Subject: Re: By what authority? From: ltsurviver@aol.com (LTsurviver) Date: 07 Dec 1997 17:31:31 EST KEVEN Steps in it again by saying:>> "We the People" are still "one nation under GOD" (that is, the Christian God)<< Funny, that wasn't added or even thought of until 1957. "One nation under god" was added during the communist witch hunts of McCarthy fame. Keven, next time you recite "One nation under god" just remember ALL of the lives that were ruined by the fear (communist witch hunts) that put that motto in place. The ORIGINAL motto selected by our Founding Fathers was "E PLURIBUS UNUM" (out of many, one). Never ONCE did our Founding Fathers consider this to be a "Christian Nation".History revisionists NEVER stop do they? Have A "Positive" Day = ) ~LTS~ ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 10 Dec 1997 21:57:52 EST In article <19971207223101.RAA21986@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ltsurviver@aol.com (LTsurviver) writes: > KEVEN Steps in it again by saying:>> "We the People" are still "one nation > under GOD" (that is, the Christian God)<< > > Funny, that wasn't added or even thought of until 1957. "One nation under > god" was added during the communist witch hunts of McCarthy fame. Keven, > next time you recite "One nation under god" just remember ALL of the lives > that were ruined by the fear (communist witch hunts) that put that motto in > place. ". . . even thought of?" "...that this nation UNDER GOD shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." ABRAHAM LINCOLN, 1863 GETTYSBURG ADDRESS: > > The ORIGINAL motto selected by our Founding Fathers was "E PLURIBUS UNUM" ( > out of many, one). Never ONCE did our Founding Fathers consider this to be a > "Christian Nation". As John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, phrased it, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." (Henry P. Johnston, ed., The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, New York: Burt Franklin, 1970, 4:393 [October 12, 1816]). I've just about had enough arguing with secularists. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/HolyTrinity.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) Date: 07 Dec 1997 03:48:08 EST Kevin said: >>Are you arguing that "we the people" means the "People" are gods and can murder, steal or break Biblical law at will? << Not at all. Just reiterating the point Jefferson made in the Declaration of Independence -- that good government derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. If there is a God, as I believe, then the hierarchy is God to People to Government. You argue God to Government to People. That is the monarchy we revolted against. >>Then I oppose the Constitution, as does every true Christian.<< Not a surprise that you oppose the foundations of freedom. It offends me that you try to drag Christianity along on such folly. Ed ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 10 Dec 1997 21:57:53 EST In article <19971207084801.DAA22234@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >If there is a God, as I believe, then the hierarchy is God to People to >Government. You argue God to Government to People. That is the monarchy we >revolted against. This is not true. Nobody argues this today. To say that God is over government is to affirm that government has religious duties, an idea which you spent several posts trying to refute (as it was affirmed by the Thanksgiving Proclamations of previous presidents). Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/HolyTrinity.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 10 Dec 1997 21:57:55 EST In article <19971207084801.DAA22234@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >>>Then I oppose the Constitution, as does every true Christian.<< >Not a >surprise that you oppose the foundations of freedom. Yeah, right Ed, I oppose freedom. One thing I am confident of, is that I believe the foundation of freedom is Christianity, as did the overwhelming majority of the Founders. JOHN ADAMS, 1776: "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, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty." (Charles Francis Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams--Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1854), Vol. IX, p. 40.) NORTH CAROLINA, 1785: "Article XXXII. No person, who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either 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." (The Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America, Published by Order of Congress, Boston: Norman & Bowen, 1785, p. 138.) John Adams, August 28, 1811: "Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society." (Charles Francis Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams--Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1854), Vol. IX, p. 636.) I do not know whether all the Americans have a sincere faith in their religion; for who can search the human heart? but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation, and to every rank of society. (De Tocqueville, The Republic of the United States of America and Its Political Institutions, Reviewed and Examined, Henry Reeves, trans., Vol 1, Garden City, NY: AS Barnes & Co., 1851, p. 334. "There is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation on earth." (De Tocqueville, ibid, p.332). Noah Webster: The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and his apostles . . . and to this we owe our free constitutions of government. Ben Franklin: Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. (Any nation where an entertainer calling himself "Sid Vicious" is popular will find itself with the likes of Bill Clinton, Janet Reno and the BATF, and other "masters.") John Hancock: Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. . . . Manners, by which not only the freedom but the very existence of the republics are greatly affected, depend much upon the public institutions of religion. Barton's book has zillions more quotations the authenticity of which is UNCONTESTED. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/08theocracy.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) Date: 11 Dec 1997 11:27:58 EST In a series of quotes, several of which have been discussed and some debunked earlier, Kevin said:>> >>(Any nation where an entertainer calling himself "Sid Vicious" is popular will find itself with the likes of Bill Clinton, Janet Reno and the BATF, and other "masters.")<< Any nation that elects an adulterer and fornicator who runs for president on a family values platform probably has other issues in mind. Then we elected Ronald Reagan a second time. We get what we vote for, I guess. But I don't recall voting to send arms to Iran, in violation of the law Ronald Reagan asked for -- arms paid for by money from running cocaine into the U.S. by warlords for Central American Dictators, and that's what we got with Reagan. Maybe it's the dissonance between the platform advocated and the actual behavior of the candidate . . . Janet Reno, by the way, seems to be an honest person in government, not unduly influenced by anyone (to the grief of the White House). As an honest person, she must strike absolute terror in the hearts of christian nationalists. Ed ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 14 Dec 1997 04:21:07 EST In article <19971211162700.LAA10827@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >In a series of quotes, several of which have been discussed and some debunked >earlier, Kevin said:>> >>(Any nation where an entertainer calling himself >"Sid Vicious" is popular will find itself with the likes of Bill Clinton, >Janet Reno and the BATF, and other "masters.")<< >Any nation that elects an >adulterer and fornicator who runs for president on a family values platform >probably has other issues in mind. Then we elected Ronald Reagan a second >time. We get what we vote for, I guess. I join the John Birch Society in holding that Reagan was a dupe of "the Conspiracy." Only middle-of-the-roaders supported Reagan, not exremists like me. >But I don't recall voting to send >arms to Iran, Nobody "votes" for the policies of the Secular Humanist liberal establishment. They are imposed on us. Saddam is "our man in Baghdad." See http://jbs.org/vo13no26.htm >in violation of the law Ronald Reagan asked for -- arms paid >for by money from running cocaine into the U.S. by warlords for Central >American Dictators, and that's what we got with Reagan. Maybe it's the >dissonance between the platform advocated and the actual behavior of the >candidate . . . It's part of the overall plan of the Secular Humanist liberal elite. See http://jbs.org/vo13no22.htm#Battle+Lines+in+the+Drug+War >Janet Reno, by the way, seems to be an honest person in >government, not unduly influenced by anyone (to the grief of the White >House). "To the grief of the White House?" You think Clinton is grieved there'll be no independent investigation of Soviet Chinese influence? Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/95theses/paradigm.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) Date: 07 Dec 1997 03:45:06 EST Kevin said: >>"We the People" does NOT stand for the proposition that the people can decide for themselves whether it is right or wrong to murder, steal, or kidnap.<< It most explicitly DOES mean that. >> "We the People" are still "one nation under GOD" (that is, the Christian God)<< Not according to any law in the U.S. -- except the one that says the Pledge of Allegiance is the official, non-binding pledge. Non-binding means it has no force of law. >>Even Madison and Jefferson would not (publicly) disagree with that proposition, as stated by that most influential theologian John Locke, whom I have already quoted: [T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God. [L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made. [Two Treatises on Govenment, Bk II sec 135 quoting Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity {shows Puritan influence}]<< They wouldn't disagree much with what Locke wrote, though Garry Wills carefully documents how Jefferson dropped what he considered Locke's blindness to the evils of Christianity (in the small phrase "life, libery and pursuit of happiness," which was a counterpoint to Locke's "life, liberty and property;" Jefferson felt that freedom of conscience was much more important than Locke gave credit; Jefferson also wrote that those ideas were not his alone, but just the common currency of thought in the colonies at the time). Go look at Hume and Hutcheson, both of whom had much greater influence over Jefferson than did Locke -- and while you're at it, don't forget again to look at the Constitution, which does not mention God, Jesus or Christianity. In the end it doesn't matter what Locke said. It matters what is written in the Constitution. It clearly does not set up a system of Biblical law. >>You're rapidly degenerating into a sophist, Ed.<< We all cursed Pirsig as we had to struggle through *Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance* during the "lightning week" of our first year of graduate school in rhetoric. Then we understood. Pirsig points out that the Sophists were right. The point remains that our laws expressly deny that our government is based on Biblical law. In our frenzy to codify everything, we've even dropped the common law which Blackstone argued contained the whole of Christianity. But then, Blackstone was wrong, so it doesn't matter, does it? We are a nation of laws, few of them grounded in the Bible -- though Christianity plays a role in our legal heritage. We steal the best from all cultures. Ed ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: ram61962@aol.com (RAM61962) Date: 08 Dec 1997 12:21:42 EST ED, Though I seem to agree with most of your post, I was wondering how you reached the following conclusion: ED>>In our frenzy to codify everything, we've even dropped the common law which Blackstone argued contained the whole of Christianity.<< I would say that common law is more important in our courts than code is. If an attorney tried to argue from a statute in a particular case which had never been applied or interpretted previously, the court would treat it as an "issue of first impression", since there would be no previous case law interpreting the statute. Why did Vice-President Gore claim that there weas "no controlling legal authority" on whether or not it was illegal for him to solicit donations from a government building, when there was a statute on the books which explicitly prohibitted just that? Answer: there was no case law interpreting the statute. In my experience in court, judges are much more persuaded by case law in the absence of statutory authority than by statutory authority in the absence of case law. Ron Morales. ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) Date: 09 Dec 1997 11:51:34 EST RAM61962 wonders: Though I seem to agree with most of your post, I was wondering how you reached the following conclusion: ßßß ED>>In our frenzy to codify everything, we've even dropped the common law which Blackstone argued contained the whole of Christianity.<< I would say that common law is more important in our courts than code is. If an attorney tried to argue from a statute in a particular case which had never been applied or interpretted previously, the court would treat it as an "issue of first impression", since there would be no previous case law interpreting the statute.ßßßßß I was arguing in shorthand. I should have said "that part of common law which, Blackstone argued, contained the whole of Christianity." We didn't lose all common law by any stretch. But there were serious efforts in most of the states to change those parts of the common law that were offensive to the revolution. Jefferson talks about this in his "autobiography" and in *Notes on Virginia*. When the Declaration was done, the Congress suggested that the 13 allied nations get their own governments in order, as befitting independent nations, and Jefferson promptly went home and spent the war making a blueprint for good government. He proposed about 150 laws over the next decade, a good number of which were enacted, giving a pilot for the Constitution in many cases. Jefferson, Madison, and George Mason (and maybe a couple of others) were appointed to a committee of the Virginia legislature to reform those laws including criminal laws and those areas that governed church relations. We got the immediate disestablishment of the church, we got Mason's "Virginia Bill of Rights," and we got a number of other laws that codified odd things like blasphemy and heresy. Reconstructionists and revisionists argue that these laws, proposed by Jefferson and Madison, prove that the two guys were closet Fundamentalist Christians and (you expected this) intended to found a Christian nation. Jefferson explains that the authority for initiating prosecution for these crimes was vested by common law in the local clergy. Moreover, the local clergy also got the right to determine just what WAS blasphemy and heresy, again under common law. Jefferson thought this a gross abomination. By codifying the crimes he removed them from common law, and thereby removed from the administration of justice the Anglican clergy whom he held suspect. So it is true that these stalwarts of freedom proposed laws on blasphemy and heresy. But it is also true, ironically, that they did so in an effort to kill prosecutions for the crimes -- and they were successful. That was 1777. It was nine years before they got the Statute for Religious Freedom passed, which probably obviated the codification issue. Other states did other things with common law. New York's constitution said something like any common law not specifically repudiated was still good; most of the constitutions (including New York's!) had freedom of religion clauses that, most lawyers presumed, stopped dead the common law crimes of blasphemy and heresy. But as you've seen on this board, there were a few odd prosecutions despite these clauses for freedom. Which just goes to show you that you shouldn't trust as gospel anything about history (even the stuff I tell you!) -- read it for yourself, and that freedoms, once won, must be continually guarded and sometimes won again. Ed ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: ram61962@aol.com (RAM61962) Date: 10 Dec 1997 00:19:08 EST My brief 2 cents on a "Christian nation". As a Christian, I couldn't care if every single colonist wanted a "Christian nation" (whatever that is - would the entire nation have to be baptised? Perhaps dunked in the Pacific Ocean?). Don't Christians have any historical knowledge of what has happened when governments have formally endorsed Christianity? Governments start to justifiy all of their actions,good, abd and ugly, in the name of Christianity, alienating good chunks of the populace who then associate Christianity with the government. "Nations" and governments can't be Christian. Only individuals can. Nations/governments don't enter into personal (they aren't persons) relationships with Christ. Government is an inherently oppressive institution (albeit necessary), enforcing its will with sometimes lethal force. In what way can that be consistent with Christianity, and with sharing the gospel in love in the hope that the listener will FREELY accept Christ? Ron Morales ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 10 Dec 1997 21:57:59 EST In article <19971210051901.AAA01644@ladder02.news.aol.com>, ram61962@aol.com (RAM61962) Ron Morales writes: >My brief 2 cents on a "Christian nation". As a Christian, I couldn't care if >every single colonist wanted a "Christian nation" (whatever that is - would >the entire nation have to be baptised? Perhaps dunked in the Pacific Ocean?). >Don't Christians have any historical knowledge of what has happened when >governments have formally endorsed Christianity? To the extent that they **consistently** endorse Christianity, we have freedom and prosperity. >Governments start to >justifiy all of their actions,good, abd and ugly, in the name of >Christianity, alienating good chunks of the populace who then associate >Christianity with the government. Obviously the problem here -- justifying "bad and ugly" in the Name of Christianity -- is that the gov't is not CONSISTENTLY endorsing Christianity, but is endorsing sophist secularism. >"Nations" and governments can't be >Christian. Only individuals can. Nations/governments don't enter into >personal (they aren't persons) relationships with Christ. Are corporations persons? According to the law, they are. They therefore have a duty to obey God's Law. >Government is an >inherently oppressive institution I agree >(albeit necessary), I disagree >enforcing its will with >sometimes lethal force. In what way can that be consistent with Christianity, >and with sharing the gospel in love in the hope that the listener will FREELY >accept Christ? It can't. Abolish it. But if you're going to have a state, isn't it better to try and hold it in check with God's Law than to let it be its own god? Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/08theocracy.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: ram61962@aol.com (RAM61962) Date: 11 Dec 1997 00:30:17 EST Ron>>Don't Christians have any historical knowledge of what has happened when governments have formally endorsed Christianity? << Kevin>>To the extent that they **consistently** endorse Christianity, we have freedom and prosperity.<< One example please? Ron ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 14 Dec 1997 04:20:54 EST In article <19971211053001.AAA05958@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ram61962@aol.com (RAM61962) writes: >Ron>>Don't Christians have any historical knowledge of what has happened >when governments have formally endorsed Christianity? << >Kevin>>To the >extent that they **consistently** endorse Christianity, we have freedom and >prosperity.<< >One example please? America 1776 vs. Amerika 1997. Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. (Geo. Washington) [O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. (Ben. Franklin) Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. . . . Manners, by which not only the freedom but the very existence of the republics are greatly affected, depend much upon the public institutions of religion. (John Hancock) The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in his discourses. (Thom. Jefferson to James Fishback, Sept 27, 1809) [T]he Holy Scriptures . . . can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase our penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses. (James McHenry, Signer of Constitution, Sec'y of War) While the great body of freeholders are acquainted with the duties which they owe to their God, to themselves, and to men, they will remain free. But if ignorance and depravity should prevail, they will inevitably lead to slavery and ruin. (Samuel Huntington, Signer of Declaration of Independence, Governor of Connecticut) Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/HolyTrinity.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: ram61962@aol.com (RAM61962) Date: 11 Dec 1997 00:32:27 EST Kevin>>Obviously the problem here -- justifying "bad and ugly" in the Name of Christianity -- is that the gov't is not CONSISTENTLY endorsing Christianity, but is endorsing sophist secularism.<< Not "obvious" at all. The problem "obviously" is that laws, the enforceable arm of government, are by nature coercive. Nothing in Christianity calls on us to coerce anything. A "Christian government" is a contradiction in terms. Ron ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 14 Dec 1997 04:20:55 EST In article <19971211053201.AAA04559@ladder02.news.aol.com>, ram61962@aol.com (RAM61962) writes: >Kevin>>Obviously the problem here -- justifying "bad and ugly" in the Name of >Christianity -- is that the gov't is not CONSISTENTLY endorsing Christianity, >but is endorsing sophist secularism.<< >Not "obvious" at all. The problem >"obviously" is that laws, the enforceable arm of government, are by nature >coercive. Nothing in Christianity calls on us to coerce anything. A >"Christian government" is a contradiction in terms. So are you a Christian? Do you believe that we should abolish all penal laws which call for the imprisonment of a convicted serial rapist? If you defend such coercion, do you also defend the imprisonment of Christians merely because they are Christians? By what standard do you advocate some forms of coercion and oppose others? I am prepared to abolish a legal system which says it is "unconstitutional" to teach children that God says "Thou shalt not kill" even if that means no laws will exist to coerce murderers. I trust God to keep me safe from murderers more than a secular legal system. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/HolyTrinity.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: ram61962@aol.com (RAM61962) Date: 11 Dec 1997 00:35:38 EST Kevin>>Are corporations persons? According to the law, they are. They therefore have a duty to obey God's Law.<< Individuals have a duty to obey God's law, but there is nothing in Christianity which endorses or prescribes the enforcement of God's law on others. The "legal definition" of a person is a red herring. Corporations are legal persons for practical purposes. It's a legal fiction. Since when does secular law define God's law? If the state defined a tree as a person, would it therefore be murder to cut one down, according to God's law? Ron ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 14 Dec 1997 04:20:56 EST In article <19971211053501.AAA06516@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ram61962@aol.com (RAM61962) writes: >Kevin>>Are corporations persons? According to the law, they are. They >therefore have a duty to obey God's Law.<< >The "legal definition" of a person >is a red herring. Corporations are legal persons for practical purposes. It's >a legal fiction. Since when does secular law define God's law? God's law says to obey human laws (Romans 13, 1 Peter 2). In this way secular laws define God's Law. >If the state >defined a tree as a person, would it therefore be murder to cut one down, >according to God's law? It wouldn't be "murder" according to God's Law, but it might still be God's Law to obey the State and not cut down a tree. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/HolyTrinity.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: ram61962@aol.com (RAM61962) Date: 11 Dec 1997 00:42:30 EST Ron>>Government is an >inherently oppressive institution << Kevin>>I agree<< So in what way can something inherently oppressive be "Christian"? Ron>(albeit necessary), Kevin>>I disagree<< Government isn't necessary? So you'd be happy to do away with the enforcement of contracts, the protection against invading forces, and the protection of the citizenry from murderers, etc.? Ron>enforcing its will with >sometimes lethal force. In what way can that be consistent with Christianity, >and with sharing the gospel in love in the hope that the listener will FREELY >accept Christ? Kevin>>It can't. Abolish it.<< Who's going to abolish it? Some organized political structure? (read: government). Governments can't be abolished. The very act of abolishing a government requires an organized political entity capable of abolishing political institutions, and keeping them from coming back. Hence, a government. Kevin>>But if you're going to have a state, isn't it better to try and hold it in check with God's Law than to let it be its own god?<< Sure, but A. Who decides and why?, and B. This still doesn't make a "Christian government" possible or advisable. Ron ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 14 Dec 1997 04:20:59 EST In article <19971211054201.AAA05576@ladder02.news.aol.com>, ram61962@aol.com (RAM61962) writes: >Ron>>Government is an >inherently oppressive institution << >Kevin>>I >agree<< >Ron>(albeit necessary), >Kevin>>I disagree<< >Government isn't >necessary? So you'd be happy to do away with the enforcement of contracts, >the protection against invading forces, and the protection of the citizenry >from murderers, etc.? I dealt with murderers in a previous post. Antony Sutton of the prestigious Hoover Institution at Stanford Univ has comprehensively documented the fact that the Soviet Union came into being and was continually propped up by infusions of Western Technology and Economic and Military Aid. The Soviet Union is "The Best Enemy Money Can Buy" (to use the title of one of his books). If there were no U.S. Government there would be no Communists, no drug cartels, no terrorists. The Bible says (1 Corinthians 6:1-11) that if someone breaks his contract with you, it is better to be defrauded than to enlist the paid gunmen of the pagan State. I have served on the Board of Directors of an organization called The Christian Conciliation Service which attempts to reconcile contractual (and other) legal disputes in the Church, not in secular courts. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/HolyTrinity.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 14 Dec 1997 04:20:57 EST In article <19971211054201.AAA05576@ladder02.news.aol.com>, ram61962@aol.com (RAM61962) writes: >Ron>>Government is an >inherently oppressive institution << >Kevin>> I >agree<< >So in what way can something inherently oppressive be "Christian"? In the same way a bad father can become a Christian and realize that he must become a good father. A dictator can become a Christian and realize that he must obey God's Law, not just in his "private" life but as Chief of State. He will initially strive to become a "benevolent dictator," but soon realize that his acts of taxation and coercion are anti-Christian, and he will resign to (an influential) private life. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/HolyTrinity.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 14 Dec 1997 04:21:00 EST In article <19971211054201.AAA05576@ladder02.news.aol.com>, ram61962@aol.com (RAM61962) writes: >Kevin>>It can't. Abolish it.<< Ron>Who's going to abolish it? Some organized >political structure? (read: government). Governments can't be abolished. "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" If your salary is paid with money which has not been voluntarily transferred to you because you provide a superior service or product, but has been forcibly extracted through violence or threats of force, then you should get a new job. If "the government" asks you to put on a funny uniform and kill people you don't even know, and whose only "crime" is that they have been threatened and forced by "their" "government" to don a funny uniform and kill YOU, you should politely refuse "the government's" request. Follow these two easy-to-understand rules, and "the government" will have been abolished. >The >very act of abolishing a government requires an organized political entity >capable of abolishing political institutions, and keeping them from coming >back. Hence, a government. As I have shown, all it requires is Christian moral fortitude. >Kevin>>But if you're going to have a state, isn't >it better to try and hold it in check with God's Law than to let it be its >own god?<< >Sure, but A. Who decides and why?, and B. This still doesn't make >a "Christian government" possible or advisable. The individuals who "vote" for a government and those who are "elected" or "appointed" or "hired" must decide to follow the rules above. As to "why," I would say because the Bible says to do it, and the Bible is God's Word and Standard of true humanity, but if someone decides to stop killing in the name of the nation-state simply because he believes the Man in the Moon told him to, we're all still better off. Any government which attempts to follow God's Law is better than a government which does not believe it is "under law" at all. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/HolyTrinity.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) Date: 11 Dec 1997 11:41:05 EST Kevin said: >>Are corporations persons? According to the law, they are. They therefore have a duty to obey God's Law.<< Which provision of the U.S. Constitution creates a duty to obey God's Law? Please be specific. Ed ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: ram61962@aol.com (RAM61962) Date: 11 Dec 1997 21:46:03 EST Kevin said: >>Are corporations persons? According to the law, they are. They therefore have a duty to obey God's Law.<< Ed>>Which provision of the U.S. Constitution creates a duty to obey God's Law? Please be specific.<< I don't believe Kevin claimed it did. I presumed that Kevin was arguing that since the law defines corporations as persons, and since persons have a moral duty to obey God's law, then corporations have a duty to obey God's law. I didn't like such reasoning for reasons previously stated. Ron ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) Date: 12 Dec 1997 11:21:04 EST RAM said: >>I don't believe Kevin claimed it did. I presumed that Kevin was arguing that since the law defines corporations as persons, and since persons have a moral duty to obey God's law, then corporations have a duty to obey God's law.<< Kevin said corporations have a duty to follow God's law. If he meant a non-legally binding duty, fine. If he meant, as I think he did, that there is a duty to follow Biblical law implicit or explicit in U.S. law, I want a citation. No such duty exists. Ed ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: ram61962@aol.com (RAM61962) Date: 13 Dec 1997 21:41:05 EST By the way ED, I'm not ignoring your "Thread of Life" recommendation. I'm trying to find it, and I know it exists (I'm not doubting you), but neither Supercrown Books nor Borders have it, and the college library I checked only had a 1966 book on microbilogy and evolution titled "The Thread of Life" which I am sure is not the one you are referring to, since it doesn't deliver what you promised (it's not, is it? I recally fining out that there's a book by that title published in 1995. That's the one, isn't it?) Any ideas on where to find it would be appreciated. Ron ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 14 Dec 1997 04:21:03 EST In article <19971212162101.LAA07120@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >Kevin said corporations have a duty to follow God's law. If he meant a >non-legally binding duty, fine. If he meant, as I think he did, that there >is a duty to follow Biblical law implicit or explicit in U.S. law, I want a >citation. No such duty exists. There certainly WAS such a duty, although one could easily argue that the Supreme Court has negated that duty. The Declaration of Independence asserts the existence of "the Supreme Judge of the World." Knowing what we know about those who signed that document, it is clear that they believed this God judged on the basis of His Law. In his Inaugural Address, President Washington told a joint-session of Congress that . . . it would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almight Being who rules over the universe . . . . He said the people of the United States were "bound to acknowledge and adore" God, adding that we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained. This was not a secular nation. There was no separation of God and State. Every state in the union made murder a crime because it was prohibited in God's Law. Thus, every resident of the nation was required to obey God's Law, even if they were permitted to worship God (or not) any (private) way they pleased (provided their *public* conduct was acceptable according to Christian standards). Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/08theocracy.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 14 Dec 1997 04:21:01 EST In article <19971211164100.LAA10123@ladder02.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >Kevin said: >>Are corporations persons? According to the law, they are. They >therefore have a duty to obey God's Law.<< >Which provision of the U.S. >Constitution creates a duty to obey God's Law? Please be specific. The duty comes from God's Law. The Constitution does not create the duty, but simply recognizes this pre-existing Law. It "recognizes it" not it so many words on the face of the documents, as much as in the words of its Framers, the intent of whom determines the correct understanding of the document. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/08theocracy.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) Date: 11 Dec 1997 11:46:00 EST Kevin said: >>But if you're going to have a state, isn't it better to try and hold it in check with God's Law than to let it be its own god?<< No. Did you get hit in the head recently? I hope you feel better soon, and your memory returns. You seem to have forgotten a good chunk of this discussion. A whole bunch of people worked incredibly hard to figure out how best to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, before the American Revolution, during the war itself and for the following four decades. What they determined is that using "God's Law" as a check on government led to corruption of the church, the clergy and government. What worked best was to spread authority broadly, guaranteeding freedom of conscience to citizens (specifically in speech, press, assembly and religious belief), and let a multiplicity of influences keep the government train on track. The blueprint is called the U.S. Constitution. By specific design it does not incorporate "God's law, " except as God sees fit to move the people. Ed ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 14 Dec 1997 04:21:05 EST In article <19971211164601.LAA10505@ladder02.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >Kevin said: >>But if you're going to have a state, isn't it better to try >and hold it in check with God's Law than to let it be its own god?<< >No. Ed is no friend of America: [H]e is the best friend to American liberty who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country. (John Witherspoon) The Founders of this country were united in their belief that God's Law was the best check on government corruption. >Did you get hit in the head recently? I hope you feel better soon, and your >memory returns. You seem to have forgotten a good chunk of this >discussion. >A whole bunch of people Actually a small number of people >worked incredibly hard to figure out how >best to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, >before the American Revolution, during the war itself and for the following >four decades. What they determined is that using "God's Law" as a check on >government led to corruption of the church, the clergy and government. Oh, I'm sorry; when I said "a small number" I thought you were talking about the Founding Fathers. You must be talking about the French Revolution. But on the assumption that you are talking about the men who signed the Constitution, where did they set forth this determination? This whole argument is patently ridiculous, Ed. The Founders of America "determined" that when politicians followed the morality of the Bible they became corrupt?? What are you talking about? And when politicians follow the morality of the Bible the CLERGY become corrupt??? Are you on drugs? See if the following support your contention that "What [the Founders] determined is that using "God's Law" as a check on government led to corruption of the church, the clergy and government." From Portsmouth, New Hampshire newspaper, May 24, 1800 (also *Documentary History of the Supreme Court*, III:436): On Monday last the Circuit Court of the United States was opened in this town. The Hon Judge (Sup Ct Justice) Paterson presided. After the Jury were impaneled, the Judge delivered a most elegant and appropriate charge . . . . Religion and morality were pleasingly inculcated and enforced as being necessary to good government, good order, and good laws, for "when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice" [Proverbs 29:2] . . . After the charge was delivered, the Rev. Mr. [Timothy] Alden addressed the Throne of Grace in an excellent, well-adapted prayer. Public schools taught what Noah Webster wrote in his textbooks: When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. And in another text, In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate -- look to his character. . . . It is alleged by men of loose principles or defective views of the subject that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the Scriptures teach a different doctrine. They direct that rulers should be men "who rule in the fear of God, able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness" [Exodus 18:21] . . . [I]t is to the neglect of this rule of conduct in our citizens that we must ascribe the multiplied frauds, breaches of trust, peculations [white-collar larceny] and embezzlements of public property which astonish even ourselves; which tarnish the character of our country; which disgrace a republican government. Speaking before the Massachusetts Legislature, Chandler Robbins declared, How constantly do we find it inculcated in the sacred writings, that rulers be "just men -- fearers of God -- haters of covetousness." That they "shake their hands from holding bribes," because " "a gift blindeth the eyes of the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous." Sam Adams: He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard of his country. [P]rivate and public vices are in reality . . . connected. . . . The public cannot be too curious concerning the [private] characters of public men. Gouverneur Morris signed the Constitution believing that There must be religion. When that ligament is torn, society is disjointed and its members perish. The nation is exposed to foreign violence and domestic convulsion. Vicious rulers, chosen by vicious people, turn back the current of corruption to its source. But the most important of all lessons is the denunciation of ruin to every state that rejects the precepts of religion. John Witherspoon signed a Declaration of Independence from Britain, not from God: Those, therefore, who pay no regard to religion and sobriety in the persons whom they send to the legislature of any State are guilty of the greatest absurdity and will soon pay dear for their folly. Would you like to retract your "absurdity" before you pay for your "folly?" Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/08theocracy.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 10 Dec 1997 21:57:56 EST In article <19971207084501.DAA20541@ladder02.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >In the end it doesn't matter what Locke said. It matters what is written in >the Constitution. It clearly does not set up a system of Biblical law. Systems of Biblical Law (more or less) were already in place. The First Amendment says the Feds cannot overthrow them. The Feds have repeatedly violated the First Amendment in this respect. In order for your position to be correct, the Constitution would have to say, "We hereby repudiate all laws based on the Bible, and forbid the Bible to be the basis for all future laws." You haven't anything CLOSE to this. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/08theocracy.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) Date: 11 Dec 1997 11:20:01 EST I said: >In the end it doesn't matter what Locke said. It matters what is written in >the Constitution. It clearly does not set up a system of Biblical law. Kevin responded: >>Systems of Biblical Law (more or less) were already in place.<< Must I ask again for an example? >>The First Amendment says the Feds cannot overthrow them. << The First Amendment says that, to the extent any law is based on the Bible alone and not on the consent of the governed, it may not be supported by the federal government or any other entity authorized under the Constitution (which includes all governments in the U.S.). >>The Feds have repeatedly violated the First Amendment in this respect. In order for your position to be correct, the Constitution would have to say, "We hereby repudiate all laws based on the Bible, and forbid the Bible to be the basis for all future laws." You haven't anything CLOSE to this.<< Any time a law is codified, it repudiates whatever is in common law that is opposed to it. To this end Mason, with Jefferson and Madison, moved to codify certain ecclesiastical "crimes," in order to remove them from the jurisdiction of the common law and the clergy -- thereby repealing them. The states would have been the respositories for most of what you call Biblical law, I suspect. And the states took various tacks on the issue. None of them said expressly that Biblical law was operational; most of them granted religious freedom as a fundamental part of their new charters. Again we see that there is no solid evidence for saying that Biblical law undergirds U.S. law in a strong link. Not a single example, and now Kevin retreats from the position that the Constitution and Articles of Confederation show overt influence. Ed ------------------- Subject: Re: By what authority? From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 10 Dec 1997 21:57:57 EST In article <19971207084501.DAA20541@ladder02.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >>>You're rapidly degenerating into a sophist, Ed.<< >We all cursed Pirsig as >we had to struggle through *Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance* during >the "lightning week" of our first year of graduate school in rhetoric. Then >we understood. Pirsig points out that the Sophists were right. What, that it's good to make money by using specious forms of argument in order to prove that good is evil and evil is good? Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/08theocracy.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: Bible-based law From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) Date: 07 Dec 1997 04:03:57 EST Kevin said: >>Cite an authority. Contra is Donald Lutz, *The Origins of American Constitutionalism* (Louisiana State Univ. Press, 1988). A team of contemporary political scientists embarked on an ambitious ten-year project to analyze more than 15,000 political writings from the Founding Era (1760-1805) Those writings were examined with the goal of isolating and identifying the specific political sources cited amidst the debates in the establishment of American government. Which source most influenced the Founders? Four times more than Montesquieu or Blackstone, twelve times more than Locke, the Founders cited the Bible.<< I've tried several times to get this Lutz "study," and have never been able to find it. Have you a copy? If there is a methodology, I'd like to see it. Can you pick at random any colonial document -- say the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution, or the Articles of Confederation, or George Washington's inaugural -- and support Lutz's theory with it? I challenge you to do so. Directly supporting my argument is the Pulitzer Prize winning history, *Inventing America*, written by Prof. Garry Wills, who is an expert on the classics. Wills shows the influences of the Declaration, line by line. The Bible is an influence, but not so great as you would have us believe. Do you actually have a copy of Lutz's study, or are you quoting this from the discredited David Barton book? >>Why is it that you don't know this, Ed? Because you don't know the Bible. They didn't always put their reference next to the quotation, e.g., "Exodus 20:12," and so because you don't know the Bible, you don't even know when the Founders are quoting the Bible. They do it constantly. All you see is the secular (or what seems secular to you) because that's all you know.<< You can't know this from your familiarity with scripture. I challenge you to take the Constitution and show us the Biblical influences. Be very, very specific. Ed ------------------- Subject: Re: Bible-based law From: ram61962@aol.com (RAM61962) Date: 08 Dec 1997 20:20:36 EST I would be surprised that the Constitution has any foundation in the Bible, since the Constitution seems primarily concerned with the structure of government, which is not a preoccupation of the Bible. More likely influences from the Bible is statutory law, such as laws prohibitting murder, usery, etc. Ron ------------------- Subject: Re: Bible-based law From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 10 Dec 1997 21:57:47 EST In article <19971207090301.EAA21393@ladder02.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >Kevin said: >>Cite an authority. Contra is Donald Lutz, >*The Origins of American Constitutionalism* (Louisiana State Univ. Press, >1988). A team of contemporary political scientists embarked on an ambitious >ten-year project to analyze more than 15,000 political writings from the >Founding Era (1760-1805) Those writings were examined with the goal of >isolating and identifying the specific political sources cited amidst the >debates in the establishment of American government. Which source most >influenced the Founders? Four times more than Montesquieu or Blackstone, >twelve times more than Locke, the Founders cited the Bible.<< >I've tried >several times to get this Lutz "study," and have never been able to find it. >Have you a copy? If there is a methodology, I'd like to see it. How have you "tried?" Here's LSU's page: http://its2.ocs.lsu.edu/guests/lsuprss/catalog/title_o.htm There's always amazon.com Or how about his article, "The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought," The American Political Science Review, 78 (1984), pp. 189-197 But then, even if you read the book, you would still say that the way the Bible was quoted by the Founder was not the way it was quoted by the New England Puritans, and you would be correct. My point is that if the ACLU version of "separation" were true, they wouldn't have quoted it AT ALL. >Can you >pick at random any colonial document -- say the Declaration of Independence, >or the Constitution, or the Articles of Confederation, or George Washington's >inaugural -- and support Lutz's theory with it? I've already quoted Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation. Why would his Inaugural address prove more probative? On Declaration, see Gary Amos' book. >I challenge you to do so. Frankly, I think it would be a waste of my time. >Directly supporting my argument is the Pulitzer Prize winning history, >*Inventing America*, written by Prof. Garry Wills, who is an expert on the >classics. Wills shows the influences of the Declaration, line by line. The >Bible is an influence, but not so great as you would have us believe. But if the ACLU argument is correct, the Bible should not have been an influence AT ALL. Using the Bible in a government document makes atheists feel like "outsiders." It breaks down the "wall of separation." Second, why should we expect an expert on Greco-Roman classicism to detect all the references to the BIBLE? >Do you >actually have a copy of Lutz's study, or are you quoting this from the >discredited David Barton book? Discredited by whom? >>Why is it that you don't know this, Ed? >Because you don't know the Bible. They didn't always put their reference next >to the quotation, e.g., "Exodus 20:12," and so because you don't know the >Bible, you don't even know when the Founders are quoting the Bible. They do >it constantly. All you see is the secular (or what seems secular to you) >because that's all you know.<< >You can't know this from your familiarity >with scripture. >I challenge you to take the Constitution and show us the >Biblical influences. Be very, very specific. I see no point in duplicating Lutz' work. Besides, the Constitution or the Articles of Conf are not the best places to look for Biblical citations. The point is that the Bible IS cited as an authority, this violates the current doctrine of "separation," and thus shows that it is a figment of the ACLU's imagination, and not something the Founders' adhered to. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/08theocracy.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: Bible-based law From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) Date: 11 Dec 1997 10:57:05 EST Kevin said: >>I've already quoted Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation. Why would his Inaugural address prove more probative?<< Right, you've quoted it. What you have NOT done is show how the language from the proclamation, or the ideas it contains, flow from the Bible. Lutz's study, according to you, shows from the language of the documents themselves that the founders were swimming in Bible-influenced thought. So take Washington's short proclamation, go through it and give us the parts of the Bible from which it comes. According to Lutz, it should be simple, if his methodology works. According to you, this is a prime document, touching on religion as it does. I'm from Missouri. Show me. I don't see it myself. Ed ------------------- Subject: Re: Bible-based law From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 14 Dec 1997 04:21:14 EST In article <19971211155701.KAA08664@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >Kevin said: >>I've already quoted Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation. >Why would his Inaugural address prove more probative?<< >Right, you've quoted >it. What you have NOT done is show how the language from the proclamation, >or the ideas it contains, flow from the Bible. Lutz's study, according to >you, shows from the language of the documents themselves that the founders >were swimming in Bible-influenced thought. >So take Washington's short >proclamation, go through it and give us the parts of the Bible from which it >comes. >According to Lutz, it should be simple, if his methodology works. >According to you, this is a prime document, touching on religion as it >does. >I'm from Missouri. Show me. I don't see it myself. OK, here it is: Thanksgiving Proclamation - George Washington - October 3, 1789 WHEREAS, It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; Nothing Biblical about these ideas. WHEREAS, Both the houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:" Wonder why the Congress did this? Must've been reading Voltaire. "Prayer and thanksgiving to Almighty God." This was unquestionably ghost-written by an atheist. Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted' for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us. Yup. Atheistic to the core And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best. "Promote the knowledge and practice of true religion." That was one of Thomas Paine's objectives, wasn't it? Well, You're right Ed. Lutz is obviously mistaken. This is all Paine, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Hume. Nothing religious here. Complete separation of church and state. I concede. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/08theocracy.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: Bible-based law From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 14 Dec 1997 04:21:16 EST In article <19971211155701.KAA08664@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >I'm from Missouri. Show me. I don't see it myself. I quoted Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation, and wrote in my previous post, ----------------------------- WHEREAS, Both the houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:" Wonder why the Congress did this? Must've been reading Voltaire. --------------------------- Stupid satire aside, it is instructive to answer the question, why DID Congress ask Washington to proclaim a day of Thanksgiving? How does their reasoning square with Lutz' theory? The *Annals of Congress* for Sept 25, 1789 record these discussions: Mr [Elias] Boudinot said he could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings He had poured down upon them. With this view, therefore, he would move the following resolution: Resolved, That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness . . . . Mr. [Roger] Sherman justified the practice of thanksgiving, on any signal event, not only as a laudable one in itself but as warranted by a number of precedents in Holy Writ: for instance, the solemn thanksgivings and rejoicings which took place in the time of Solomon after the building of the temple was a case in point. This example he thought worthy of Christian imitation on the present occasion; and he would agree with the gentleman who moved the resolution. Mr Boudinot quoted further precedents from the practice of the late Congress, [he was a member of the Continental Congress from 1778-79 and 1781-84 and President of the Continental Congress 1782-83] and hoped the motion would meet a ready acquiescence. [Boudinot was also founder and first president of the American Bible Society.] The question was now put on the resolution and it was carried in the affirmative. On this very same day, Congress approved the final wording of the First Amendment. Ed, you can't say "show me" and then still have your hands over your eyes. Too bad the ACLU and the post-Everson Supreme Court were not from Missouri. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/08theocracy.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: Bible-based law From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) Date: 11 Dec 1997 10:58:39 EST Kevin said: >>But if the ACLU argument is correct, the Bible should not have been an influence AT ALL. Using the Bible in a government document makes atheists feel like "outsiders." It breaks down the "wall of separation." << No one has ever argued that. What is the purpose of your saying so? Ed ------------------- Subject: Re: Bible-based law From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 14 Dec 1997 04:21:17 EST In article <19971211155800.KAA08752@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >Kevin said: >>But if the ACLU argument is correct, the Bible should not have >been an influence AT ALL. Using the Bible in a government document makes >atheists feel like "outsiders." It breaks down the "wall of separation." ><< >No one has ever argued that. What is the purpose of your saying so? Supreme Court justices argued that very thing when the Court ruled against nativity scenes. I already gave the cites. Secularists have gone to court to remove "In God We Trust" from coins, arguing that it breaks down the "wall of separation." The purpose of my reminding us of these facts is to show that the Founders did not intend the First Amendment to be interpreted the way it is today. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/08theocracy.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: Bible-based law From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) Date: 11 Dec 1997 11:01:42 EST Kevin said: >>I see no point in duplicating Lutz' work. Besides, the Constitution or the Articles of Conf are not the best places to look for Biblical citations. The point is that the Bible IS cited as an authority, this violates the current doctrine of "separation," and thus shows that it is a figment of the ACLU's imagination, and not something the Founders' adhered to.<< The point would be showing that his methodology is not fatally flawed, but then actually studying the crazy points Barton makes is not a forte of the christian nationalism movement. Facts just get in the way of a dudgeon. If the Constitution and Articles of Confederation are poor pickings for finding Bible influences, why are you arguing they are Bible-influenced? You say the Bible is cited as authority, but can't show where or how. Excuse us if we have some doubts, Kevin. Ed ------------------- Subject: Re: Bible-based law (Barton) From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) Date: 11 Dec 1997 11:03:44 EST I said: >Do you >actually have a copy of Lutz's study, or are you quoting this from the >discredited David Barton book? Kevin said: >>Discredited by whom?<< Discredited by anyone who's ever tried to verify his odd version of events. For Barton's sake, at least he put out an errata sheet confessing that many of the "quotes" he attributed to Madison, Jefferson, the Supreme Court and others, were in error, and not as he had presented them. It would be refreshing were one of Barton's readers to be so open. Ed ------------------- Subject: Re: Bible-based law (Barton) From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 14 Dec 1997 04:21:19 EST In article <19971211160300.LAA09111@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >I said: >Do you >actually have a copy of Lutz's study, or are you quoting >this from the >discredited David Barton book? >Kevin said: >>Discredited by >whom?<< >Discredited by anyone who's ever tried to verify his odd version of >events. >For Barton's sake, at least he put out an errata sheet confessing >that many No, Ed, not "many." Out of several hundred (1,374 notes), Barton admitted that a handful -- five or six -- were amply recorded by secondary sources, but no primary source could -- yet -- be found. His errata sheet showed with other quotations of uncontested authenticity that the disputed quotations were entirely consistent with other statements made by the author, but urged his subscribers to avoid using secondary sources so that the case against secularism could be its strongest. >of the "quotes" he attributed to Madison, Jefferson, the Supreme >Court and others, were in error, and not as he had presented them. Wrong again, Ed. The quotations were exact, but were not found in any available primary sources. Secondary sources are not dishonest or illegitimate; they simply aren't the "best evidence." >It would >be refreshing were one of Barton's readers to be so open. It would be refreshing if one of the secularists on this board would actually read Barton's book instead of relying on secondary sources from secularist newsletters. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/08theocracy.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Church and State Separation From: ram61962@aol.com (RAM61962) Date: 13 Dec 1997 21:38:03 EST By the way, I jumped into this folder because I was interested in a discussion of the "separation of church and state". Could I get a refresher on everyone's opinion on the concept? I don't like it because it's vague. It could mean everything from "There should be no official state church" to "The state should be officially agnostic or atheist". I've heard arguments for everything in between, as well as these extremes. Since it's so malleable dependeing on one's personal disposition, it's useless as a guiding principle. What are the positions on why we should even care about Jefferson's (it was Jefferson, wasn't it?) "separation of church and state" remark, since it's not in the Constitution? Ron ------------------- Subject: Re: Madison on Separation From: witchward@aol.com (Witchward) Date: 06 Dec 1997 10:27:36 EST <<< Read *Genesis!* Cain's neighbors found him guilty of murder (Gen 4:14). There were no cultures before that. All law comes from God. Some cultures are better, some worse, at implementing that Law. >>> Sorry Kevin, but archeologically, you are wrong. There were MANY cultures prior to the time of Adam and Eve. Civilization predates that time by many thousands of years. Witchward The Goddess is Alive, and Magick is afoot! ------------------- Subject: Re: Madison on Separation From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 10 Dec 1997 21:58:00 EST In article <19971206152700.KAA10609@ladder01.news.aol.com>, witchward@aol.com (Witchward) writes: ><<< Read *Genesis!* Cain's neighbors found him guilty of murder (Gen 4:14). >There were no cultures before that. All law comes from God. Some cultures are >better, some worse, at implementing that Law. >>> >Sorry Kevin, but >archeologically, you are wrong. There were MANY cultures prior to the time of >Adam and Eve. Civilization predates that time by many thousands of years. I am not unaware of secular theories which contradict the Bible. Obviously I don't buy them. I do not believe that human civilization predates the creation of humans. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/humanism/evol_genocide.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Adams on blasphemy laws From: corumb@aol.com (CorumB) Date: 06 Dec 1997 07:56:20 EST Kevin>>I can't think of a single state that did not have blasphemy laws for decades after the Constitution was ratified. Even Jefferson wrote, While we deny that [the federal] Congress have the right to control the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the right of the States, and their exclusive right, to do so. [Letter to Abigail Adams, 9/11/1804] So many things are "clear" to proponents of secularism.<< CorumB> What's clear is that Jefferson was discussing slander: "Nor does the opinion of the unconstitutionality and consequent nullity of that law remove all restraint from the overwhelming torrent of slander which is confounding all vice and virtue, all truth and falsehood in the US. The power to do that is fully possessed by the several state legislatures. It was reserved to them, and was denied to the general government, by the constitution according to our construction of it. While we deny that Congress have a right to controul [sic] the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the right of the states, and their exclusive right, to do so. They have accordingly, all of them, made provisions for punishing slander, which those who have time and inclination resort to for the vindication of their characters. In general the state laws appear to have made the presses responsible for slander as far as is consistent with their useful freedom. In those states where they do not admit even the truth of allegations to protect the printer, they have gone too far." [Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804, reprinted in _The Adams-Jefferson Letters_, ed. by Lester Cappon] Blasphemy laws were still on the books in the states, as you pointed out. Here's what John Adams said about them: "MY DEAR SIR. We think ourselves possessed or at least we boast that we are so of Liberty of conscience on all subjects and of the right of free inquiry and private judgement, in all cases and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact. There exists I believe throughout the whole Christian world a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or to doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the old and new Testaments from Genesis to Revelations. [sic] In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack or the wheel: in England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red hot poker: in America it is not much better, even in our Massachusetts which I believe upon the whole is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States. A law was made in the latter end of the last century repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the old Testament or new. Now what free inquiry when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigation into the divine authority of those books? Who would run the risk of translating Volney's Recherches Nouvelles? who would run the risk of translating Dupuis? but I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I have it much at heart. I think such laws a great embarassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them; but as long as they continue in force as laws the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed. The substance and essence of Christianity as I understand it is eternal and unchangeable and will bear examination forever but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination and the ought to be separated. Adieu." [from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, January 23, 1825, reprinted in _The Adams-Jefferson Letters_, ed. by Lester Cappon] ------------------- Subject: Re: Adams on blasphemy laws From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 10 Dec 1997 21:58:01 EST In article <19971206125600.HAA27693@ladder02.news.aol.com>, corumb@aol.com (CorumB) quotes John Adams re: blashpemy laws >I wish they were repealed. The substance and essence of Christianity as I >understand it is eternal and unchangeable and will bear examination forever >but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not >bear examination and the ought to be separated. Adieu." [from John Adams to >Thomas Jefferson, January 23, 1825, reprinted in _The Adams-Jefferson >Letters_, ed. by Lester Cappon] I agree with this. What Adams misses, however, is that as long as you have a State, you will always have "blasphemy" laws, that is, the State will tell you what you can and cannot say. A secular State will make it illegal to pray, read the Bible, or question the infallibility of Darwin. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/humanism/evol_genocide.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: Adams on blasphemy laws From: smacfar11@aol.com (SMacfar11) Date: 10 Dec 1997 23:08:36 EST << What Adams misses, however, is that as long as you have a State, you will always have "blasphemy" laws, that is, the State will tell you what you can and cannot say. A secular State will make it illegal to pray, read the Bible, or question the infallibility of Darwin.>> You say "State" as though you could conceive of no form of governement other than dictatorship. How about a democratic State, Kevin? If the State is a democracy and is run by elected representatives, the citizens have the ultimate decision-making power over such issues. Democracy is the best guarantor of individual freedom. What we have right now is workable. I have heard people say the the Bible is infallible and that the Pope is infallible, but have never heard anyone claim that Darwin is infallible. What people appreciate in Darwin is that his explanation of the natural order is, so far, the most logical. How does that threaten you? ------------------- Subject: Re: Adams on blasphemy laws From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 14 Dec 1997 04:20:52 EST In article <19971211040801.XAA24503@ladder02.news.aol.com>, smacfar11@aol.com (SMacfar11) writes: >I have heard people say the the Bible is infallible and that the Pope is >infallible, but have never heard anyone claim that Darwin is infallible. When the Supreme Court ruled that schools could not systematically educate children concerning the scientific evidence against evolution, they reflected the truth of one of Rushdoony's books, *Infallibility: An Inescapable Concept." When the Court denies the infallibility of the Bible, it necessarily rules from a position of a new infallible authority. Vox popula, vox dei -- "the voice of the People is the Voice of God" reflects the doctrine of infallibility in the religion of democracy. Thus Rousseau, informulating his dogmas of democracy, plainly asserted the infallibility of "the general will" of the People: "It follows from what has been said that the general will IS RIGHT and EVER tends to the public advantage." [Social Contract, Bk II, chap III, para 1] The infallibility of the general will as embodied in either the majority, the democratic consensus, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the folk, or an elite group is a doctrine which has dominated the world political scene in the 20th century. Rushdoony's book is full of quotations which ascribe "infallibility" to these humanistic entities. J.L. Talmon describes political infallibility in his book *The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy.* As for evolution, he cites the apostate Jesuit geologist, Teilhard de Chardin, who in his book *The Phenomenon of Man* (with an introduction by Sir Julian Huxley) wrote of the evolutionary process supposedly at work: To bring us into existence it has from the beginning juggled miraculously with too many improbabilities for there to be any risk whatever in committing ourselevs further and following it right to the end. If it undertook the task, it is because it can finish it, following the same methods and with the same infallibility with which it began. >What people appreciate in Darwin is that his explanation of the natural order >is, so far, the most logical. How does that threaten you? What people appreciate in Darwin is that his explanation of the natural order is the most unBiblical, thus relieving them of their duty to obey its precepts. Life, liberty and property are unsafe in a world where every man is his own infallible god. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/humanism/evol_genocide.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: Adams on blasphemy laws From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) Date: 11 Dec 1997 11:48:34 EST Kevin said: >>A secular State will make it illegal to pray, read the Bible, or question the infallibility of Darwin.<< This is untrue, as we know. In the U.S. we have a secular state that *guarantees* each citizen's right to pray (even for children and convicted felons!), that specifically guarantees our right to read the Bible, and allows creationists all nature of unjustified slander on the science that has grown out of Darwin's ideas. America continues to confound it's more hide-bound critics. Ed ------------------- Subject: Democracy From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 14 Dec 1997 04:20:51 EST In article <19971211040801.XAA24503@ladder02.news.aol.com>, smacfar11@aol.com (SMacfar11) writes: >Kevin:<< >What Adams misses, however, is that as long as you have a State, you will >always have "blasphemy" laws, that is, the State will tell you what you can >and cannot say. A secular State will make it illegal to pray, read the Bible, >or question the infallibility of Darwin.>> >You say "State" as though you >could conceive of no form of governement other than dictatorship. No government other than socialism. >How about >a democratic State, Kevin? Popularly-elected socialism is still socialism. Socialist dicatorship is the inevitable result of democracy, as all the Founders agreed. >If the State is a democracy and is run by elected >representatives, the citizens have the ultimate decision-making power over >such issues. SOME citizens have ultimate decision-making power over OTHER citizens. It's still socialism. >Democracy is the best guarantor of individual freedom. What we >have right now is workable. What we have right now is not workable, and it certainly isn't what the Founders envisioned. Getting back to "separation of church and state," the Founders opposed Democracy, and most people think they supported it as well as "separation." They supported neither "democracy" nor a separation of God and State. The U.S. Constitution guarantees a "republican" form of government (Art IV, sec. 4). Here are some excerpts from an article on the subject: The historical development of the meaning of the word republic might be summarized as follows. The Greeks learned that, as Dr. [Will] Durant puts it, “man became free when he recognized that he was subject to law.” The Romans applied the formerly general term “republic” specifically to that system of government in which both the people and their rulers were subject to law. That meaning was recognized throughout all later history, as when the term was applied, however inappropriately in fact and optimistically in self-deception, to the “Republic of Venice” or to the “Dutch Republic.” The meaning was thoroughly understood by our Founding Fathers. As early as 1775 John Adams had pointed out that Aristotle (representing Greek thought), Livy (whom he chose to represent Roman thought), and Harington (a British statesman), all “define a republic to be a government of laws and not of men.” And it was with this full understanding that our constitution-makers proceeded to establish a government which, by its very structure, would require that both the people and their rulers obey certain basic laws -- laws which could not be changed without laborious and deliberate changes in the very structure of that government. When our Founding Fathers established a “republic,” in the hope, as Benjamin Franklin said, that we could keep it, and when they guaranteed to every state within that “republic” a “republican form” of government, they well knew the significance of the terms they were using. And were doing all in their power to make the features of government signified by those terms as permanent as possible. They also knew very well indeed the meaning of the word democracy, and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to avoid for their own times, and to prevent for the future, the evils of a democracy. Let's look at some of the things they said to support and clarify this purpose. On May 31, 1787, Edmund Randolph told his fellow members of the newly assembled Constitutional Convention that the object for which the delegates had met was “to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trials of democracy....” The delegates to the Convention were clearly in accord with this statement. At about the same time another delegate, Elbridge Gerry, said: “The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want (that is, do not lack) virtue; but are the dupes of pretended patriots.” And on June 21, 1788, Alexander Hamilton made a speech in which he stated: "It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." At another time Hamilton said: “We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.” And Samuel Adams warned: “Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’” James Madison, one of the members of the Convention who was charged with drawing up our Constitution, wrote as follows: “...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Madison and Hamilton and Jay and their compatriots of the Convention prepared and adopted a Constitution in which they nowhere even mentioned the word democracy, not because they were not familiar with such a form of government, but because they were. The word democracy had not occurred in the Declaration of Independence, and does not appear in the constitution of a single one of our fifty states -- which constitutions are derived mainly from the thinking of the Founding Fathers of the Republic -- for the same reason. They knew all about Democracies, and if they had wanted one for themselves and their posterity, they would have founded one. Look at all the elaborate system of checks and balances which they established; at the carefully worked-out protective clauses of the Constitution itself, and especially of the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights; at the effort, as Jefferson put it, to “bind men down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution,” and thus to solidify the rule not of men but of laws. All of these steps were taken, deliberately, to avoid and to prevent a Democracy, or any of the worst features of a Democracy, in the United States of America. And so our republic was started on its way. And for well over a hundred years our politicians, statesmen, and people remembered that this was a republic, not a democracy, and knew what they meant when they made that distinction. Again, let's look briefly at some of the evidence. Washington, in his first inaugural address, dedicated himself to “the preservation of the republican model of government.” Thomas Jefferson, our third president, was the founder of the Democratic Party; but in his first inaugural address, although he referred several times to the Republic or the republican form of government, he did not use the word “democracy” a single time. And John Marshall, who was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, said: “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” Thomas Babington Macaulay said: “I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both.” And we certainly seem to be in a fair way today to fulfill his dire prophecy. Nor was Macaulay’s contention a mere personal opinion without intellectual roots and substance in the thought of his times. Nearly two centuries before, Dryden had already lamented that “no government had ever been, or ever can be, wherein timeservers and blockheads will not be uppermost.” And as a result, he had spoken of nations being “drawn to the dregs of a democracy.” While in 1795 Immanuel Kant had written: “Democracy is necessarily despotism.” In 1850 Benjamin Disraeli, worried as was Herbert Spencer at what was already being foreshadowed in England, made a speech to the British House of Commons in which he said: “If you establish a democracy, you must in due time reap the fruits of a democracy. You will in due season have great impatience of public burdens, combined in due season with great increase of public expenditures You will in due season have wars entered into from passion and not from reason; and you will in due season submit to peace ignominiously sought and ignominiously obtained, which will diminish your authority and perhaps endanger your independence. You will in due season find your property is less valuable, and your freedom less complete.” Disraeli could have made that speech with even more appropriateness before a joint session of the American Congress in 1935. And in 1870 he had already come up with an epigram which is strikingly true for the United States today. “The world is weary,” he said, “of statesmen whom democracy has degraded into politicians.” But even in Disraeli’s day there were similarly prophetic voices on this side of the Atlantic. In our own country James Russell Lowell showed that he recognized the danger of unlimited majority rule by writing: “Democracy gives every man The right to be his own oppressor.” W. H. Seward pointed out that “Democracies are prone to war, and war consumes them.” This is an observation certainly borne out during the past fifty years exactly to the extent that we have been becoming a democracy and fighting wars, with each trend as both a cause and an effect of the other one. And in the 1880's Governor Seymour of New York said that the merit of our Constitution was, not that it promotes democracy, but checks it. Across the Atlantic again, a little later, Oscar Wilde once contributed this epigram to the discussion: “Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people.” While on this side, and after the first World War had made the degenerative trend in our government so visible to any penetrating observer, H. L. Mencken wrote: “The most popular man under a democracy is not the most democratic man, but the most despotic man. The common folk delight in the exactions of such a man. They like him to boss them. Their natural gait is the goosestep.” While Ludwig Lewisohn observed: “Democracy, which began by liberating men politically, has developed a dangerous tendency to enslave him through the tyranny of majorities and the deadly power of their opinion.” But it was a great Englishman, G. K. Chesterton, who put his finger on the basic reasoning behind all the continued and determined efforts of the Communists to convert our republic into a democracy. “You can never have a revolution,” he said, “in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution.” And in 1931 the Duke of Northumberland, in his booklet, The History of World Revolution, stated: “The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise.” While an even more recent analyst, Archibald E. Stevenson, summarized the situation as follows: “De Tocqueville once warned us,” he wrote, “that: ‘If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event will arise from the unlimited tyranny of the majority.’ But a majority will never be permitted to exercise such ‘unlimited tyranny’ so long as we cling to the American ideals of republican liberty and turn a deaf ear to the siren voices now calling us to democracy. This is not a question relating to the form of government. That can always be changed by constitutional amendment. It is one affecting the underlying philosophy of our system -- a philosophy which brought new dignity to the individual, more safety for minorities and greater justice in the administration of government. We are in grave danger of dissipating this splendid heritage through mistaking it for democracy.” Molding Public Opinion In 1928 the U. S. Army Training Manual, used for all of our men in army uniform, gave them the following quite accurate definition of a democracy: “A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic -- negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.” That was in 1928. just when that true explanation was dropped, and through what intermediate changes the definition went, I have not had sufficient time and opportunity to learn. But compare that 1928 statement with what was being said in the same place for the same use by 1952. In The Soldiers Guide, Department of the Army Field Manual, issued in June of 1952, we find the following: “Meaning of democracy. **Because the United States is a democracy**, the majority of the people decide how our government will be organized and run -- and that includes the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The people do this by electing representatives, and these men and women then carry out the wishes of the people.” (Emphasis mine.) Now obviously this change from basic truth to superficial demagoguery, in the one medium for mass indoctrination of our youth which has been available to the Federal Government until such time as it achieves control over public education, did not just happen by accident. It was part of an over-all design, which became both extensive in its reach and rapid in its execution from 1933 on. By today that same poison has been diffused, in an effective dosage, through almost the whole body of American thought about government. Newspapers write ringing editorials declaring that this is and always was a democracy. In pamphlets and books and speeches, in classrooms and pulpits and over the air, we are besieged with the shouts of the Liberals and their political henchmen, all pointing with pride to our being a democracy. Many of them even believe it. Here we have a clear-cut sample of the Big Lie which has been repeated so often and so long that it is increasingly accepted as truth. And never was a Big Lie spread more deliberately for more subversive purposes. What is even worse, because of their unceasing efforts to destroy the safeguards, traditions, and policies which made us a republic, and partly because of this very propaganda of deception, what they have been shouting so long is gradually becoming truth. Despite Mr. Warren and his Supreme Court and all of their allies, dupes, and bosses, we are not yet a democracy. But the fingers in the dike are rapidly becoming fewer and less effective. And a great many of the pillars of our republic have already been washed away. Since 1912 we have seen the imposition of a graduated income tax, as already mentioned. Also, as mentioned, the direct election of Senators. We have seen the Federal Reserve System established and then become the means of giving our central government absolute power over credit, interest rates, and the quantity and value of our money; and we have seen the Federal Government increasingly use this means and this power to take money from the pockets of the thrifty and put it in the hands of the thriftless, to expand bureaucracy, increase its huge debts and deficits, and to promote socialistic purposes of every kind. We have seen the Federal Government increase its holdings of land by tens of millions of acres, and go into business, as a substitute for and in competition with private industry, to the extent that in many fields it is now the largest-and in every case the most inefficient-producer of goods and services in the nation. And we have seen it carry the socialistic control of agriculture to such extremes that the once vaunted independence of our farmers is now a vanished dream. We have seen a central government taking more and more control over public education, over communications, over transportation, over every detail of our daily lives. James Madison, in trying to give us a republic instead of a democracy, wrote that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be denounced as the very definition of tyranny.” The whole problem for the Liberal Establishment that runs our government today, and has been running it for many years regardless of the labels worn by successive administrations, has not been any divergence of beliefs or of purposes between the controlling elements of our executive, legislative, or judicial branches. For years, these branches have been acting increasingly in complete accord, and obviously according to designs laid down for them by the schemers and plotters behind the scenes. And their only question has been as to how fast the whole tribe dared to go in advancing the grand design. We do not yet have a democracy simply because it takes a lot of time and infinite pressures to sweep the American people all of the way into so disastrous an abandonment of their governmental heritage. In a democracy there is a centralization of governmental power in a simple majority. And that, visibly, is the system of government which the enemies of our republic are seeking to impose on us today. Nor are we “drifting” into that system, as Harry Atwood said in 1933, and as many would still have us believe. We are being insidiously, conspiratorially, and treasonously led by deception, by bribery, by coercion, and by fear, to destroy a republic that was the envy and model for all of the civilized world. ------------------------------------ Excerpted from: http://jbs.org/republic.htm This explains why it is important to teach the Bible in schools. As Noah Webster explained in his U.S. History textbook: [O]ur citizens should *early* understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/08theocracy.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Jefferson debunks Blackstone From: corumb@aol.com (CorumB) Date: 06 Dec 1997 07:36:50 EST Kevin>>Jefferson once quipped that American lawyers used Blackstone's Commentaries with the same dedication and reverence that Muslims used the Koran. Blackstone said: Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying His being or Providence or uttering contumelious [insulting] reproaches on our Savior Christ. It is punished at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land. Did the Constitution declare that Christianity was no longer a part of the law of the land? That certainly would have been news to a lot of people.<< CorumB> Thomas Jefferson explicitly rejected Blackstone's claim that Christianity was part of the common law when wrote to Dr. Thomas Cooper, from Monticello, February 10, 1814. In the letter, Jefferson explains how a "string of authorities" (including Blackstone) arrived at their mistaken conclusion. Jefferson ultimately traces their error to a mistranslation by Finch from Pisot, and also points out that the Saxons were not yet Christians when they introduced common law on their settlement in England. Jefferson repeated his argument in a letter to Major John Cartwright, on June 5, 1824. He also stated, "I was glad to find in your book a formal contradiction, at length, of the judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the judges have usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed." (Source:_Thomas Jefferson: Writings (Autobiography, Notes on the State of Virginia, Public and Private Papers, Addresses, Letters)_, Edited by Merrill D. Peterson, The Library of America, 1984) Jefferson used the argument in an even earlier letter to John Adams on January 24, 1814, showing that common law was not based on Christianity. Jefferson said, "Our judges too have lent a ready hand to further these frauds, and have been willing to lay the yoke of their own opinions on the necks of others; to extend the coercions of municipal law to the dogmas of their religion, by declaring that these make a part of the law of the land." (p. 422) -- _The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams_, edited by Lester F. Cappon, 1959, reprinted 1988, published by The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, p. 421-425. P.S. Kevin, please make an effort to include sources (primary and secondary) for specific statements in your posts - new readers show up sometimes. Too, I'd like to be able to check your sources as needed. Thanks. ------------------- Subject: Re: Jefferson debunks Blackstone From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 10 Dec 1997 21:58:03 EST In article <19971206123600.HAA28303@ladder01.news.aol.com>, corumb@aol.com (CorumB) writes: >Kevin>>Jefferson once quipped that American lawyers >used Blackstone's Commentaries with the same dedication and reverence that >Muslims used the Koran. Blackstone said: Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying His being or Providence or uttering contumelious [insulting] reproaches on our Savior Christ. It is punished at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land. >Did the Constitution declare that Christianity was no longer a >part of the law of the land? That certainly would have been news to a lot of >people.<< >CorumB> Thomas Jefferson explicitly rejected Blackstone's claim >that Christianity was part of the common law when wrote to Dr. Thomas Cooper, >from Monticello, February 10, 1814. In the letter, Jefferson explains how a >"string of authorities" (including Blackstone) arrived at their mistaken >conclusion. Jefferson ultimately traces their error to a mistranslation by >Finch from Pisot, and also points out that the Saxons were not yet Christians >when they >introduced common law on their settlement in England. Blackstone (and the Founders) did not say that the common law *as originally introduced* was thelaw of the land, but common law as it had been Christianized. I have only a clue who Finch and Pisot were, but they are not as authoritative as Blackstone or Harvard Law Prof Harold Berman. It's almost *meaningless* to assert that Christianity was not part of the common law. It's almost incoherent it is so far from the facts. >Jefferson >repeated his argument in a letter to Major John Cartwright, on June 5, 1824. >He also stated, "I was glad to find in your book a formal contradiction, at >length, of the judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the >judges have usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part >of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is >incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons >were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ >pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed." (Source:_Thomas >Jefferson: Writings (Autobiography, Notes on the State of Virginia, Public >and Private Papers, Addresses, Letters)_, Edited by Merrill D. Peterson, The >Library of America, 1984) Same bad argument. It's like an evolutionist arguing that humans are not human because they began as fish. >Jefferson used the argument in an even earlier >letter to John Adams on January 24, 1814, showing that common law was not >based on Christianity. Jefferson said, "Our judges too have lent a ready hand >to further these frauds, and have been willing to lay the yoke of their own >opinions on the necks of others; to extend the coercions of municipal law to >the dogmas of their religion, by declaring that these make a part of the law >of the land." (p. 422) -- _The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete >Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams_, edited >by Lester F. Cappon, 1959, reprinted 1988, published by The University of >North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, p. 421-425. The work of Blackstone and Berman is far too comprehensive to dispose of by this gossamer argument. Jefferson is wrong. However the common law *began,* it was far too Christian by the time of Blackstone to overthrow his argument. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/08theocracy.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 ------------------- Subject: Re: Jefferson debunks Blackstone From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) Date: 11 Dec 1997 11:37:22 EST CorumB's post of Jefferson's debunking of Blackstone earned this response from Kevin: >>The work of Blackstone and Berman is far too comprehensive to dispose of by this gossamer argument. Jefferson is wrong. However the common law *began,* it was far too Christian by the time of Blackstone to overthrow his argument.<< Blackstone is widely recognized as gossamer himself. How odd to say that a gossamer argument can't overcome his errors. If the common law were indeed "Christian," we should have little difficulty pointing to examples. Please do give us five or six solid examples. Here's one: Vengeance and blood money. Under Christian influence, the law got away from the OT "eye-for-eye" rules, away from ad hoc "magistrates" and community lynching parties and posses, in favor of state prosecution of criminalized torts. Of course, this flies directly against the preferred methods of most christian nationalists, but it IS a common law result of Christian influence to which I will admit. Now give us four more. Ed ------------------- Subject: Re: Jefferson debunks Blackstone From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT) Date: 14 Dec 1997 04:21:10 EST In article <19971211163700.LAA11475@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >Kevin: >>The work of Blackstone and Berman is far too comprehensive to >dispose of by this gossamer argument. Jefferson is wrong. However the common >law *began,* it was far too Christian by the time of Blackstone to overthrow >his argument.<< >Blackstone is widely recognized as gossamer himself. "Gossamer?" Blackstone? How is his encyclopedic statement of the common law so fundamentally flawed as to elicit the label "gossamer"? "*Widely* recognized as gossamer?" By whom? Who does not characterize Blackstone as one of the greatest figures in the history of the common law? How do you get off making these pronouncements? The only problem modern man has with Blackstone is that Blackstone believed that there were unchanging legal and moral absolutes. He was part of the same Christian consensus as the Founders. Cite one modern scholar who has any other substantial, overriding flaw with Blackstone as a common law scholar. >If the >common law were indeed "Christian," we should have little difficulty pointing >to examples. Absolutely astonishing that a lawyer would not have a grasp of the theological roots of the Western Legal Tradition. But all too typical of modern Secular Humanist legal education. >Please do give us five or six solid examples. >Here's one: >Vengeance and blood money. Under Christian influence, the law got away from >the OT "eye-for-eye" rules, away from ad hoc "magistrates" and community >lynching parties and posses, in favor of state prosecution of criminalized >torts. >Of course, this flies directly against the preferred methods of >most christian nationalists, ??? >but it IS a common law result of Christian >influence to which I will admit. >Now give us four more. If you really want to learn about the subject (rather than simply make facile but unsubstantiated accusations), start with Berman's *Law and Revolution,* perhaps with chap 4, "Theological Sources of the Western Legal Tradition." If that book is too big, try the smaller *Interaction of Law and Religion.* (Berman, recall, was the Joseph Story Professor of Law at Harvard). Throughout Western legal history, when Christians came to power, they re-wrote the laws in terms of Christian concepts, accepting pagan laws that conformed to Scripture, rejecting laws that contradicted it. It is more than coincidence that the rulers of many of the major tribal peoples, from Anglo-Saxon England to Keivan Russia, after their conversion to Christianity promulgated written collections of tribal laws and introduced various reforms, particularly in connection with family law, slavery, and protection of the poor and oppressed, as well as in connection with church property and the rights of clergy. The Laws of Alfred (about AD 890) start with a recitation of the Ten Commandments and excerpts from the Mosaic Law; and in restating and revising the native Anglo-Saxon laws, Alfred includes such great principles as: "Doom [i.e., judge] very evenly; doom not one doom to the rich, another to the poor; nor doom one to your friend, another to your foe." (Berman, ILR, pp. 54-55) Approaching closer to the time of the Constitution, Berman notes, Calvinism has also had profound effects upon the development of Western law, and especially upon American law. The Puritans carried forward the Lutheran concept of the sanctity of the individual conscience and also, in law, the sanctity of the individual will as reflected in property and contract rights. But they added two new elements: first, a belief in the duty of Christians to reform the world -- indeed, "reforming the world" was a specifically Puritan slogan; and second, a belief in the local congregation, under its elected minister and elders, as the seat of truth -- a "fellowship of active believers" higher than any political authority. The active Puritan, bent on reforming the world, was ready to defy the highest powers of church and of state in asserting his faith, and he did so on grounds of individual conscience, also appealing to divine law, to the Mosaic law of the Old Testament, and to natural-law concepts embodied in the medieval legal tradition. As the early Christian martyrs founded the church by their disobedi- ence to Roman Law, so the seventeenth-century Puritans, including men like Hampden, Lilburne, Udall, William Penn, and others, by their open disobedience to English law laid the foundations for the English and American law of civil rights and civil liberties as ex- pressed in our respective Constitutions: freedom of speech and press, free exercise of religion, the privilege against self-incrimination, the independence of the jury from judicial dictation, the right not to be imprisoned without cause, and many other such rights and freedoms. We also owe to Calvinist congregationalism the religious basis of our concepts of social contract and government by the consent of the governed. (ILR, pp. 66-67) When the "separation of church and state" is understood to mean the separation of Christian concepts from the field of the law, rather than the separation of civil politics from ecclesiastical politics, the phrase is seen to be utter nonsense. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/08theocracy.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 -------------------