliban, and
nothing to do with oppressive government, but
simply means a nation "under
God," which is
what America claims to be.
http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/theocracy.htm
If not "theocracy," what word shall I use to describe a government
which explicitly recognizes its duty to frame all laws in accord
with God's revelation in the Bible? Certainly the ACLU
would call this a Theocracy.
Kevin Craig
http://VFT.isCool.net/
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7