Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Evangelical leaders react to McCain-Palin ticket
Here’s what several prominent evangelical leaders are saying about the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate:
Richard Land: “[Palin is] straight out of veep central casting.”
Gary Bauer: “[McCain hit a] grand slam home run. … [her selection is] guaranteed to energize values voters.”
James Dobson: “[A]n outstanding choice that should be extremely reassuring to the conservative base. … [the ticket] gives us confidence [McCain] will keep his pledges to voters regarding the kinds of justices he would nominate to the Supreme Court.”
Mathew Staver, dean of the Liberty University School of Law: “It’s an absolutely brilliant choice. This will absolutely energize McCain’s campaign and energize conservatives. … [Palin's] a woman of faith who has a strong position on life, a consistent opinion on judges. … She’s the complete package.”
back to top254 Comments to “Evangelical leaders react to McCain-Palin ticket”
How long til they become disenchanted and/or disappointed?
Beware of putting confidence in man!
Disclaimer: I know she’s a woman.
Report comment to moderator
I’m a values voter.
My values include not starting senseless wars and not torturing people.
Report comment to moderator
It is time for the debate to turn toward the problem of profligate spending in Washington. Evangelicals should care about that (without diminishing our concern for the integrity and sacredness of life and marriage). Obama’s speech in Denver was clearly his promise to spend as much federal money as humanly possible. McCain and Palin together represent rather high hopes for some future discipline on the spending front.
Report comment to moderator
JJF
Then what about the war on the unborn and the millions (can I repeat that?) MILLIONS of lives lost?
I don’t know how some people take themselves seriously when they point to the thousands of lives lost in a war (as awful as that is), and seem to overlook in their candidate a “choice” position that kills MILLIONS.
Heavens, with Obama, he’ll even kill them out of the womb!
Report comment to moderator
McCain and Palin together represent rather high hopes for some future discipline on the spending front.
******Well, better than Obama certainly. But, I haven’t been happy with Bush’s spending. So, I’m hoping that McCain and Palin REALLY don’t believe in a big, fat, over-bloated government. I’m beginning to not trust Republicans on this issue.
Report comment to moderator
#2, JJF wrote; “My values include not starting senseless wars and not torturing people.”
I agree. And that is why, in the aftermath of 9/11, I supported the war to depose the brutal tyrant and terrorist supporting Saddam Hussein and then not just deserting Iraq to chaos but staying to help them recover stability. Though it was tough, that made sense.
I also adamently oppose torturing people. Jihadist terrorists caught in the act of slaughtering innocent babies and others, who may have information that could stop further slaughter of innocents may be a different matter. Those whom we send into harm’s way should be given the tools and the means they deem necessary to filfill the just mission we give them. Don’t tie their hands and put them at risk unnecessarily for the sake of ideologues.
Report comment to moderator
#5, TRS wrote; “But, I haven’t been happy with Bush’s spending.”
Me neither, TRS. Me neither. In the big picture, I think President Bush did an honorable job, but I don’t disagree with your point at all. But maybe we are seeing some measure of the people’s voice in the current Republican candidates we have who have risen on the record and rhetoric of LESS spending.
Report comment to moderator
Evangelical leaders may like her homage to Christian Nationalism. From my last post on my blog:
WHEREAS, the celebration of Christian Heritage Week, October 21-27, 2007, reminds Alaskans of the role Christianity has played in our rich heritage. Many truly great men and women of America, giants in the structuring of American history, were Christians of caliber and integrity who did not hesitate to express their faith. Some of their legacies are evidenced as follows:
WHEREAS, the Preamble to the Constitution of the State of Alaska begins with, “We the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land”
WHEREAS, Benjamin Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention stated, “It is impossible to build an empire without our Father’s aid. I believe the sacred writings which say that, Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it (Psalm 127:1).”
WHEREAS, George Washington enunciated, “animated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity, and conducting ourselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, we may enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity.”
WHEREAS, Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote, “Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?”
WHEREAS, James Madison, father of the United States Constitution advocated “the diffusion of the light of Christianity in our nation” in his Memorial and Remonstrance.
WHEREAS, Patrick Henry quoted Proverbs 14:34 for our nation, “Righteousness alone can exalt a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.”
WHEREAS, George Mason, in his Virginia Declaration of Rights, forerunner to our United States Bill of Rights, affirmed, “That it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forebearance, love and charity towards each other.”
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sarah Palin, Governor of the State of Alaska, do hereby proclaim October 21-27, 2007, as Alaska’s 9th Annual Christian Heritage Week in Alaska, and encourage all citizens to celebrate this week.
Rowe’s reaction:
In meticulously researching the beliefs of these Founders I have concluded Henry and Mason were likely orthodox Trinitarian Christians. The other four were likely both unitarian (that is disbelievers in the Trinity) and universalists (that is disbelievers in eternal damnation) in their theology (even though they weren’t associated with those Churches which really hadn’t yet emerged, in all but a handful of instances). Further they believed the Bible only partially inspired. Such that Franklin et al. could quote the Bible one minute (the parts of it in which he/they believed) and the next minute talk about how “corrupted” the original text was.
My question to Palin would be is their rejection of the Trinity, eternal damnation, and the infallibility of the Bible also to be included in our celebration of America’s “Christian Heritage”?
Report comment to moderator
JJF (#2):
Try reading Party of Defeat by David Horowitz. You will gain new insight into who started this war and who supported it from beginning. The war was initiated by Islamic terrorists and our invasion of Iraq was supported by Dems at the very start.
Then, for political expediency, they quickly turned Judas and have been at that game ever since. Horowitz reviews in great detail the facts of how this war got started— facts that have been forgotten in the incessant Democrat/media propaganda barrage that began mere weeks after the invasion. You owe it to yourself to gain a broader perspective than the steady diet of Democrat propaganda you have been feeding on.
Your values would then make more sense. Right now, I think that they are as senseless as your view of this war.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, but . . . whoo=hoo!
Report comment to moderator
Talking about values, I don’t see any discussion among evangelicals about the thought of thrusting a mother of 5, including an infant, into a role that will consume her time and keep her away from home.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for putting your same post (#8) on multiple threads, Jon. It’s a multiple reminder of why we love Sarah Palin so much!
Report comment to moderator
Bart: If you haven’t seen any discussion of that issue, you haven’t been on this blog very much for the past 24 hours. Check out one thread yesterday, which has over 500 posts — many of them discussing the very issue you complain about us ignoring.
Report comment to moderator
Funny, the Leftists always bring up motherhood and children in relation to Palin, but you sure don’t hear them on this issue in any other venue! (Other than to condemn stay-at-home moms).
Personally, Bart, I think she will have plenty of time for her family after this small window of campaigning. The baby won’t even notice, since she can take him wherever she goes. The other children might suffer a bit for a couple of months until the election.
Otherwise, as VP, I think the children will get MORE of her attention than they do as Governor’s children (where she is the primary executive.)
Still, how is it any of OUR business? So long as her husband agrees, then how she and her husband run their family is not our concern.
Finally, as Victoria has pointed out, Missionaries are often separated from their children for YEARS in the field (they send them to boarding schools). While I would not make this choice for myself, someone who feels a calling from God must be willing to leave their families if necessary.
Nevertheless, I don’t think Mrs. Palin will have a problem. The baby is still quite portable, and the children will be no worse off than they are at present.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast,
It is my pleasure!
Report comment to moderator
Bart (#11): That’s a valid and sensitive concern, although it is a decision their family has made, and I’m sure with much prayer.
And it’s also a reminder that we, too, need to be praying for them — and for all the candidates, for that matter.
I found myself convicted of lack of prayer last week when I read that the Obamas had attended a Lutheran church. Whether they are believers and have just been sitting under unorthodox (to put it mildly!) teaching — or are not believers — we can all be praying that this family will land in a church that preaches the gospel.
As for Palin, I’ve come down a little bit from the high of yesterday. But just a “little” bit. I still believe it was a very good call.
Woo-hoo, indeed.
Report comment to moderator
BTW Jon,
I’ve been taking a class on the heritage of the Founding Fathers. I’m afraid that the teacher would wipe the floor with you.
Our nation has a STRONG Christian heritage. It may not always be “orthodox” in the individuals, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t Christian. (Can you see whether or not their heart belonged to Christ? Bottom line.) Moreover, their public lives were most definitely Christian and they fully supported Christianity in their documents and in our founding documents.
The evidence is SO over-whelming, that you really do have to have an agenda not to see it.
Report comment to moderator
TRS:
Yes, my values also include not killing babies, born or unborn, American or Iraqi or Iranian.
Joel Mark:
Saddam’s supposed link to terrorism is long discredited. The only terrorism he supported was sending money to the widows of Palestinian suicide bombers, which is an entirely different thing than the yellow cake and suitcase bombs used to scare Americans into support of the neocon’s imperial war.
And it makes no sense to say “I’m against torture, except for those people who deserve it.”
Report comment to moderator
Unfortunately, this looks like a teflon election. Obama and Biden have tons of merit, but no teflon. McCain and Palin have no merit, but lots of teflon.
If this is 2004 all over again, we’ll have four more years.
Report comment to moderator
Who is the teacher? I am not afraid. I’m available public debates on this matter. Please tell him/her that. If he wants to do it on radio, we could use Jim Babka’s show as a platform. Babka asked David Barton to debate me on his show and Barton refused.
Report comment to moderator
It may not always be “orthodox” in the individuals, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t Christian.
I’m sorry but this is, in many ways, what the debate is all about. What IS Christianity. Mormons call themselves “Christian” but many (indeed many on these threads) would say no you aren’t, you are Mormons and Mormonism is not Christianity.
This is a strong case to be made that if you reject orthodoxy, you reject Christianity, whatever you call yourself.
(Can you see whether or not their heart belonged to Christ? Bottom line.)
If someone professes to believe in orthodox doctrines, then no. However, I can tell if someone professes Arianism, Socinianism, etc., which historically have been viewed as soul damning heresies.
I could ask you the same question: Someone who unapologetically professes Mormonism and claims their hearts belong to Christ. Can you tell whether or not that is the case and “judge” their hearts.
Report comment to moderator
I wouldn’t be so pessimistic, Scroop. I think choosing Palin helps Obama in two significant ways:
1) It silences McCain’s biggest and most frequently used attack: “he’s inexperienced.” McCain has long said that his most important criterion for choosing a VP was finding someone ready to be “a heartbeat away from the presidency.” So in choosing Palin, he has effectively said that experience is not that important after all. And it gives Obama an easy comeback if McCain keeps up the “inexperienced” line.
2) In terms of national and foreign policy knowledge, Palin will get destroyed by Joe Biden in a VP debate. Now, that’s only worth so much, because the Bush-Kerry debates demonstrated that superior knowledge takes a back seat to audience empathy. The key will be for Biden to showcase his superior knowledge and experience without looking like a bully.
Report comment to moderator
So what is your point Jon? Are you trying to say that Sarah Palin was incorrect in her declaration where she cited points of agreement with our founding fathers?
Your points of disagreement are noted. So what? I can think of many points where I agree with Ben Franklin and some where I disagree. When I cite my points of agreement it is not necessary for me to dilute my message by also stressing the points of disagreement. I’ll leave that to the opposition.
Sarah’s declaration was admirable and the founding fathers she quoted would undoubtedly agree since her declaration was within the sentiments they also expressed.
To denigrate and obfuscate obviously suits your political purpose. I think that you and many liberal academics seek to turn our history on its head by emphasizing the minority position of the past as if it were the majority. Of course our founding fathers had their differences, but any objective examination of our history reveals that the prevailing sentiment in this country from the very beginning was profoundly Christian. To suggest otherwise is nothing other than historical revisionism and is academically faulty and politically biased. No doubt you are sincere, but so was Marx in his distorted view of history.
We look to history for guidance about the truths of the past. That way we don’t have to reinvent the wheel with every new generation or repeat the mistakes of the past. In the way we run our lives today, we look to the past for what worked and what didn’t. At the same time we are alert to new things and are not shackled to the past. In all this we seek the truth, balance, guidance, and wisdom. In this process it is harmful when academicians distort the past for their own present day political purposes.
Sarah Palin’s declaration was truthful, correct, and admirable in all respects, your disparagement notwithstanding.
Report comment to moderator
What exactly was disparaging in what Jon Rowe said? He merely pointed out the result of his research and questioned whether Palin would clarify the equivocation on the term “Christian”.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not denigrating or obfuscating anything. I agree that America’s Founders were “religious” and “pro-religion.” The problem is such quotations are easily misunderstood and taken out of context by the Christian Heritage side and I’m showing what it is they really stood for. There is a God, he governs by his Providence, He will ultimately reward good and punish evil. And Jesus was a great moral teacher. That’s it. That’s all they meant (and that’s quite a bit I would say).
Things that MAKE Christianity for many folks on this thread (original sin, the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, regeneration, infallibility of the Bible, eternal damnation) were simply not included in America’s public civil religion or religious heritage.
By extracting what they saw as rational and generic from Christianity (for instance the notion that the only way to God is thru Christ’s Atonement was NOT part of their concept of “public religion”) they could open the civil religion to other faiths like Judaism, Islam and even Hinduism, which was a remarkably pluralistic thing for the time and even for today.
Report comment to moderator
#2 JJF,
Is it true that as a community activist that Barack Obama gave out free needles to crack Hoes in South Chicago and then sold them the crack to put in them?
Be careful what you value if you are lefty I say because they are always wrong in their assumptions and their conclusions drawn from them make them look insane.
Report comment to moderator
#5 TRS,
You do realize that Presidents, by law, are not allowed to spend any money right? Only Congress can spend money. Appropriations bills must originate in the House and can only be approved by the Senate.
Report comment to moderator
inTrade has McCain down 2 points overnight to a 39% chance of taking the election after picking Palin!
We can all be happy!
Woo-hoo!
Report comment to moderator
I watched Sarah Palin give her speech yesterday and for the first time I am excited about this campaign. Go team McCain/Palin!!!
Report comment to moderator
Llama:
No, it’s not true.
Is it true that John McCain and his extraterrestial gay lovers feast on the blood of poor children at the rise of each full moon?
Report comment to moderator
llama
#26 shows how stupid the GOP talking points have become.
Crack is not injected. It is smoked.
Report comment to moderator
30 is true
Report comment to moderator
BaRT WROTE; “I don’t see any discussion among evangelicals about the thought of thrusting a mother of 5… into a role that will consume her time and keep her away from home.”
You missed some of it then. But as a believer in limited gov’t, all I want from a public servant (locally or at the top in Washington) is 40 or maybe 50 hours at most of honest exectutive work and then they should go home to be with their families. It also calls for some travel duties too I realize). But politicians are NOT our saviors. They are just public servants and should not be seen as responsible for greater burdens of work and devotion than you or I.
In any case, Sarah Palins first priority should still be as a mom. As her boss (I’m an American citizen), I don’t want her work to diminish her motherhood role at all and I don’t see why it should.
Report comment to moderator
To be down only 2 points a day after being down 8 points, and before the GOP convention even begins, is super news, Lumpy. Thanks for making my day!
Report comment to moderator
OUTCAST: Your’re right, I haven’t been on this blog much recently, but just commented based on what I saw so far. I will have to read through yesterday’s blogs, too.
Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
JJF wrote (#18), “Saddam’s supposed link to terrorism is long discredited.”
That is totally false, JJF. Totally! You are willfully blind.
Report comment to moderator
#2 JJF
’m a values voter. My values include not starting senseless wars and not torturing people.
Well said, the American centre and left need to take back the word “values” from the religious right.
#3 Joel Mark
McCain and Palin together represent rather high hopes for some future discipline on the spending front.
like Reagan, Bush I and II?? The only balanced budget in the last 28 years came under Clinton.
TRS
I’m beginning to not trust Republicans on this issue.
After 20 years of gross financial incompetence you are beginning to not trust the Republicans??
like Reagan, Bush I and II?? The only balanced budget in the last 28 years came under Clinton.
Michael #9
The Democrats and others became critics after they realized Bush and friends had lied.
Report comment to moderator
JJF wrote; “And it makes no sense to say ‘I’m against torture, except for those people who deserve it.’”
I agree and that is, of course, not what I said. The only justification for some sort of torture (even by a tortured definition of torture) is to potentially save innocent human lives, not to punish those who “deserve” it. And those who serve in harm’s way should not have their hands tied unduly (strategy-wise) in their efforts to save innocent lives. Beyond that, we can debate various definitions and strategies and differ in respectable ways.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe writes: “Things that MAKE Christianity for many folks on this thread (original sin, the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, regeneration, infallibility of the Bible, eternal damnation) were simply not included in America’s public civil religion or religious heritage.”
That may be true for a few men, but that’s not true for the overwhelming number of people who came here for religious freedom and fought and died in the Revolution. They are more our heritage than those few men who had politics on their mind and not much else, except for Ben Franklin maybe.
Report comment to moderator
The only balanced budget in the last 28 years came under a Republican controlled congress. And congress does the spending, HRW.
Report comment to moderator
Of course our founding fathers had their differences, but any objective examination of our history reveals that the prevailing sentiment in this country from the very beginning was profoundly Christian.
I would ask you to define 1) the begging and 2) profoundly Christian.
Re #1, America began in 1776; before that we were British colonies ruled under the doctrine of divine right of kings.
Re #2, I’ll turn to Richard Price (I got no discussion from him yesterday). He was a “Christian minister” who was friends with many of the Founders. They loved his ideas, especially his religious ideas. He was also one of the first, in the late 18th Century, to openly and unapologetically preach Arianism, which he viewed as the “proper” understanding of Christianity. Further he drew a lowest common denominator among Arians, Socinians and Trinitarians. Here is research I uncovered. Read it carefully:
Give me but this single truth, that ETERNAL LIFE is the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour and I shall be perfectly easy with respect to the contrary opinions which are entertained about the dignity of Christ; about his nature, person, and offices; and the manner in which he saves us. Call him, if you please, simply a man endowed with extraordinary powers; or call him a superangelic being, who appeared in human nature for the purpose of accomplishing our salvation; or say (if you can admit a thought so shockingly absurd) that it was the second of three coequal persons in the Godhead, forming one person, with a human soul, that came down from heaven, and suffered and died on the cross: Say that he saves us merely by being a messenger from God to reveal to us eternal life, and to confer it upon us; or say, on the contrary, that he not only reveals to us eternal life, and confers it upon us, but has obtained it for us by offering himself a propitiatory sacrifice on the cross, and making satisfaction to the justice of the Deity for our sins: I shall think such differences of little moment, provided the fact is allowed, that Christ did rise from the dead, and will raise us from the dead; and that all righteous penitents will, through God’s grace in him, be accepted and made happy forever.
Note how he says it doesn’t matter if you believe Jesus just a man, some kind of superangelical being (the Arian position which he endorsed) or even the second person in a Triune Godhead. Notice his “generosity” towards Trinitarians: Even if you believe in the “shockingly absurd” doctrine of the Trinity, you still get to be a real Christian.
Now, I have shown 11 members of the Constitutional Convention subscribed to these sermons, including Hamilton, Franklin and Washington, with GW ordering 4 copies. And everything GW ever said about Christianity is consistent with Price’s theology. And Washington never had anything but praise for Price’s work.
Question: Was Price a “Christian”? What about his idea that Arians, Socinians, Trinitarians and Roman Catholics are all “Christian”? That you can believe Jesus 100% man, not divine at all, (but on a divine mission) and still be a Christian?
And keep his theology in mind when reading the Christian heritage quotes, like Palin’s. Because for all you know that’s what they are referring to.
Report comment to moderator
11, 13 and 14
In the long thread of yesterday, I questioned her family values and like today have read all sorts of justifications. The real test is would you believe these excuses if Hilary Clinton left Chelsea after 3 days to return to work?
Family values is not a religious right issue. Its also an issue of the left. Whereas the right like to expound hypocritically and degenerate career women when its convenient, socialist throughout the world have taken the lead in supporting working families with such things as paternal leave. The current support for Palin demonstrates that family values among the religious is mere rhetoric.
Report comment to moderator
The left has values. They value killing babies when it is convenient to them. They value redistributing the personal wealth of Americans to Americans and non-Americans who didn’t put the effort in to making that money.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
I get your point that there were many in the population that were genuine orthodox Trinitarian Christians. However, you are dead wrong if you think this is just about Ben Franklin. No, it’s about Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, G. Morris, and others. Indeed it’s about 4 of the 6 figures that Palin turned to for authority in her Christian heritage proclamation.
Report comment to moderator
#26 Illama
Needle exchange programs are a proven method of harm reduction and preventive care of greater health problems see;
http://www.nasen.org/
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=684231
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
The other things you Leftists don’t seem to understand: we don’t have to agree with EVERYTHING our candidate thinks, says, or does, just the majority of it — particularly on certain issues.
I’m betting you’d find a lot of evangelicals who wouldn’t be happy leaving their kids to go to work after three days. But, again, I consider something like that to be a FAMILY decision, not my decision. I wouldn’t do it, but if she and her husband agree and feel that it is right, then I’m okay with THEIR choice. (Funny, liberals are all about choice so long as it has to do with KILLING their babies.)
Report comment to moderator
He’d wipe the floor with you, Jon. And I don’t think he would consider your opinion important enough to join in a debate.
I’m just glad to get some additional REAL teaching under my belt.
Report comment to moderator
#33 JOEL: You write “As her boss (I’m an American citizen), I don’t want her work to diminish her motherhood role at all and I don’t see why it should.”
Any mom working outside of the home diminishes her motherhood role, especially one working 40 hours a week, don’t you agree?
Report comment to moderator
#38 Joel
So your argument is torture no unless I think it might be necessary. To paraphrase a famous Canadian politician;
Torture if necessary but not necessarily torture
Report comment to moderator
A “Christian Heritage Week” is an excellent idea!
Jon Rowe’s spiritual judgments on the Christian orthodoxy of Founder’s over 200 years ago are not reliable by any scholarly measure. As human beings, they were a mixed bag, but making specific judgments over the validity of their claims to Christian faith that the vast majority of them DID claim and DID honor is simplistic and unfair-minded.
Very few of the Founders claimed to be “unitarians.” The vast majority of them claimed to be Christians. Let God judge the veracity of their claims and let’s start having a “Christian Heritage Week” nation-wide.
I strongly believe in the Trinity, but it’s not even a word found in the Bible and none of us should claim to truly understand the ultimate nature of God Himself. It remains mystery and I do not use the “Trinity” to club others with my judgments on their Christian faith. Authentic repentance and forgiveness and ongoing belief in Jesus Christ and his death, burial and resurrection is a better grounds for sharing Christian fellowship. We can have some humility on the questions of the mysterious nature of the Godhead.
Report comment to moderator
Absolutely excellent points, Michael Martin.
Report comment to moderator
Bart asked, “Any mom working outside of the home diminishes her motherhood role, especially one working 40 hours a week, don’t you agree?”
With respect, Bart, I do agree that such a set up is very tough. I appreciate your point. But I grant each family the freedom to make those judgments for themselves. The Bible does exalt the home-centered priority of the wife and mother, but I think that men (the Christ-like head of the family) should also feel this rub in a mutual and supportive way. How they share that priority is not for me to judge ultimately.
Report comment to moderator
It isn’t a pissing contest, TRS. If your “REAL teaching” has given you counter-arguments, raise them.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve been taking a class on the heritage of the Founding Fathers. I’m afraid that the teacher would wipe the floor with you.
BWAHAHAHA!!!
I love evvies. They make me laugh.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
Your understanding of Christianity is far too academic. You will never truly understand it only at that level.
Michael Martin’s post at #23 was excellent.
Report comment to moderator
Joel I realize Congress is in charge of spending — in the Anglo Saxon tradition the power of the purse rests in the legislative body. However, your comment in #3 suggests you believe a Republican president is necessary to stem the spending in Washington. Obviously history contradicts you – you don’t need McCain in the presidency to do this. Hence, why aren’t you worried about the upcoming dominance of the Congress by the Democratic party. I would suggest the vastly increased and centralization of power by the Bush presidency leaves many on the right worried that the power they happily surrendered to Bush may come available to Obama and hence they have rediscovered the constitution.
An other interesting facet of the present imbalance of powers is the continual shift of responsibility to an impotent Congress by an all powerful presidency who refuses to take responsibility for their own mismanagement.
As for Clinton’s records and efforts he, signed in August 1993, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 which passed Congress without a single Republican vote. It raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers, while cutting taxes on 15 million low-income families and making tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses. Additionally, it mandated that the budget be balanced over a number of years and the deficit be reduced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton
Budget discipline and tax relief for the working class originated in a Democratic Congress with a Democratic president.
Report comment to moderator
“He’d wipe the floor with you, Jon. And I don’t think he would consider your opinion important enough to join in a debate.”
Well given that it’s just a “he” and you refuse to name him, I can’t respond and your assertion is otherwise meaningless. It’s like me invoking an imaginary friend as authority against your claims, or like saying my imaginary friend can beat you up. If you tell us his name (and if he’s distinguished, I’ve heard of it) I can address his claims on these threads without him even getting involved. Most distinguished folks have published stuff accessible by the Internet and I have quite a bit of in print stuff in my library.
Report comment to moderator
34
He lost 2 points overnight on this pick!
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
I don’t have his permission.
But, you’re right. I would try to address you some myself, and it would be a good intellectual exercise. I don’t think we’re so far apart in facts, but in the interpretation of them.
However, I am being BAD by even posting. I am hosting a friend’s birthday party (40th), and my house is not ready. I am not ready, and they come in an hour!!!!
So, chicken or not, and my apologies for being snarky with you, but I can’t do more now. I really can’t.
The Internet is my “cave” to get away. It is my “play time” and I’m being truly irresponsible right now.
Report comment to moderator
a great day for ALL!
Report comment to moderator
let’s start having a “Christian Heritage Week” nation-wide.
Will this include witch burnings? If so may I bring marshmellows?
Your understanding of Christianity is far too academic.
Translation: You are an elitist therefore you don’t count. Its intuition and faith which counts not perusing documents and thinking rational thoughts.
Report comment to moderator
Bart – 11
YOU WRITE:… “Talking about values, I don’t see any discussion among evangelicals about the thought of thrusting a mother of 5, including an infant, into a role that will consume her time and keep her away from home.”
You might not be aware of this but I certainly am. Many kids who’s parents are on the mission field are sent to ‘boarding schools’ for their entire school experience – that includes K-12 - no one ever mentions this.
Who are you, or any of us to say how this has been worked out between Mr. and Mrs. Palin? – Many people have home care for children and elders with special needs – to stand in judgment of this woman and her family is unwarranted –
Sarah Palin is a Believer – It seems that this calling was from GOD Almighty -
Sarah will have time to love and care for her children, she won’t have the responsibilities of meal planning, cleaning, etc., all her free time can be spend nurturing her children and being with her husband.
Report comment to moderator
Okay fine TRS. I’m not going anywhere. We will put it off until a later date.
Others — this is how I keep on my toes. So let’s continue the discussion.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, at #44, thinks he can call NJL “dead wrong” with authority regarding the Christian faith claims of the Founders. He does not even acknowledge it is a matter of opinion. He doth protest far too loudly. Actually, I think Jon Rowe is dead wrong, especially with regard to Adams, Madison (trained as a clergyman and always pro-Christian and pro-freedom of faith too), Hamilton (especially at the end of his life) and others.
NJ Lawyer’s post at #43 is brief, to the point and all too correct (and hard for leftists to take).
Report comment to moderator
59 is priceless
Report comment to moderator
TRS – 14
I hadn’t read your post regarding what I had written yesterday and now AGAIN. I’m sorry
Your post is wonderful -
Report comment to moderator
#56,
Yes, I do believe that a Republican president is necessary to stem the spending in Washington. And history is too much of a mixed bag to contradict that point, HRW. Some Republican presidents failed to do that job, and others have not failed. My point stands.
I do believe that the worst case scenario, spending wise, is a Democrat controled congress with a Democrat president.
A lot of Republicans were indeed disappointed with the spend-happy Republican-lead congress of 2002 (or ‘04?) to 2006. And Republicans held them accountable too.
Report comment to moderator
#9 Michale MArtin,
Way to go. I like it when folks come to the aid of facts when they are under assault by socialist surrender monkeys. Facts always get in the way of these anti American propagandists. Anyone who says the USA is a torturer and into fighting senseless wars needs to explain why they changed sides, are anti American, siding with our enemies and giving them aid and comfort in time of war. This used to be called treason until they tried to define that definition down to being meaningless. The rest of us still know what it means.
Report comment to moderator
Madison was never trained as a clergyman. He thought about entering the clergy but never did. I agree about the end of Hamilton’s life; he became a genuine orthodox Christian but only after his son died in the early 19th Century. We’ve been over Adams and I’m shocked that after showing smoking gun quotations rejecting original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, infallibility of the Bible, and eternal damnation AND Adams proudly wearing the label “Unitarian” his entire adult life, that Joel Mark can still find anything to dispute on the matter. If Adams can do all of that and still be a “Christian” then I don’t disagree.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, #61 asked; “Will this include witch burnings?”
The suggestion that a “Christian Heritage Week” today would include such a thing is a product of profound willful ignorance. Actually, the most murderous ideologies in history with the most blood on their hands are atheist-led ideologies and systems.
Witch-burning in America was far far less prevelent than in Europe and other cultures. For a better understanding of the Salem witch trials, see:
http://www.campuscrosswalk.org/2008-spring-16.html
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, You are not correct. Madison did more than just ‘think about’ entering the clergy. He did indeed study some to that end and then chose other directions.
Report comment to moderator
McCain and Palin together represent rather high hopes for some future discipline on the spending front. Audacious hopes, but this will take plans, JOEL MARK
Though it was tough, that made sense. Perverse sense. The verdict is in, JOEL: unjustified manslaughter. Only about a third of the troops and their families think it was worth going to war in Iraq
Those whom we send into harm’s way should be given the tools . . . . . but without armor. When they got home, McCain still wouldn’t help them. He thinks showing generosity will undermine his plans for perpetually belligerent and aggressive militarism. But the vast majority of troops in Iraq think we should get out within a year.
Report comment to moderator
[Interchange with Jon Rowe]
Regarding John Adams, he wrote…
* “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. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies.” –John Adams, June 21, 1776.
* “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 – from an address to the military, quoted in The Works of John Adams.
* “One great advantage of the Christian Religion is that it brings the great Principle of the Law of Nature and Nations, Love your Neighbor as yourself and do to others as you would that others should do to you,–to the Knowledge, Belief and Veneration of the whole people.” This is from the diary of John Adams on August 14, 1796 (Quoted from Sydney Ahlstrum’s book, ‘A Religious History of the American People’). Adams was clearly referring to the “Christian religion” as the source that brings that great principle of law and love to the “whole people.”)
* “The general principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved [sic] Independence, were…the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty… Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.” John Adams’ quotation, June 28, 1813.
Report comment to moderator
Here is James Hutson on the matter:
Educated by Presbyterian clergymen, Madison, as a student at Princeton (1769-1772), seems to have developed a “transient inclination” to enter the ministry. In a 1773 letter to a college friend he made the zealous proposal that the rising stars of his generation renounce their secular prospects and “publicly . . . declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ.” Two months later Madison renounced his spiritual prospects and began the study of law. The next year he entered the political arena, serving as a member of the Orange County Committee of Safety. Public service seems to have crowded out of his consciousness the previous imprints of faith. For the rest of his life there is no mention in his writings of Jesus Christ nor of any of the issues that might concern a practicing Christian. Late in retirement there are a few enigmatic references to religion, but nothing else. With Madison, unlike Jefferson or any of the other principal founding fathers with the possible exception of Washington, one peers into a void when trying to discern evidence of personal religious belief.
http://tinyurl.com/6djrtx
As I see it, Madison was another one of the many closeted Unitarians.
Here is George Ticknor’s eyewitness testimony (Ticknor founded the Boston Public Library):
He talked of religious sects and parties and was curious to know how the cause of liberal Christianity stood with us, and if the Athanasian creed was well received by our Episcopalians. He pretty distinctly intimated to me his own regard for the Unitarian doctrines.
Report comment to moderator
Samuel Adams wrote, “He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life, is, or very soon will be, void of all Regard for his country.”
Sam Adams added that “there is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his Country, who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections . . .”
We need a “Christian Heritage Week” because our current culture has largely forgotten what the Founders knew: that the American experiment is a moral and religious, not just a political, exercise. Private virtue, rooted in biblical faith, is essential for the American experiment to work as the Founders intended.
Here’s a comment by the son of John Adams:
“Is it not that in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? – that it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? – That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?” ~ John Quincy Adams (1825 – 1829)
Report comment to moderator
And everything Joel wrote in 73 is consistent with what I have written here:
Adams stripped Christianity of its orthodox doctrines (original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, eternal damnation and infallibility of the bible) such that theism and mere morality were all that was left. Keep that in mind when reading 73.
In this respect all “good people” even professing Hindus and Muslims could be “Christian.” As Adams put it:
“I believe with Justin Martyr, that all good men are Christians, and I believe there have been, and are, good men in all nations, sincere and conscientious.”
– John Adams to Samuel Miller, July 8, 1820.
Report comment to moderator
Joel #67
I do believe that the worst case scenario, spending wise, is a Democrat controled congress with a Democrat president.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 was passed by Democrat controlled congress with a Democrat president. It set the tone for the budget conscious Clinton presidency.
Republicans have no respect for government and its role in society and hence don’t value it. You demonstrate value for an institution by keeping it solvent, not awarding no bid contract to your friends.
Report comment to moderator
#70
Joel you lost your sense of humour.
But more seriously which version of Christianity do you wish to commemorate? Is there a litmus test?
Report comment to moderator
Sam Adams was an orthodox Christian. JQA vacillated between Unitarianism and Calvinism his entire adult life (I’m not exactly sure where he ended up, but I think it was Unitarianism).
JQA’s quotation, nice as it sounds, is a meaningless platitude, and not historically accurate. The DOI has nothing to do with Christianity as it doesn’t mention Jesus or the Bible and was derived from other ideological sources.
Like “1000 point of light.” Or “we do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” Empty political rhetoric.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you for your post at #74 Jon Rowe. It supports my brief previous point about Madison’s background in faith perfectly.
And if there is an absense of references to Jesus Christ in his public writings later in life, that does not prove ANY distaste or disclaiming of Jesus at all. It only shows that he came to see his faith as a more private matter.
Happy ‘Christian Heritage Week’ Jon.
Report comment to moderator
We need a “Christian Heritage Week” because our current culture has largely forgotten what the Founders knew: that the American experiment is a moral and religious, not just a political, exercise. Private virtue, rooted in biblical faith, is essential for the American experiment to work as the Founders intended.
The American experiment was a tax revolt. There is no moral or religious justification here, its economic — a refusal of the property classes to pay the British Empire for the protection of the colonies during the French and Indian War. There is no private virtue in a lack of fiscal responsibility.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, I’m sorry, I misled. My reference to Ben Franklin was actually snarky and had nothing to do with religion. I was alluding to his having other things on his mind, that a teacher had said he was the true “father” of the nation. I don’t think I’m dead wrong about that. Wink. Wink. Get my drift? But Joel Mark has a point that what you tell us is a matter of opinion. There’s no way any one of us can know with 100% certainty what anybody actually thought and felt 200 some odd years ago. And you totally ignore what ALL the other people thought and felt about Christianity and what they wanted for the country. The Founders would have gotten nowhere without them!
Thank you, Joel Mark, for understanding what I meant in No. 43. Everyone here understands that there are women who must work, that it is not a choice for them. As someone who is a “career” woman, I have never felt denigrated here by my fellow Christians. Not once. The left can’t handle that their “family values” include killing off family members, and they don’t like to be reminded of that reality. If they want to “take back” family values and have relevance in that arena, perhaps they should see the VALUE in family members. It is interesting that this time around they have tried to find religion (not doing so well on that one either), so maybe they are at the beginning of some sort of return to the REAL meaning of words. Not bettin’ on it though.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, I’m sorry, I misled. My reference to Ben Franklin was actually snarky and had nothing to do with religion. I was alluding to his having other things on his mind, that a teacher had said he was the true “father” of the nation. I don’t think I’m dead wrong about that. Wink. Wink. Get my drift? But Joel Mark has a point that what you tell us is a matter of opinion. There’s no way any one of us can know with 100% certainty what anybody actually thought and felt 200 some odd years ago. And you totally ignore what ALL the other people thought and felt about Christianity and what they wanted for the country. The Founders would have gotten nowhere without them!
Thank you, Joel Mark, for understanding what I meant in No. 43. Everyone here understands that there are women who must work, that it is not a choice for them. As someone who is a “career” woman, I have never felt denigrated here by my fellow Christians. Not once. The left can’t handle that their “family values” include killing off family members, and they don’t like to be reminded of that reality. If they want to “take back” family values and have relevance in that arena, perhaps they should see the VALUE in family members. It is interesting that this time around they have tried to find religion (not doing so well on that one either), so maybe they are at the beginning of some sort of return to the REAL meaning of words. Not bettin’ on it though.
Report comment to moderator
#76, Jon Rowe wrote; “And everything Joel wrote in 73 is consistent with what I have written here…”
I disagree. You are ignoring the distinctive aspects of Christian faith that Adams does respect and hold and applies to our “heritage.” Whatever Adams thibnks about other faiths and what God will do with non-Christians, the fact remains that he sees Christianity at the root of our nation’s heritage, and not other faiths.
But let the reader read the Adams’ quotes at #73 for themselves on their own merits.
Report comment to moderator
#81, HRW wrote; “The American experiment was a tax revolt. There is no moral or religious justification here, its economic.”
No one has said otherwise, HRW. But your radical reductionism is historically blind. The American experiments was indeed ALSO (even centrally) a moral and religious experiment. And this does NOT diminish the profound political passions of the day either.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, there are none so blind as those who will not see. Just because you Canadians didn’t have the guts to go it alone, just because you Canadians couldn’t leave the mama country behind, doesn’t mean that Americans didn’t develop into a new breed of people. They gave up being English and became Americans. They grew up and wanted out of the Empire. Only a Marxist sees things only in terms of economics. You really have to broaden your point of view and take other causes into consideration. The Stamp Act was the last straw, that’s all.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, do you read NOTHING other than leftys?
Report comment to moderator
Joel, you had me scared in your #3.
However, by #6 I was reassured. It’s the Joel we all know and love.
Report comment to moderator
Another prediction:
Palin will be the first President to give birth while in the White House and the first President to nurse a baby during a national press conference.
Breastfeeding, when possible (some mothers do have difficulty) is much better for children than formula feeding. In this way (as in many others), Palin will set an outstanding example for America.
Report comment to moderator
You know I was looking hard at Palin and willing to give her a chance, but reading you guys today, it is clear to me that she is a radical conservative. Bad for the country in the long run. Thanks to you all, I’ll likely go back to voting Obama.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
And this does NOT diminish the profound political passions of the day either.
I’m not disagreeing with you here however I would suggest that personal economic interests frequently help motivate political passions.
For example: The Quebec Act is known in Canadian history as the first document to recognize the dual origin of Canada and a tolerant progressive document granting Catholics the right to vote for a legislative assembly. In American history, the Quebec Act is known as an intolerable act. Why? The Act proclaimed the Ohio River valley Indian Territory, administered by Quebec, and limited settlement to the east side of the Appalachian Mtns. Many “Founding Fathers” including George Washington held shares in land companies on the west side of the mountains. These land companies had negotiated, without British approval, vast tracts of land in the Ohio Valley. With the passing of the Quebec Act the insolvent gentlemen of Virginia saw their windfall evaporate.
As for morality — well self-interested economic motivation, Indian massacres and slavery pretty much dismisses that argument.
Charles Beard is not a leftist argument or radical historian — the above was a commonly stated argument in the 1920s already.
Report comment to moderator
Wonder how the radical feminists will handle Palin? She is a feminist in the best sense of the word but we know the NOW gals don’t really care about women. They will hate her because of her conservatism and her opposition to abortion. They will call her selfish for not aborting her Down’s baby. It will backfire of course further marginalizing this coven of angry radicals. Good riddance!
Report comment to moderator
She is a feminist in the best sense of the word
Please explain
Report comment to moderator
Post 85,
Joel, aside from the Puritans (who left Holland not because of persecution but because they worried that their children were become Dutch rather than English) how in the world do you see a America as centrally a religious experiment?
It’s this kind of post in conjunction with your torture is just dandy if we think it is kind of posting that tells me that although Palin has appeal as a fiscal conservative, her social conservative views echoed in her boosters are just not the kind of thing I want to see governing again.
Report comment to moderator
Well that’s good to know, Coyoteblue, I couldn’t figure out what you were up to.
Palin became a Buchananite after Buchanan declared his anti-gay culture war at the 1992 convention. Buchanan calls her “a princess of the right.” According to today’s retrospective in the Anchorage Daily News (adn.com), Palin supports the idea of denying benefits to employees in same-sex relationships, and only vetoed a bill that would do this on the legal advice that it was unconstitutional.
The quality of her sole judicial appointment to the Alaska supreme court is undetermined.
Report comment to moderator
With regards to the missionary families sending off their children, and with all due respect to those believers feeling called and willing to give up their lives for folks to come to know the Lord, I have always cringed at the thought of “sending” their kids off to do their mission. It is not my place to judge, and I am trying not to do that–BUT I feel strongly that the mother especially should not send off their children while they’re on the field. “How can a man rule others if he cannot rule his own family?” (Can’t remember the scripture reference here)I have dear friends who were missionaries with the Yanomama in Venezuela until they were deported last year; they kept their children WITH them. My pastor (with grown children) told me the biggest mistake he made with his own children was not bringing them WITH him when he ministered in the county. With respect to the news about Palin, while I have no doubt that she is a believer, this was the decision maker for me to NOT vote for McCain. I cannot with good conscience, and trying not to sway from what *I* believe God has called for his women to do, vote for them. But I don’t in any way condemn anyone for doing the opposite. So what now?
I did hear something funny today at a little street festival–two kids about 15 or so were walking behind me talking about Palin. One said, “Hey, I think she’s kinda hot, even though she is, like, FORTY!!” (with a strong emphasis on the forty part!) 8*)
Report comment to moderator
#93, “Please explain.”
She is a feminist in the best sense of the word because she seems to know that being pro-women is consistent with highly valuing the traditional family (and many women know this). And she does not hate, diminish or resent men. Plus, she is pro-Life (which is very pro-women as well as pro-men)!
Gloria Steinam once said, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” That exemplifies a feminist in the worst sense of the word.
Report comment to moderator
#94, Coyoteblue, you are incorrect about the Puritans.
Persecution was indeed part of the reason the Puritans went to Holland in the first place. The culture there did concern them too, influencing them to cross the Atlantic.
How do I see America as a religious experiment?
1. Why say, “aside from the Puritans?” They were a huge component of how we define the American experiemnt.
2. I never said it was exclusively a religious experiment but it is absurd to claim that faith was not a huge and central aspect of the American experiment. That applies to the arrival of the Puritans and to this day.
3. Government is only one aspect of the American experiment. And one of it’s main functions was to protect our religious freedom and NOT pass laws to interfere with that freedom of faith.
3. Some of the quotes I already offered (from Adams and others) also answer your question.
4. Reagan understood that the American experiment was understood on biblical terms and that we were founded, in part, to serve as a “city on a hill.” (quoting from Winthrop’s sermon).
Report comment to moderator
Joel you mean
http://feministsforlife.org/news/ffl-member-sarah-palin-vp.htm
which the left has intrepret as
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/163234/559/495/579213
Report comment to moderator
Well Adams’ 1813 (the “general principles of Christianity”) needs to be put into further context.
As Dr. Gregg Frazer explains it, comment on a dispute I had with Michael Novak:
Mr. Novak’s quote from John Adams’s letter to Jefferson (June 28, 1813) is quite selective and distorts what Adams actually said in context. In the previous paragraph, Adams spoke of the “fine young fellows” who conducted the Revolution. He said that they included all of the various denominations of protestants as well as “Deists and Atheists, and Protestants who believe nothing.” That is the context in which he speaks (as Novak quotes him) of “the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United.” The “those Sects” includes deist, atheists, and those who believe nothing. This was clearly not the Christianity of the orthodox, who did not believe that deists, atheists, and those who believe nothing were united with true Christians on any principles of Christianity!
See Michael Novak’s article he wrote about me with comments from Frazer here:
http://tinyurl.com/6dvweu
Report comment to moderator
is consistent with highly valuing the traditional famil
Lugging a four month old across the country in pursuit of a career promotion is traditional?
Returning to work after three days is traditional?
She does have a family values problem and its amusing to see the hypocrisy at work here.
Report comment to moderator
Let me also note Lincoln’s notion of calling the tail of a dog a 5th leg; but in reality it’s still a tail. The Founding Fathers did a lot of that. They were more likely to present their heterodox ideas under the auspices of “Christianity,” but a strong argument can be made that it wasn’t “Christianity” but something else. It was “unitarianism” or “theistic rationalism.” And this goes for Franklin as well. In only one quote have I seen him refer to himself as a “Deist.” In far more quotes, he thought himself a “Christian” (a “unitarian Christian” or a “rational Christian”). Yet, they had a bad habit (characteristic of the Whigs) of “reading in” their unitarianism or theistic rationalism to all world religions, including both Christianity and Islam. That’s why they thought Islam in principle wasn’t so bad. As Franklin put it in his letter to Ezra Stiles:
I believe in one God, creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
This was the Truth taught by MOST or ALL world religions, including Islam. This was the connection they drew between Christianity AND Islam. Those doctrines which make Islam and Christianity exclusive claims of Truth, the key FFs rejected.
Some could argue they rejected both real Christianity AND real Islam under the guise of accepting both as valid ways to God.
And to repeat, Franklin was not an outlier. Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris, and others all thought alike on these matters.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Reagan: Palin a Great Pick
Friday, August 29, 2008 2:22 PM
By: Phil Brennan
Radio Host and syndicated columnist Mike Reagan, former President Ronald Reagan’s eldest son, tells Newsmax, “Now we’ve got our Maggie Thatcher.”
Reagan was speaking of his dad’s closest associate in world affairs and his best friend, Britain’s iron lady, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whom Alaskans refer to as “Sarah Barracuda,” is famed as a fierce competitor in debates. Reagan predicts she’ll be more than a match for Democratic vice-presidential rival Sen. Joe Biden when they cross swords in their single debate this fall.
“He’ll never know what hit him, Reagan predicts.
“Now we’ve got our Maggie Thatcher.”
Report comment to moderator
good for you Victoria.
Looking at the numbers, it looks like most people will let you have her– and Newsmax too;-)
Report comment to moderator
HRW, you attributed to me a line that Joel Mark wrote.
You wrote: “Charles Beard is not a leftist argument or radical historian — the above was a commonly stated argument in the 1920s already.”
I know. His was but ONE book I read in my history classes in college back in the day. Read something that isn’t about economics. Everything is not about economics.
Nor was the Revolution merely about economics, and you are unfair to all human beings, yourself included, if you insist that they think ONLY in terms of economics. The early settlers came here for religious freedom, and it took guts to get on those little wooden boats. It’s not like coming here today. There was nothing for them here. That hard work — that survival! — created a new people: “Americans.” (not Canadians
) People consist of heart and soul, they seek freedom and most people want to do for themselves. This was certainly true of the early settlers and colonials — and beyond. You liberals/leftists ignore the soul at your peril. You ignore freedom at its core.
And you can’t wipe that away with something like Indian massacres dismiss that argument. People are people and they will never be perfect. Perfection is unrealistic — and when you dismiss their beliefs, their highest aspirations, and think only in hindsight, you cut yourself off from truth. That’s the problem with liberals/leftists. You only allow yourselves to think in certain ways, you box yourselves in and ignore what’s standing right in front of you. That’s stupid! Just plain stupid.
The American experiment isn’t just what presidents may or may not have said or done. It is ordinary people — let me repeat that — ORDINARY PEOPLE working hard day by day. Does anyone remember that scene in “Liberty” (Ken Burns) when the English general (whose name I forget) was defeated and marched through town. Who was on the hillside watching? The farmers, the hunters. THEY BUILT AMERICA, moreso than the Founders. The Founders were gifted with the ability to put pen to paper, but the PEOPLE fought for that liberty and they didn’t approve anything by the vote that even smelled or smacked of control.
It starts with WE, THE PEOPLE, not we, the government. And if you were willing to actually think on your own, you would understand that.
Report comment to moderator
And just so you know, HRW, the judge I worked for was told he needed a quadruple bypass NOW (back in the day), and what did he do? He called his chambers and told them to file his opinions BEFORE he went under the knife. People in power, in government jobs, have a tendency to take those jobs VERY seriously. These people take their work on vacation. The only time I did not receive calls from the judge in 18 years was when he was on the Galapagos Islands and there were no phones. You obviously can’t relate to that kind of dedication, it is unusual, but it exists, and it happens every day. Maybe you wouldn’t do it, but thank God there are those called to do it. Evidently, Ms. Palin is one of those people.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
Can you hear me clapping?
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote: “Republicans have no respect for government and its role in society and hence don’t value it.”
This is so deeply offensive. I am speechless.
(Victoria, I thought I heard you tap dancing!)
Report comment to moderator
108
http://www.amazon.com/Wrecking-Crew-How-Conservatives-Rule/dp/0805079882
Report comment to moderator
Lindsay Graham defends Palin and slights Bush and Stevens in the process
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urT3G9Oz2pw
Report comment to moderator
A government for the people, by the people and of the people. I understand that and thats why I believe gov’t should be valued and respected as a tool to improve the lives of working people. Those who argue for a minimal state are by necessity of consistency are also arguing that gov’t is not of the people but intrudes on the people. The people are then not the gov’t according to this viewpoint. I disagree.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
I had to clap because my office has carpet – LOL
I had missed that post, not by accident – many times I scroll past this individuals rambling. This kind of thinking is common to Canada and its citizens –
After observing those who come here from the far north, trying to do business in the USA, and failing, it becomes apparent they haven’t a clue as to how this country is run. We have traveled back and forth to Canada and its always the same – the endless complaints regarding American’s – It’s a well rehearsed litany which is spoken at every chance to U.S. visitors, either business or pleasure – its like piano recital, but the student hasn’t studied, and is unlearned, not to mention the piano needs tuning, all of which only proves how little they understand –
I would add jealousy is a big factor -
Report comment to moderator
HRW, the people who formed the United States of American WANTED a minimal state! Most of us still do. They wanted to take care of themselves. Nowhere will you find in American history the desire of the colonists to have the government improve the lives of working people. They wanted the freedom to do that for themselves. They would have considered people who want it done for them to be woosies.
So, no, you don’t understand real freedom at all. Nor do you understand hard work. (And no, I am not saying that the truly helpless should not be helped.)
Report comment to moderator
Its been estimated that one third of the people were against the Revolution, one third were neutral and one third supported the Revolution. The Revolutionary forces were a political party opposed by the Tories and ignored by others.
By any account the lower orders, ie nonpropertied whites, indentured servants, slaves and natives were not involved in the war. And Edmund Morgan, not a Marxists by any stretch of imagination, sums it up: “the contest was a generally a struggle for office and power between members of an upper class: the new against the established”
The commitment of this new political party to their rhetoric was tested after the war by Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. In both cases the lower orders revolted, ironically the later over excise taxes, and were put down.
Report comment to moderator
#106
Americans are only behind the Japanese in working themselves to death. However, judging by results the Americans do not receive any additional benefit to the quality of their life then their European competitors.
Report comment to moderator
And if you were willing to actually think on your own, you would understand that.
kettle pot pot kettle
Report comment to moderator
Victoria you amuse me
the endless complaining you hear is about your government not American people. its often a mystery to use why such seemingly decent people who aren’t too much different than us would elect such incompetent rulers.
Jealousy — you’re kidding or delusional.
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20080625_50113_50113
Report comment to moderator
113
the people who formed the United States of American WANTED a minimal state!
And the Articles of Confederation failed. A new ruling class took over from the exiled Tories and Brits and began to rule in their place.
Report comment to moderator
LOL, Victoria!
The Left is in such a state of confusion after McCain made this shrewd pick.
Report comment to moderator
A good laugh no matter what side of the fence you are: The Res State Update’s view on Palin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W5IAPK0hbU
Report comment to moderator
The Article of Confederation did not meet the needs of a unified country. Indeed, the Constitution almost didn’t get ratified and wouldn’t have been had the Bill of Rights not been attached to it, that’s how much the people feared government. The third of Americans against the Revolution — well, they LOST!
There will always be rich and poor people, HRW. But if you were a student of American history, you would read literally countless stories of people who came from nothing and succeeded — even if that meant just owning a few acres and farming it.
Please read Victoria’s post in which she bolds “how little they understand.” You are hopeless, too far gone in your thinking. You are not an American, and you don’t think like one either.
(And if the Canadian way were so much better, Canada would be better, it would have a higher stature in the world. It doesn’t. You guys had trouble changing the flag to a maple leaf, for crying out loud!)
Report comment to moderator
Outkast, their confused, and shafazzed no doubt about it LOL
Report comment to moderator
Thanks HRW. That was indeed funny.
Report comment to moderator
The Article of Confederation did not meet the needs of a unified country
Exactly it was a failed experiment in having a minimal central gov’t and decentralized authority.
ndeed, the Constitution almost didn’t get ratified and wouldn’t have been had the Bill of Rights not been attached to it, that’s how much the people feared government.
state’s rights, large vs small states, etc were the more practical and important factor than the ideological arguments concerning the size of gov’t. Your argument is Whiggish in nature — you are projecting current debates into the past and not letting the events explain themselves.
ut if you were a student of American history, you would read literally countless stories of people who came from nothing and succeeded — even if that meant just owning a few acres and farming it.
For every story of the bootstraps being pulled up there are countless stories not being told which lack bootstraps.
You are not an American, and you don’t think like one either.
Thanks but that’s not pertinent to the discussion.
(And if the Canadian way were so much better, Canada would be better, it would have a higher stature in the world. It doesn’t.
better = higher stature ?? define higher stature; do you mean power? respect? admiration? I will grant you the power criteria but its a toss up on other categories. Is our lifestyles and gov’ts judged according to a popularity contest?
Report comment to moderator
An interesting youtube mash up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNmn2dmU16Q
Report comment to moderator
And an article in Politico which will become Palin talking points. In an other thread Scroop Moth alluded to them
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12987.html
Report comment to moderator
Thanks but that’s not pertinent to the discussion.
And your posts 124-126 are pertinent to a thread about evangelical leaders endorsing the GOP ticket in WHAT way, HRW?
Report comment to moderator
I’m just replying to NJL and Victoria
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe (#41):
Re #1: America did not begin in 1776. To be precise, the date you cite was when our war for independence began. Our form of government, be it the monarchy you mention, our later confederation, or our present Constitution is not the main issue here.
The beginning I was referring to, and which is relevant to our present discussion, has to do with the majority European immigration to this continent and their predominant religious sentiments. That was mainly English and Protestant. It has no single date unless you want to refer to the arrival of the Puritans in the Mayflower in 1620.
Re #2: Your reference to Richard Price is extremely weak, if not entirely irrelevant. You say that, ”He was a “Christian minister” who was friends with many of the Founders.
I could not confirm that. In fact, the opposite appears to be the truth. He was an English minister who never set foot in America. His only personal friend among our founders was apparently Ben Franklin who presumably met him during one of Franklin’s visits to England. However, he did write a pamphlet in 1776 supportive of the American cause, but these facts are a far cry from your dubious assertion that he ”…was friends with many of the Founders.”
Then you go on to assert that, ”They loved his ideas, especially his religious ideas.” Hmm, which personal friend? Benjamin Franklin?
You state that 11 of the convention members (a minority out of 55 members) “subscribed” to his sermons. You obviously are trying to infer that they subscribed to his views, ie., that they agreed with him in his basically Unitarian outlook. But you provide no concrete evidence for that inference. George Washington purchased 4 copies of his sermons. So what? I have copies of Darwin’s work, Machiavelli, the Communist Manifesto, Catholic theology, Jewish theology, Nazi doctrine, and other works I largely disagree with in my library. You also have copies of the Bible in your library. Does that mean I agree with these authors, or “subscribe” to them as you infer? Obviously not.
You further state that, ”…Washington never had anything but praise for Price’s work.” Hmm, care to provide us with something concrete to back that up?
It is absolutely ludicrous of you cite an obscure English pastor, Richard Price, as influential in the religious landscape of America and ignore someone like Witherspoon, who had far more influence. Witherspoon was an orthodox Presbyterian minister and a signer of our Declaration of Independence who TRULY can be said to have been a friend of the majority of the 55 delegates of the Constitutional Convention.
”From Witherspoon’s legacy at Princeton [its sixth president], out of his students came: thirty-seven judges, three of whom made it to the Supreme Court, ten of his former students became Cabinet officers, twelve were members of the Continental Congress, twenty-eight sat in the Senate, and forty-nine were United States congressmen. One, Aaron Burr, became Vice President, and another, James Madison, became President. These men and many others had a tremendous influence on the young republic. When the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America met in 1789, 52 of the 188 delegates had studied under Witherspoon. The limited-government philosophy of most of these men was due in large measure to Witherspoon’s influence.”
Why do you cite Price, a speck on the landscape, and ignore the elephant in the room, Witherspoon? I believe it is because your personal bias is leading you to seek support for your preconceived ideas, rather than letting the facts lead you to the truth.
Your loose treatment of the facts and your distortion of the facts is nothing other than historical revisionism for your current political bias. It is also, as I said before, a denigration and obfuscation of the truth about our country’s history.
Report comment to moderator
Michael
Thank you for your post – I have checked many of his so called ‘facts’ – came up empty – obscure material at best, taken out of context, OR in many cases cannot be located, unless of course you count his blog or others which he posts on.
Report comment to moderator
Fox News is reporting this headline:
polls: voters doubt palin’s qualifications while Obama expands lead
Nice!!
Woo-hoooo!
Report comment to moderator
CNN: Palin booed for mentioning Hillary Clinton
Report comment to moderator
#100? John Adams’ 1813 quote (see #73) speaks for itself, Jon. It does not need Dr. Gregg Frazer to explain or distort it. That Adams knew we lived in a diverse country, religiously, is obvious and not pertinent to my point that you are desperately and inadequately trying to refute.
Whether you like it or not, Jon (and I know you don’t), John Adams clearly said: “The general principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved [sic] Independence, were…the general Principles of Christianity…” Adams continued, “I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.” John Adams, June 28, 1813.
So, happy Christian Heritage Week, Jon, and in the USA, you don’t even have to be a Christian to enjoy it. And Adams would support your right to worship or not as you please. But that does not erase our deep Christian heritage (one that Adams helped to carry forward repectfully).
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
You are right that Adams’ words speak for themselves and here are the rest of them from that very letter:
http://tinyurl.com/5sps26
Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and “Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"].” Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.
Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No.
The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.
Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.
[Bold Mine]
As you see the “Christianity” to which Adams referred included Arians, Socinians, Deists, Atheists and Protestants who believe in nothing. Likewise Adams refers to “Reausseau and Voltaire” for authority. I don’t see this as the “Christianity” that you Joel Mark or most posters here believe in.
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
Before the age of airplanes it wasn’t so easy to “set foot” in another country across the Ocean. That said, Richard Price was indeed friends with more than just Franklin. He commonly corresponded with among others, Benjamin Rush, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, who had nothing but praise for his work. They were his regular and intimate “pen pals,” if you will. And yes, I consider that sufficient to call someone a “friend.” I have folks I’ve met on the Internet whom I’ve never met in person I consider “friends.”
Further, the American Founders were influenced by “Whig” literature in Great Britain. Bernard Bailyn of Harvard lists “Whig” thought as one of 5 prime ideological sources behind the American Founding along with biblical principles, greco-roman principles, enlightenment principles, and common law principles. And Price, along with his friend, Joseph Priestley was one of the most important British Whig contemporary of America’s Founders.
Report comment to moderator
Here is Washington on Richard Price:
Sir: I pray you to accept my acknowledgment of your polite letter of the 31st. of October, and thanks for the flattering expressions of it. These are also due in a very particular manner to Doctr. Price, for the honble mention he has made of the American General in his excellent observations on the importance of the American revolution addressed, “To the free and United States of America,” which I have seen and read with much pleasure.
http://tinyurl.com/6ee7yk
Note this, “To the free and United States of America,” was an open ANTI-TRINITARIAN sermon. Here is the primary source:
http://tinyurl.com/684ahh
As Price says in there:
Perhaps nothing more shocking to reason and humanity ever made a part of a religious system than the damning clauses in the Athanasian creed and yet the obligation of the clergy to declare assent to this creed, and to read it as a part of the public devotion, remains.
AND n the context of arguing religious liberty and equality for all (not just “Christians”), Price asserts:
Montesquieu probably was not a Christian. Newton and Locke were not Trinitarians and therefore not Christians according to the commonly received ideas of Christianity. Would the United States, for this reason, deny such men, were they living, all places of trust and power among them?
And for this, Washington had nothing but praise.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, as I pointed out (and you apparently missed it), the fact that Adams knew we were a diverse country denominationally and approved of that, does not change the point I have made nor does it undermine the fact that we have a rich Christian heritage in this country — one that John Adams relished and carried and that the Founders both affirmed and embraced in different ways and degrees.
So, in full context, the 1813 Adams quote still affirms what I have stated above about Adams (and in my view does not support your spins) as does Adams’ 1776, 1796 & 1798 quotes all shared at #73.
Report comment to moderator
Finally Michael,
If you can access the JSTOR (I can from work but not home, and you can always purchase the article) Carl B. Cone in an article entitled “Richard Price and the Constitution of the United States” published in The American Historical Review, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Jul., 1948), pp. 726-747, documents Price’s profound influence on the American Founding.
http://tinyurl.com/6e7rdr
Re Witherspoon, yes he was influential. However, it was not his orthodox Trinitarianism or Calvinism that influenced America’s Founders. Rather, he was also a philosophical naturalist and rationalist. And that’s what they most valued in him. For instance, his most famous student was James Madison (a reported Unitarian). And when asked for his theological specifics (letter to Frederick Beasley November 20, 1825) Madison did not appeal to Witherspoon for authority but Samuel Clarke, an Arian heretic and Anglican divine. It was unitarians like Clarke, Locke, Newton, Price, Priestley, Mayhew, and Chauncy whose theology most dramatically impacted the key Founders Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, Wilson, G. Morris, and others.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin, your post at #129 was excellent. I keep learning a lot in this discussion and I thank you for your input. Highly selective spin-master historians like Jon Rowe are all too common, but I am glad he participates here.
Thinkers like you, Michael, make it so worthwhile to follow these threads.
#136, those who have read Washington’s letters will know that the excerpt of his letter to Price is very typical of his genteel and formally gracious style. It does not constitute proof of his agreement (or disagreement) with Price on theological terms or grounds, specific or generally. Don’t draw more out of private letters than is there.
Michael’s well-grounded comments at #129 stand. Michael convinced me to better appreciate the enormous theological influence of Witherspoon.
Report comment to moderator
“Adams knew we were a diverse country denominationally and approved of that,…”
It all depends on the meaning of the term “Christian.” I’ve conceded that in a broad sense, America’s civil religion or its public political theology could aptly be termed “Christian.” But only if theologically liberal heresies have a place at the table of “Christianity.” If on the other hand, Christianity defines as orthodox Trinitarian, then, no, America’s public Founding religious heritage is not “Christian.”
In that broad sense, it’s not just Trinitarians, but Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, theological unitarians (anti-Trinitarians) and universalists (those who fervently deny eternal damnation) and even Muslims (after all Martin Luther did consider Islam a “Christian heresy”) who have a rightful place at the table of America’s “public religion.” But, the moment you start making claims like “Mormons aren’t Christians,” you also lose the ability to claim America’s public Founding heritage as “Christian” as you understand the term.
Are we in agreement here?
Report comment to moderator
That Witherspoon was a ‘rationalist’ only underlines his orthodoxy as a Christian. And Jon Rowes list of who influenced the Founders is nothing but his own list of favorites, typically selective. The Founder’s were far more widely influenced and diversely impacted than Jon seems to think.
The Founders were also influenced by their deep Puritan roots, and by such preachers as Rev. Thomas Hooker, Rev. John Wise, Witherspoon, and many others.
Here’s another good quote:
“Our liberties do not come from charters; for these are only the declarations of pre-existing rights. They do not depend on parchment or seals; but come from the King of Kings and the Lord of all the earth.” ~ John Dickinson, a chairman of the Committe for the Declaration of Independence, 1976. see Page 95 in Michael Novak’s extremely well documented book, “On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding.”
Report comment to moderator
#136, those who have read Washington’s letters will know that the excerpt of his letter to Price is very typical of his genteel and formally gracious style. It does not constitute proof of his agreement (or disagreement) with Price on theological terms or grounds, specific or generally. Don’t draw more out of private letters than is there.
I agree here and note his kind words towards Price’s heterodox sentiments do not constitute a “smoking gun” proving Washington’s religious specifics (with GW, there are no “smoking guns”).
Rather, I did this research because Peter Lillback has dug up many letters of Washington doing the very same thing with orthodox sermons wherein HE draws that inference (that GW was an orthodox Christian) in a way against which you caution.
I did this research to show GW had positive things to say about both orthodox AND heterodox sermons; therefore his kind words for orthodox sermons do not prove him to be orthodox either.
Report comment to moderator
Jon must not be getting enough action on his own blog, so he has to come here to promote his revisionist history theories. Sad.
jeff
Report comment to moderator
Jeff,
I get plenty of “action” on my blog(s). I come here because of the thoughtful criticism and feedback, not by folks like you, btw, who simply assert my theories as “revisionist” and offer no substantive argument on which to stand.
Report comment to moderator
Jeff,
If I may put you on the spot, I am specifically interested in your thoughts on my post # 140.
Report comment to moderator
pin drops……
“tink”
Report comment to moderator
That’s an easy one, Jon. Your definition of ‘Christian’ is different from mine, and likely also different from the definition thought of by the leading Founding Fathers.
Next question?
Report comment to moderator
You dodged the question. No, actually, I think you just answered incorrectly. I am assuming arguendo your definition of Christianity (which I know is orthodox Christianity; indeed you’ve admitted it as “TULIP”) and I’m noting by that definition America’s Founding political theology is not “Christianity” as YOU understand the term.
Report comment to moderator
It may have not be the same version of Christianity as I personally believe, but that does NOT mean it wasn’t Christianity. I have friends who are Catholic, Arminian and Pentecostal, and I consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Anyway, bringing it back to the topic of this thread, the Leftists of all types (political, historical, social) cannot stand that their favorite political maverick (McCain, who has been a thorn in the side of President Bush and evangelicals since at least 2000) went over their heads and selected an evangelical Christian to be his running mate.
I haven’t been this happy since the Reagan years. Whoo-hoo!
Report comment to moderator
Would you consider an unapologetic Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness your “brother” or “sister” in Christ?
Report comment to moderator
Good discussion, Jon.
I would ask outkast if McCain is a thorn when he votes 95% of the time with Bushs stated position in 2007, and 100% in 2008?
Some maverick. More like a good little Bushie going for the bro-con vote.
Report comment to moderator
don’t trust auto spell……
McCain is after the neocon vote
Report comment to moderator
Outkast
On one of these innumerable Palin threads you commented that the left was upset because she only had one house. You spoke too soon;
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0808/Palin_Three_houses.html
Report comment to moderator
UTICA, New York – Republican John McCain’s surprise announcement Friday of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate – some 16 hours after Democrat Barack Obama’s historic speech accepting his party’s presidential nomination – has possibly stunted any Obama convention bump, the latest Zogby Interactive flash poll of the race shows.
The latest nationwide survey, begun Friday afternoon after the McCain announcement of Palin as running mate and completed mid-afternoon today, shows McCain/Palin at 47%, compared to 45% support for Obama/Biden.
In other words, the race is a dead heat.
Report comment to moderator
Jon
YOU WRITE:…
“Would you consider an unapologetic Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness your “brother” or “sister” in Christ?”
NO not at all -
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Lumpy, when a GOP Republican only votes with a GOP President 95% of the time, I’d say he’s a thorn. Have you even been watching the news the past 8 years? McCain was regularly siding with the Democrats to thwart the President’s agenda.
Jon: No, I would not consider a Mormon to be my brother in Christ. Why do you ask?
Report comment to moderator
Wow, that’s much better than the Vegas odds Lumpy keep promoting!
Whoo-hoo!
Report comment to moderator
The reason why I ask is because the “Christianity” of America’s key Founders (Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris, & some others) is as removed from orthodox Trinitarian Christianity as is Mormonism & Jehovah’s Witnessism. If Mormonism & JWism do not qualify as “Christianity” then neither does the religion of America’s key Founders I mentioned. Indeed Mormonism is closer to the key FF’s religious creed than is orthodox Trinitarian Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
I’m happy to see our conservative Christian friends finally coming around to fully supporting the right of mothers (even mothers with newborns) to work simply because they want to (and not just because they have to). Up till Palin came along they would only support mother’s working out of economic necessity, and at that it was grudging support. I expect we will see no further blogs on here about how a mom should stay home and care for her children and that it’s better for them to do it, especially with a baby.
Report comment to moderator
(today from rasmussen reports — Palin makes good first impression):
After her debut in Dayton and a rush of media coverage, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 53% now have a favorable opinion of Palin while just 26% offer a less flattering assessment.
Palin earns positive reviews from 78% of Republicans, 26% of Democrats and 63% of unaffiliated voters.
Report comment to moderator
According to http://www.270towin.com/ Obama has an 84% chance of reaching 270. The popular vote may be a dead heat but the electoral college favours Obama. On http://www.zogby.com/50state/ the electoral map also favours Obama with all the too close to call states traditionally red states. However, as I said before this will come down to a turn out the vote contest — organization and commitment will be the deciding factor. And lacking energy, McCain threw hail mary and pick a VP to bring some energy and organization to his campaign — it may work and it may backfire. Palin still has enough questions that however energized the religious right becomes the moderate middle may not be.
Report comment to moderator
My results are from today
Live in the past if you must.
And I really do like Palin with mccain!
Report comment to moderator
hRW-
Can’t wait to here the mcbushies screeching about the electoral college system
Report comment to moderator
We’ll see.
To be continued.
Report comment to moderator
luau time!
Check you all tomorrow….
Pray for the hurricane victims!
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons haven’t anything to do with the Founding Fathers and what they believed. Again you know not of what you speak. The comparison you wish to make won’t ‘FLY’ no matter how you play it.
You prove over and over again how little you know of these cults, not to mention your ineptness in trying to align them with the Founding Fathers.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
To the contrary, many of the Founders & the ministers they followed believed in the Arian heresy just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses do. And Mormonism is closer to the FFs believe because Mormonism, look to America’s Founders for inspiration, after the fact incorporated some of the FFs eccentric abiblical theological beliefs into Mormonism.
Report comment to moderator
Palin is a Dominionist with links to Joel’s Army.
Against sex education – abstinence only
Believes creationism should be taught in science classes
Says she would force her daughter to have a rapist’s child
Opposed to state health benefits for same-sex couples.
Favors censoring library books
Against birth control
Against protecting polar bears because they interfere with drilling
Against protecting Belugas
Supports hunting black bear sows and cubs.
Against mine safety/polution controls
Favors aerial hunting of wolves
This opinionated lady hasn’t taken a stand on many important issues.
Woo=Hoo
Woo=Hoo
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe continually sets himself up as eternal judge, jury and god to label and categorize Christians and men he never knew. Even his categories themselves are contrived, biased and stilted, in my reading of him. The only way to do this is to have a purely academic, formulaic and thus shallow understanding of “Christianity.” That does not cut it, not even at an academic level.
True Christianity breathes in people (the word “Spirit” actually means wind or breath). Yes, some categories are needed (I agree with Victoria that Mormons and JWs are not orthodox–but they are Americans and free to believe as they do without persecution) but those categories should be applied in a more humble and fair-minded way. We can celebrate our enormous Christian heritage as a nation, without having to break down the alleged orthodoxy of every free group that appears. It’s an awesome Christian heritage and the Founders understood that well.
The Founders wanted that freedom, so publically they avoided strict orthodox statements. But that does not tell us a lot about their private beliefs in many cases. Yet Jon is ready to judge them eternally.
Outkast’s repoly at #147? is a fair reply to Jon’s question.
Report comment to moderator
Technical point:
I cannot see the numbers of each post on this thread because the pictures cover them up partially.
Report comment to moderator
For what it is worth, I heard a comment that Obama has voted with Bush 80% of the time, by the same criteria that McCain allegedly voted with him 95% of the time. The vast majority of the votes in question are to honor various achievements, name parks and such agreeable things. Sounds like we may be dealing yet again with more intentional smoke & mirrors from Obama’s camp purely for political distortion purposes. But let me say that I am only passing on points I heard.
Full disclosure: I would have voted with Bush a whole lot more than McCain did.
Report comment to moderator
#159, Jon Rowe wrote; “…the “Christianity” of America’s key Founders (Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris, & some others) is as removed from orthodox Trinitarian Christianity as is Mormonism & Jehovah’s Witnessism.”
Nonsense. Jon is not the judge of the orthodoxy and faith of every one of these men. People who play god are often too blind to know see what they do. Those Founders were too diverse intellectually and spiritually to make such a biased and revisionist sweeping judgments of them, lumping them in such convenient categories to judge them all.
Jon Rowe wrote; “Indeed Mormonism is closer to the key FF’s religious creed than is orthodox Trinitarian Christianity.”
1. Mormonism wasn’t around during the Founding (and Unitarianism (formally and generally) only began to catch a little wind in the Boston areas around the same time Mormonism began–nor was unitarianism then what it is now).
2. Jon’s claim shows a profound theological misunderstanding of both the faith of the Founders and of Mormonism. Mormons have a very bizarre view of God, eternity, the Scriptures and so much more.
Report comment to moderator
HRW may have a point at #162. It’s a call for McCain supporters to care enough to get to work. In the USA, we pretty much get what we deserve, electorally.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
I already addressed # 1. Because when Joseph Smith et al. created the religion, they incorporated some of the Founders’ republican ideals, enlightenment teachings, and eccentric theological beliefs into their religion. America’s Founding religion inspired Mormonism. That’s what draws Mormonism closer to the FFs. For instance, Ben Franklin flirted with the proto-Mormon belief that some larger God created the cosmos, and each solar system had its own lesser God — a more “knowable” God — which he would worship.
Founding Father Elias Boudinat endorsed the lost tribes of Israel thesis which is part of Mormonism. Both John Locke AND Thomas Jefferson believed God the FATHER a flesh and bone material being.
And of course, Mormons, like America’s key FFs, are not Trinitarians.
Report comment to moderator
And I’ve repeatedly answered your “unitarianism didn’t take off until the 19th Century claim.” That was Church Unitarianism. Theological unitarianism was believed in secretly by members of Trinitarian Churches and remained somewhat in the closet in the 18th Century. It was “elite men” like America’s FFs, having “religious secrets.” That the 2nd and 3rd American Presidents were unapologetic theological unitarians during their entire adult lives in the 18th Century attests to this dynamic.
Report comment to moderator
Let me also add that Washington and Madison were probably theological unitarians just as Jefferson and Adams without question were. The reason I say “probably” is because they didn’t talk like Trinitarians. Rather they used the same generic philosophical “Providential” language that Jefferson, Adams and Franklin used, while cautiously avoiding terms like “Father, Son, Holy Spirit,” “Trinity,” and “Reedemer” and other indicia of Trinitarianism. And with Madison, at least one prominent eyewitness said he admitted to believing in the “unitarian doctrines.” So the fact that at least 2, probably 3 and perhaps 4 of the first 4 Presidents were theological unitarians, again, demonstrates the importance of theologically unitarian thought in elite Whig, Founding era circles — whatever its popularity among the masses.
Report comment to moderator
Obama has voted with Bush 80% of the time, by the same criteria that McCain allegedly voted with him 95% of the time.
Therefore, the chance of change is four times greater with Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
Report comment to moderator
It’s a joke, NJLAWYER, a response to Joel Mark’s ridiculous suggestion that Obama is practically as close to Bush as McCain is.
Report comment to moderator
Check out my latest post. The Christian Heritage resolution is actually full of copying errors. The underlying quotations are accurate but they are inaccurately copied. So in addition to whatever else Palin is a sloppy scholar.
Report comment to moderator
TRS at #14: Funny, the Leftists always bring up motherhood and children in relation to Palin, but you sure don’t hear them on this issue in any other venue!
It’s because the right’s eager embrace of Palin despite the needs of her family demonstrate how quickly you folks throw over your alleged principles in favor of expedience.
Not that that should come as any shock.
Report comment to moderator
Palin’s pre-political professional experience before ascending to Lord Mayor of Wasilla was being Pop 6,000’s sports reporter. She had to get the scores right and spell the players’ names.
Report comment to moderator
Some examples of Palin’s errors:
Let’s break down her resolution beginning with the first quotation by Ben Franklin:
WHEREAS, Benjamin Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention stated, “It is impossible to build an empire without our Father’s aid. I believe the sacred writings which say that, Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it (Psalm 127:1).”
This misquotes Franklin’s speech at the Constitutional Convention [as recorded by James Madison] where he was recording as saying:
I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proof I see of this truth that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel:
Next Palin writes:
WHEREAS, George Washington enunciated, “animated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity, and conducting ourselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, we may enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity.”
This misquotes an address Washington gave to Roman Catholics by one word, switching “ourselves” for “themselves.” The bold is mine:
And may the members of your society [the Roman Catholics] in America, animated alone by the pure spirit of christianity, and conducting themselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, we may enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity.
There’s more. Check out me blogs!
Report comment to moderator
Mathew Staver, dean of the Liberty University School of Law: “It’s an absolutely brilliant choice.
How odd for a law professor to think this about a candidate without legal training, who recently didn’t even know what the VP does. Lincoln had brief (though astute) experience as an elected lawmaker, but he was a good lawyer and an ambitious student of the constitution, skills that enabled him to govern.
Clever isn’t brilliant. Unfortunately, Palin is the depresssingly clever choice politicians go for day in and day as they calculate the next election.
Report comment to moderator
The Colbert endorsement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBt_gX0gwXs
Report comment to moderator
I just saw Palin interviewed on a business program and she did rather well discussing oil drilling in Alaska. I learned quite a few things I didn’t know. When other middle of the roaders discover they’ve been lied to by the Dems, considering the feeling about drilling at home, Obama’s going to have a harder time than he would have just a week ago.
They are saying right now that even New Jersey is in play and that the Reagan Democrats will vote for McCain. If NJ is not a lock, and it has been a lock for the Dems for a very long time, Obama has trouble.
Report comment to moderator
Jon: There’s more. Check out me blogs!
Arrr! Shiver me timbers!
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: When other middle of the roaders discover they’ve been lied to by the Dems, considering the feeling about drilling at home, Obama’s going to have a harder time than he would have just a week ago.
Since Palin’s already been revealed as a liar(about her stance on the Bridge to Nowhere), why do you assume she’s not lying here?
Report comment to moderator
Family Values in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9AIDRGzUAw
A dj calls a state legislator a b*tch and Palin replies she will be honor to have him in the legislature.
Meanwhile the non-religious right are not happy with the choice — my least favorite fellow Canadian and former Bush speechwriter (not only are we responsible for most Hollywood comedies we also wrote Bush’s speeches);
“The Palin choice looks cynical…. It’s a wild gamble, undertaken by our oldest ever first-time candidate for president in hopes of changing the board of this election campaign. Maybe it will work. But maybe (and at least as likely) it will reinforce a theme that I’d be pounding home if I were the Obama campaign: that it’s John McCain for all his white hair who represents the risky choice, while it is Barack Obama who offers cautious, steady, predictable governance…. If it were your decision, and you were putting your country first, would you put an untested small-town mayor a heartbeat away from the presidency?”
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ Scroll about halfway down to find the entry “The Right Offers Some Reviews”
Report comment to moderator
The New York Daily News reports that Palin’s mother-in-law isn’t sure if she won’t vote for her and isn’t sure what Palin brings to the ticket.
http://tinyurl.com/6qtqkj
Report comment to moderator
You’ve got a mother-in-law’s quote? I thought you were from Canada, not another planet!
Palin herself not 4 weeks ago said she’d do more as governor, and here we are…..
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe thinks he can judge human beings with finality with his own contrived “isms” and use words and quotes with slight of mind to justify his judgments. It does not wash.
Rowe wrote; “And I’ve repeatedly answered your “unitarianism didn’t take off until the 19th Century claim.” That was Church Unitarianism.”
But you continueally use the term irresponsibly and with insufficient clarity or context for those trying to pay attention honestly.
Report comment to moderator
#181, Jon Rowe wrote; “So in addition to whatever else Palin is a sloppy scholar.”
Jon, your arrogance is offensive and disrespectful. If ANYONE does not see it the way you do, you call them sloppy and think your judgmentalism is beyond reproach.
I found no errors in Palin’s positive call to honor our Christian heritage. There is total freedom to opt out if you wish too. I am grateful for her scholarship and grace.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
You are just nitpicking and firing and missing beyond belief. I’ve painstakingly in meticulous detail defined the term “unitarian” as it existed in Founding era parlance as simple disbelief in the Trinity, belief in either the Arian or Socinian heresies. If you don’t like that term because of its present day liberal connotations, fine. I’ve offered another: The key Founders were “theistic rationalists,” not orthodox Christians. And the theistic rationalists believed in a unitary not a Triune God.
Report comment to moderator
A mother-in-law quote? Heck, why don’t you just quote Palin who not 4 weeks ago said she’d accomplish more as governor of Alaska than as veep!
But here we are!
I always thought Canada was another country, not another planet!
Report comment to moderator
You’ve got a mother-in-law quote? Heck, why don’t you just quote Palin herself not 4 weeks ago? She said she’d accomplish more as governor than as veep.
I mean, really! People always downplay these things, and now we have you quoting this nonsense. I always thought Canada was another country, not another planet.
Report comment to moderator
Joel
If ANYONE does not see it the way you do,
this is not prespective or POV but simply misquoting.
Report comment to moderator
#111 HRW
“I understand that and thats why I believe gov’t should be valued and respected as a tool to improve the lives of working people. Those who argue for a minimal state are by necessity of consistency are also arguing that gov’t is not of the people but intrudes on the people.”
When you talk of “the working people” you identify yourself as someone who pits one group of people against others.
By and large, Republicans don’t see people as members of a group; we see people as individuals. (Which, by the way, is why Condoleeza Rice chose to be a Republican. We see her as an individual.) We think that government should treat everyone equally. Government should not step in to help this group of people over that group of people.
Many of our problems with your way of thinking stems from our desire to treat everybody as equals. You seem to want the government to favor “the working people.” Could this be at the heart of your disagreement with Republicans?
Report comment to moderator
#101 HRW
“Lugging a four month old across the country in pursuit of a career promotion is traditional?”
Mayflower? Wagon trains? Dust Bowl Okies, Arkies and Texans? Today’s illegals? Sarah Palin’s parents?
Speaking of wagon trains, a couple of years ago I met a man who came West from Colorado to Oregon by wagon train when he was 12. Wow! A real pioneer!
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
You are so far off on your ‘ideas’ regarding the Founding Father’s – Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, it should embarrass you to continue this nonsense.
Mormon’s were founded in April of 1830
Jehovah’s Witnesses were founded in 1879
Only a week or so ago, YOU announced that you were a scholar of the Bible and now this.
You have prove nothing so far. Michael Martin has made mush out of your statements regarding the Founding Fathers.
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#135),
In your post #41 you stated that Price was friends with many of the founding fathers in order to bolster your assertion that his ideas had a great influence on the foundations of this country.
Now we find that your idea of many consists of only one personal acquaintance (Franklin) and three others by letter, with whom you say he regularly corresponded. Now If your definition of regularly bears any similarity to your definition of many, it is indeed a very liberal definition—convenient for your purposes, but not convincing at all.
Frankly, you have grossly overstated your case and been apprehended in the act.
I once wrote a letter to President Nixon and received an authentic personal reply. So by your standards I suppose I can call myself his personal friend and ”…a regular and ‘intimate’ pen pal.” That is as laughable as I believe your statements will be found regarding the alleged friendship between Price, Rush, Adams, and Jefferson. Considering your earlier exaggeration, I think you can excuse us for being extremely skeptical and in need of more proof than your simple assertion.
Then you add that our founders were influenced by Whig literature, along with principles from the Bible, Greco-Roman culture, the Enlightenment, and English common law. You say this in an attempt to diminish the role of Christianity in the founding of our country to a mere one in five. That approach doesn’t work.
We certainly don’t have the time and space to examine each of these in detail, but the argument can be made that the primary principles of human freedom in our Constitution from these 5 sources all have their origin in the God of the Bible. They are, in reality, not from 5 sources, but from One. When Jefferson said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”, he acknowledged precisely that. This Creator source of freedom and civilized human government predates and is the basis of all the others: it is the God of Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#136),
As to your additional post on Richard Price. It doesn’t make your case of Washington’s supposed admiration and agreement with the religious views of Price.
First of all, the Washington quote was from a letter to Benjamin Vaughan in 1785, not Price. In it Washington thanks Vaughan for his (Vaughan’s) previous compliments and he also acknowledges the compliments of Price for Washington in a work called “To The Free and United States of America.” “Thanks for all your compliments,” is all that he is saying. Washington is not praising Price for anything, it is the other way around.
He then goes on to simply say that he enjoyed reading Price’s piece. Now what about that piece? First of all, it is NOT an anti-Trinitarian sermon as you allege, and as such, it cannot possibly be advanced as Washington’s approval of the anti-Trinitarian views of Price.
The piece is over 15,000 words long and the word “trinity” is mentioned only once and the word “Trinitarian” only twice. If Price is supposed to be arguing from a pulpit against the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, this is a very strange way of doing it. There is not a single Scriptural reference in the entire piece! Nothing biblical, pro or con, about the actual doctrine of the Trinity can be found anywhere in this treatise. It would be a strange work indeed to build a sermon on a biblical doctrine and never once make a specific Scriptural reference to the source document. Jon, your claim is bogus on its face.
The fact of the matter is, Price’s work here is a political treatise about the importance of the American Revolution and the freedoms gained thereby. His minimal reference to the trinity and Trinitarians is to accuse some who hold those views of being tyrannical in their application of government power. He makes these accusations in the sections titled “Of Liberty of Discussion” and “Of Liberty of Conscience and Civil Establishment of Religion.” He certainly has a valid point about past abuses of political power by some religious people against other religious people. He also makes similar accusations against Muslims. Major sections of the work, by their subtitles, deal with peace, war, education, debts and internal wars, the distribution of property, trade, banks, paper credit, oaths, and slavery. There is absolutely nothing here about the doctrine of the Trinity.
Throughout the piece Price is arguing against the abuse of power and for the human and political freedoms brought forth in the American Revolution. Washington would of course read this with pleasure and see it as a vindication of his political views and the war he fought to bring them to fruition in our new Republic.
To view this 15,000 word political treatise as an anti-Trinitarian sermon is just plain hogwash. And then to go on and claim that Washington is thereby praising and agreeing with the biblical and doctrinal views of Price is absolutely absurd. This piece, and Washington’s courteous but meager two sentence approval of it shows only that he generally agrees with the political views of Price, nothing more.
Additionally, Jon has shown absolutely no personal correspondence between Washington and Price to establish their so called personal friendship. Nor has he shown any of the other alleged “regular” correspondence between Price and any of our other founding fathers.
Remember that all of these unsubstantiated and bogus claims are made to support the allegation that “many” of our founding fathers agreed with Rice’s eccentric Christian views. Thus, according to Jon, the Christianity of our founding fathers is suspect along with our Christian heritage.
I believe that I have conclusively shown, using Jon’s own references, that his evidence is utterly worthless towards his intended purpose, and that his case is a fantasy of historical revisionism, manufactured out of his own wishful thinking and political bias.
Report comment to moderator
196 Bob
By and large, Republicans don’t see people as members of a group; we see people as individuals.
I view the Republicans as masters of class warfare rhetoric. They have set themselves up as the voice of the American middle class — the ordinary law abiding hard working Americans — and the defenders of the American dream. The right to a green lawn, space, NASCAR, football, soccer mom SUVs, etc. To preserve this class and dream is the supposed aim of the party.
As they stand guard, they identify foes and threats. First and foremost in their minds is the so-called liberal elites who wish to tax and regulate the American way of life. To compound this threat, the liberal and academic elites have embraced foreign ideologies and ideas. They are anti-American (whatever that means ask Victoria she’s not telling). And what especially makes the liberals dangerous is the media complicity. Fear and question everything except the party line. The Republicans hold up for examples those who have succumb and lost the battle; NYC, San Fran, Mass. etc. To prevent the middle class from falling from grace, the Republicans urge them to be values voters — the values and morals of the middle class must be protected against those who seek to corrupt it — gays, atheists, Muslims, etc. Economically, the middle class is portrayed as threatened by illegal immigration, foreigners, drugs, public health care etc.
Of course the propaganda doesn’t match the reality: the Republican politicians are well funded by multi-national corporations, resource industries, private-public partnerships, etc. And they are well supported in the media by FOX and AM radio especially but they also enjoy “equal” time elsewhere. In academia they have well-funded think tanks that issue propaganda as studies/papers.
Report comment to moderator
#197 BOB
“Lugging a four month old across the country in pursuit of a career promotion is traditional?”
Mayflower? Wagon trains? Dust Bowl Okies, Arkies and Texans? Today’s illegals? Sarah Palin’s parents?
Touche but then you will have to grant the fact that family values rhetoric of the last 25 years hasn’t matched the historical reality of pioneering America.
Report comment to moderator
HRW: I view the Republicans as masters of class warfare rhetoric. They have set themselves up as the voice of the American middle class — the ordinary law abiding hard working Americans — and the defenders of the American dream.
“Nixonland” does a great job of describing how Ronald Reagan in California in ‘66 and Richard Nixon in ‘72 incited political divisions between groups of Americans over issues of race and war. Even the cerebral Barry Goldwater played this game in ‘64 — his convention speech, broadcast today on C-Span, stokes hostility over God and “order” — a theme later transmuted into “law and order.” Republicans use the same rhetorical patterns today to drive the red-state, blue-state divide. “Warfare” is more than a metaphor. Americans actually kill each other for ideological reasons. Almost all this negative energy is on the right, posing as a defensive reaction to liberalism.
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
I am not going anywhere so we actually do have time to explore on these threads every single issue that you would like. However, this could take weeks if not months, so we should be patient. Let’s begin with this:
When Jefferson said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”, he acknowledged precisely that. This Creator source of freedom and civilized human government predates and is the basis of all the others: it is the God of Christianity.
You need to keep two things in mind: 1) The Bible never says God grants men unalienable rights, certainly not the “unalienable rights of conscience” with which Jefferson was so concerned, so foundational to the American notion of natural law (these amounted to a God granted right to break the First Commandment; Jefferson held we had a right to worship no God or twenty Gods).
And second, Jefferson rejected every single tenet of orthodox Christianity, such that the God to whom he appealed was not the “Christian” God, but arguably a different one. A more “man centered” God.
Here are the specific doctrines Jefferson rejected:
“* e. g. The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of Hierarchy, &c.”
And the primary sources:
http://tinyurl.com/2ehn2a
It was this God, stripped to all of those characteristics like “the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration,…” to whom Jefferson appealed to grant “unalienable rights.”
Report comment to moderator
Scroop
thanks for rec
I was thinking of buying What is America by Ronald Wright — any comments
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#207),
Before we head off into a discussion of Jefferson, I would like you to address the specifics of my critique of your assertions on Price and Washington (#203).
Report comment to moderator
I see outkast mocking inTrade who has Obama with a 61% chance of winning. McCain with a 39% chance.
I willpoint out that inTrade was right on EVERY senate and house race in 2006.
And the tv pundits were mostly wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Something else you should note about me Mr. Martin, I am not prone to “careless error.” When I post something here you can either 1) bank on it, or 2) if a matter of controversial opinion, bank on that fact that I have a professional scholarly argument on its behalf. So that when you say things like “your claim is bogus on its face,” you invariably misfire.
This is exactly what Washington says about Price’s sermon:
These [acknowledgment and thanks] are also due in a very particular manner to Doctr. Price, for the honble mention he has made of the American General in his excellent observations on the importance of the American revolution addressed, “To the free and United States of America,” which I have seen and read with much pleasure.
So Washington acknowledges, thanks, and claims he has seen and read with much pleasure Richard Price’s sermon in question.
The sermon IS explicitly anti-Trinitarian. The relevant parts say:
Perhaps nothing more shocking to reason and humanity ever made a part of a religious system than the damning clauses in the Athanasian creed and yet the obligation of the clergy to declare assent to this creed, and to read it as a part of the public devotion, remains.
The ATHANASIAN CREED is shorthand for “Trinitarian Christianity.” THAT’S the part of the sermon that is explicitly anti-Trinitarian.
Finally, Price’s sermon states, in the context of arguing religious liberty and equality for all (not just “Christians”):
Montesquieu probably was not a Christian. Newton and Locke were not Trinitarians and therefore not Christians according to the commonly received ideas of Christianity. Would the United States, for this reason, deny such men, were they living, all places of trust and power among them?
It’s sentiments like THIS that I think we should value in America’s religiously free heritage.
Report comment to moderator
So in the end Washington praised Price’s anti-Trinitarian sermon AND ordered FOUR COPIES of Price’s “Sermons on the Christian doctrine as received by the different denominations of Christians” which termed the Trinity “shockingly absurd”:
Give me but this single truth, that ETERNAL LIFE is the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour and I shall be perfectly easy with respect to the contrary opinions which are entertained about the dignity of Christ; about his nature, person, and offices; and the manner in which he saves us. Call him, if you please, simply a man endowed with extraordinary powers; or call him a superangelic being, who appeared in human nature for the purpose of accomplishing our salvation; or say (if you can admit a thought so shockingly absurd) that it was the second of three coequal persons in the Godhead, forming one person, with a human soul, that came down from heaven, and suffered and died on the cross: Say that he saves us merely by being a messenger from God to reveal to us eternal life, and to confer it upon us; or say, on the contrary, that he not only reveals to us eternal life, and confers it upon us, but has obtained it for us by offering himself a propitiatory sacrifice on the cross, and making satisfaction to the justice of the Deity for our sins: I shall think such differences of little moment, provided the fact is allowed, that Christ did rise from the dead, and will raise us from the dead; and that all righteous penitents will, through God’s grace in him, be accepted and made happy forever.
Here is the evidence for Washington ordering four copies of Price’s sermon.
http://tinyurl.com/59ouyp
Report comment to moderator
#204 HRW
So this is your view of Republicans? No wonder we can never talk and come to a meeting of the mind. You are condemning the two parties to eternal fisticuffs. We both speak English but don’t use the same meanings.
Actually you seem like you could write “talking points” for Democrats. I have heard Biden on Sunday Morning shows. You could write for him.
Report comment to moderator
I never heard Biden until last summer — and I’ve never heard an American politicians I agree with more and that includes Kuscinch and Obama. I wasn’t surprised when I heard he was a working class kid from Scranton who takes the train home each night.
Report comment to moderator
Whoo-hoo!
Report comment to moderator
Palin……not only can she bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan but she can also hunt down the bacon! Those boys in D.C. better watch out!!
WHOO-HOO!!
Report comment to moderator
“Dead Heat” in first poll conducted (8/29-31, CNN/Time) with both tickets complete:
Obama 49, McCain 48
Gov. Palin’s approval: 38%, with 21% unfavorable and 41% never heard of her or have no opinion
Error margin: 3 points.
Report comment to moderator
Who said American history is a dead subject?
For that matter, I am studying the Olympics-quality condescension demonstrated in this thread.
Report comment to moderator
I am studying the Olympics-quality condescension demonstrated in this thread. Good one, RN. Will you be using your own posts as the gold standard?
Report comment to moderator
#214 HRW
” …and I’ve never heard an American politicians I agree with more and that includes Kuscinch and Obama.”
If you agree with Kucinich, you just lost all credibility. But you may be correct in putting Obama and Biden in with Kucinich. Your choice, your words.
Report comment to moderator
Joseph Biden did not grow up in a working class family. He said so himself. His father was in management. Look it up. He would probably qualify as one of those “rich” people that President Bush supposedly supports. Apparently there was a period when he was unemployed and on the verge of economic disaster, but he rose back from it.
HRW, you must be joking. There can be no divide without TWO sides. The divide is there because people have very strong convictions on both sides of the important issues. Simply put: it takes two to tango. If the Republican Party claims to be the voice of the middle class, the Democratic Party claims (laughably) to be the party of the poor and the working class. As for the Republican Party pandering to ordinary, middle class people, I’ll have you know–as an insider–that the middle class, especially the evangelicals in the middle class, have been working to influence the party for over thirty years. It has been a movement from the ground-up, not from the top-down.
Report comment to moderator
As much as I like Biden as person, he can be a donkey, and I don’t mean Dem by that. If HRW falls for a guy even the Dems themselves gave so little votes for — heck, if you total up all the votes all the times he ran for president, I doubt you’d come up with the 18 million that Hillary got this one time — I can only question not only HRW’s interpretation (wild as it is!) of the Republican Party but his view of the Dems as well.
I have never laughed so hard as when I read those paragraphs!
Report comment to moderator
I once wrote a letter to President Nixon and received an authentic personal reply. So by your standards I suppose I can call myself his personal friend and ”…a regular and ‘intimate’ pen pal.” That is as laughable as I believe your statements will be found regarding the alleged friendship between Price, Rush, Adams, and Jefferson. Considering your earlier exaggeration, I think you can excuse us for being extremely skeptical and in need of more proof than your simple assertion.
Here is the problem with your Richard Nixon analogy: All of the Founders I named as friends by letters had glowing things to say about Price, repeatedly. If we can find on the Nixon tapes and in his letters him repeatedly having glowing things to say about you, a man to whom he once replied in a letter (which you know wasn’t written by him and was signed with a form signature), then yes, I would consider you a friend of his in the intimate pen pal sense.
Report comment to moderator
KYLE A. Joe Biden’s father was a car salesman. I don’t know if he supervised other salesmen from the office at the end of the hall. Perhaps the salesman who ambushed you in the lot had to go to him with your low-ball offer and bring him in for the “closing.” If that’s “management”, he had to sell cars to get commissions. He graduated from the University of Delaware and Syracuse Law School. Joe didn’t inherit wealth and is one of the poorest senators with a net worth of $250K. His wife teaches writing at a a technical community college.
Report comment to moderator
Here are two letters from Rush to Price:
http://tinyurl.com/5n3nua
Here is a letter from Jefferson to Price:
http://tinyurl.com/6koxko
Here is Jefferson talking up Richard Price (and Joseph Priestley, who was probably even more important a spiritual influence on the FFs) in a letter to a 3rd party.
http://tinyurl.com/666d9m
Here is a source about John Adams that says:
“In England from 1785-88, the Adamses regularly heard Unitarian Richard Price preach at Gravel Pit Chapel, Hackney. Adams enjoyed the English minister’s friendship. He was also acquainted with Joseph Priestley, Theophilus Lindsey, Thomas Belsham, and many other British Unitarians.”
http://tinyurl.com/6lqj4z
Have I established Price’s influence yet, or do I need to offer more?
Report comment to moderator
HRW, thanks for your rec. I’ve ordered it without any acquaintance with the author, kind of how McCain hired Palin based on the rec of a young right-wing blogger in Colorado Springs — except that you’re sinsible, of course.
I’m a strong believer, that every essay about America must begin with Europeans describing, in their own words, their first encounters with the new world, so “What is America?” sounds right up my alley.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop ay #95: Palin supports the idea of denying benefits to employees in same-sex relationships, and only vetoed a bill that would do this on the legal advice that it was unconstitutional.
But as our rightist friends have shown us in their discussions of Obama’s vote on the BAIP Act, the reasons for an action don’t matter. If Palin vetoed such a bill, she supports giving benefits to employees in same-sex relationships, by conservo-logic anyway.
I’m sure we’ll soon learn why “It’s DIFFERENT!” when Palin’s involved.
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#211),
Your indignation notwithstanding, it is precisely your “scholarship” that is in question in this debate. While I do not doubt the thoroughness of your research, that is only a portion of scholarship. Equally important is the interpretation and presentation of the facts you find—all with the objective of finding and demonstrating the truth. It is in the latter two areas that I find your “scholarship” lacking.
So I will not “bank on it” that you are presenting an accurate interpretation of the facts, nor that all your arguments are professional and scholarly. You have already demonstrated just the opposite, eg., your misrepresentation that Price “was friends with many of the founding fathers.” Many, clearly means more than one (Franklin). You have not supported your assertion of his friendship with three others, based on your claim of “regular and intimate correspondence,” even though I have asked for that proof. I would probably not have asked for that evidence had your previous exaggeration not been uncovered and raised my skepticism. In short, you do not get a pass that anything you write here is completely accurate. I am sorry if that offends you, but that is the lay of the land that you have created for yourself.
You further state that, “They loved his [Price’s] ideas, especially his religious ideas.” I do not find your argument in support of this assertion scholarly or professional. It is extremely dubious and based on a highly questionable assumption.
Your evidence is based on Washington’s approval of the political treatise Price wrote that you claim is an anti-Trinitarian sermon. That is just plain nonsense.
First of all, it is not a religious sermon, it is a political treatise. It begins:
“Observations on the Importance of the American Revolution
“(1785)
“Observations ?on the ?Importance ?of the American Revolution ?and ?The Means of making it a Benefit to the World
“Advertisement
“Having reason to hope I should be attended to in the American States and thinking I saw an opening there favourable to the improvement and best interests of mankind, I have been induced to convey thither the sentiments and advice contained in the following Observations. They were, therefore, originally intended only for America. The danger of a spurious edition has now obliged me to publish them in my own country.”
Pastors do not begin sermons with advertisements voicing concerns about “spurious editions” and alternate publishing plans. The treatise then goes on for 15,000 plus words (far too long for a pulpit sermon) discussing political issues associated with the American Revolution. The Trinitarian issue occupies about 0.05% of the text and then only in the context of a discussion of religious freedom. There is absolutely zero discussion of the doctrinal subject of the Trinity and there are zero specific biblical references in the entire treatise. The circumstances of publication, the title, the content, and the math all, IRREFUTABLY, show this to be a political treatise, NOT an anti-Trinitarian sermon.
For Jon to characterize this political treatise as an anti-Trinitarian sermon stretches his credibility to the next galaxy and back—hardly professional, hardly scholarly.
Jon then conveniently assumes that Washington’s general approval of this treatise was based on its miniscule (and off the subject) religious content rather than its predominant and overriding political content. This assumption is so absurd and illogical that it defies any definition of professional scholarship.
Jon performs all this “scholastic” gymnastics in order to support his claim that Washington was as eccentric in his religious views as was Price. And he does this, in turn, to support his debunking of America’s Christian heritage.
Sorry Jon, but you do misrepresent the facts and your scholarship, in this case, isn’t worth the paper you write on.
I know it offends your pride, but you don’t get a pass today; you get an “F” today.
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#225),
I posted #228 before seeing that you had belatedly posted some letters between Price, Rush, et al. So, for the moment, please disregard my comments in #228 about your failure to do so.
Report comment to moderator
Heh. Glad I got you riled up. Practically nothing offends me. But you are the one who fails by misrepresenting my case here.
First I never said that “Washington’s general approval of this treatise was based on its miniscule (and off the subject) religious content rather than its predominant and overriding political content.”
Rather I cited a fact: Washington approved a sermon that contained anti-Trinitarian sentiments, period. The sermon was many things. One of those was anti-Trinitarian. Price’s words in that sermon speak for itself.
Perhaps nothing more shocking to reason and humanity ever made a part of a religious system than the damning clauses in the Athanasian creed and yet the obligation of the clergy to declare assent to this creed, and to read it as a part of the public devotion, remains.
My other contention is that Price was friends with (mainly through correspondence) Franklin, Rush, J. Adams, Ben Franklin (and others). My post in 225 provides *some* evidence for this. And I noted if not sufficient, I have more. So why don’t YOU address the content of the links to post 225 before you inaptly conclude:
You have not supported your assertion of his friendship with three others, based on your claim of “regular and intimate correspondence,” even though I have asked for that proof.
Report comment to moderator
Okay — I typed 230 before I saw your 229, so please disregard my last two paragraphs in 230.
Report comment to moderator
Also you need to carefully read or reread post 142.
Though I don’t believe Washington was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian, I don’t rest my case on Washington’s connection with Price. Rather as I wrote in 142:
I agree here and note his kind words towards Price’s heterodox sentiments do not constitute a “smoking gun” proving Washington’s religious specifics (with GW, there are no “smoking guns”).
Rather, I did this research because Peter Lillback has dug up many letters of Washington doing the very same thing with orthodox sermons wherein HE draws that inference (that GW was an orthodox Christian) in a way against which you [Joel Mark] caution.
I did this research to show GW had positive things to say about both orthodox AND heterodox sermons; therefore his kind words for orthodox sermons do not prove him to be orthodox either.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop — What is America is currently a best seller in Canada which means its 44% off in Chapters so I’ll will be making a trip to there very shortly.
Ronald Wright is a Brit now living in Canada. He’s initially known for his book Stolen Continents which I didn’t read. I read his “A Short History of Progress” which is a print of the Massey Lecture 2004 a yearly event by CBC Radio and the University of Toronto. http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey/chronology.html
I also have the 1995, 1998, 1999, and 2001 lectures, which are listed in the above link.
Report comment to moderator
Let me also add that though there are no smoking guns with GW, I think, based on an overall gleaning of the evidence that his religious views were more heterodox than Richard Price’s. Indeed most reputable biographers have termed him some kind of “Deist.” (And I in turn argue a case that is more moderate than theirs.)
At least Richard Price appealed to the Bible as authority, and invoked Jesus Christ as the Messiah, “Lord and Savior” which Washington never did. The words “Jesus Christ” exist only in one place in the GW’s official historical record, in an address to Delaware Indians who wanted to convert to Christianity, and GW replied with “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ.” The address wasn’t even written in GW’s own hand but singed by him. In one other place GW refers to Jesus, not by name or example as the “Divine Author of our blessed religion,” again in an address not written in his hand but singed by him. (And in a document whose contents Richard Price endorsed.)
That’s it. Nothing else. And in none of Washington’s private letters does he talk of Jesus or use the words “Jesus Christ.” Washington never explained why he systematically avoided communion or didn’t talk about Christ by name or example. One common sense explanation for the latter is: he had no personal relationship with Jesus Christ. As Dr. Gregg Frazer put it:
“It is almost inconceivable that a sincere believer in the deity of Jesus who accepted him as the Christ would never mention anything about such a belief to friends or family in correspondence.” Ph.D. Dissertation, 165.
Report comment to moderator
Already the MSM has folks digging for dirt on Sarah.
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#225),
A. Two letters from Rush to Price: Spoke of a Pennsylvania law and Price’s welcome contribution to its repeal. Confirms your assertion of friendship, albeit limited, in my opinion. Nothing expressed in the way of religion or of Rush approving of Price’s religious views.
B. Letter to Price from Jefferson: Written from Paris in 1789. Their geographic proximity makes a good case for the possibility that they actually may have met and established a genuine personal friendship.
C. Letter from Jefferson to a Timothy Pickering: Jefferson expresses his rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity. He briefly mentions Price in an aside about Price’s disagreement with another Unitarian, Priestly. There is no “talking up” (ie., commending their views) of Price and Priestly as you allege, although I am sure that is probably the way Jefferson feels.
D. Brief biography of John Adams: Personal friendship with Price mentioned in the context of Adams actually attending his church in England; speaks of Adam’s Unitarian bent and his agreement with the views of Price.
So, you ask, “Have I established Price’s influence yet, or do I need to offer more?
The answer to that question depends on what you mean by Price’s influence. Yes, you have established that he had a very limited influence on the American scene of that era. Apparently, he had a personal friendship with three of the founding fathers: Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. He also had some letters of correspondence with Benjamin Rush. This is a far cry from your original inference in #41 that he “was friends with many of the Founders.”
Why not say from the start that he was friends with only these four, rather than forcing your opposition to drag it out of you with multiple exchanges before we finally get to the actual numbers?
So who were the founding fathers and how much influence did these four have among the total? Let’s do the math. Wikipedia states:
The Founding Fathers of the United States (also known as the Fathers of Our Country, or the Founders) are the political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence or otherwise participated in the American Revolution as leaders of the Patriots, or who participated in drafting the United States Constitution eleven years later.
Then, going through the list of these men and eliminating those who are on more than one list, we arrive at a figure of 121 founding fathers. Four out of 121 yields a percentage of 3% who were the “many friends” of Price, as Jon has finally admitted, and who were somewhat influenced by him. Now the influence of someone like Jefferson was above average, but none of these 121 men were shrinking violets who could be led around by the nose, especially in the area of religion. The majority of these men were strong Protestant Christians and their collective influence is what dominates, by far, the Christian heritage of this nation.
This is the bottom line of America’s Christian heritage, not the exaggerated historical revisionism of Jon Rowe.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote at #195, “You are just nitpicking and firing and missing beyond belief.”
Wrong Jon, I am calling your comments downright dishonorable. You cannot seem to differ with others (including Palin) honorably.
Your alleged “painstakingly in meticulous detail” definitions are not credible, Jon. They are painstaking though, painstakingly revisionist. It’s my opinion and since you are not God (sorry to break it to you, sir), I can have my opinion.
The Founders are not subject to your presumptive divine judgments.
Report comment to moderator
#211, Rowe writes; “When I post something here you can either 1) bank on it, or 2) if a matter of controversial opinion, bank on that fact that I have a professional scholarly argument on its behalf.”
He thinks he speaks ex-cathedra.
I find that you wildly overstate your cases, Jon, and draw irresponsible conclusions about people you never knew based on very contrived interpretations often from private isolated letters, and often in direct contradiction of public statements and writings. IOW, you believe what you want to believe about the Founders and are intolerant of dissent.
Report comment to moderator
The problem with the 121 figure is that most of us — indeed even the most learned scholars — do not know in detail the intimate details of the lives of most of the Founders. And you need those details to accurately assess their religious creed. Rather, it’s about a dozen whose lives we have studied in great detail, because of their disproportionate impact. And that includes the “key” Founders Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Hamilton. That six alone comprise 1) the first 4 Presidents [Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison]; 2) the author of the Declaration [Jefferson]; 3) the majority of the drafting bd. of the Declaration [Jefferson, Franklin and Adams]; 4) the prime architect of the Constitution [Madison]; 5) the author of 80/85 of the Federalist Papers [Madison, & Hamilton], and 6) the prime players at the Constitutional Convention [Washington, Franklin, and Hamilton].
See there is a reason I term them the “key Founders” and though these “key” Founders were “Protestants,” and “Christian” in some broad, liberal sense of the term, it’s not at all clear whether even one was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian during the time in which he was involved doing the work “Founding” the nation. Hamilton probably became one but only after his son died in the early 19th Century. This is important because the definition of “Christianity” is disputed. And a compelling case can be made that if it isn’t orthodox Trinitarian, it isn’t “Christianity” whatever it might call itself (indeed it’s you evangelicals who most often make the case and the theological liberals who argue “Christianity” ought define more broadly). See for instance, Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnessism. Someone like the late Walter Martin was clear, if it wasn’t orthodox Trinitarian, it was a “heretical cult” even if it presented itself under the auspices of “Christianity.”
In any event, it may well be the case that a majority of the 121 were indeed “orthodox Trinitarian”; but it is not at all clear this is the case. And it hasn’t been proven; at least, it hasn’t been proven on these threads.
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#239),
Step back from the trees and see the forest. In the academic world you often get so immersed in the minutia that you become blind to the larger picture. It is not so difficult to see the Christian heritage of this country if you look at what its people have produced—the evidence of their passing. The details of each individual life may be lost to us, but not what they have done.
The Pilgrims landed in 1620 and they gave us the Mayflower Compact wherein they dedicated themselves to God and the establishment of a civil government honoring to Him. In 1648, the Synod of New England Churches met in Cambridge, MA to further define their government and its mission to honor God on this continent. It was to be government on “the basis of the Bible and the free principles of a pure Christianity.”
In 1639, at Quinipiak (New Haven), the Connecticut Colony was established and its government defined, “so as their good life and orderly conversation may win and invite the natives of the country to the knowledge and obedience of the only true God and Saviour of mankind, and the Christian faith; which in our royal intention and the adventurer’s free possession, is the only and principal end of this plantation.
In 1662, Rhode Island became a colony with a charter from Charles II. The Baptist minister Roger Williams was its founder. His Christian faith brought forth new and greater principles of intellectual and religious liberty that eventually found their way into our Constitution.
The list goes on and on as almost every American colony was established by Christians with similar goals and forms of government. These colonies then brought forth Christian schools from the lowest grades all the way up to the likes of Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc.—all of them dedicated to God and the inculcation of Christianity into the lives of their students. John Witherspoon, a Presbyterian minister and a signer of our Declaration of Independence, was the sixth president of Princeton and this quote about him bears repeating:
”From Witherspoon’s legacy at Princeton—out of his students came: thirty-seven judges, three of whom made it to the Supreme Court, ten of his former students became Cabinet officers, twelve were members of the Continental Congress, twenty-eight sat in the Senate, and forty-nine were United States congressmen. One, Aaron Burr, became Vice President, and another, James Madison, became President. These men and many others had a tremendous influence on the young republic. When the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America met in 1789, 52 of the 188 delegates had studied under Witherspoon. The limited-government philosophy of most of these men was due in large measure to Witherspoon’s influence.”
The constitutions of every state of that period incorporated the principles of Christianity into their text. These include MA, SC, VA, PA, NC, DE, MD, NJ, NH, GA, VT, CT, RI, and NY. For example, New Hampshire, the first state to establish its own constitution in Jan of 1776, included these words in its constitution:
”That morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, would give the best and greatest security to government, and would lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligation to due subjection; and that the knowledge of these was most likely to be propagated by the institution of the public worship of the Deity and instruction in morality and religion.”
Vermont’s constitution declared that:
”Every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the Sabbath or Lord’s Day, and to keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem agreeable to the revealed will of God.”
And so on it goes, ad infinitum. Every aspect of our culture is, or was, steeped in Christianity from the beginning. We see it everywhere: in our forms of government, our laws, our music, our holidays, our monuments, our historical documents, tens of thousands of churches, our schools, our hospitals, our museums, our libraries, our armed forces, our courts, our art, our literature, literally everywhere you look. Every aspect of our success as a nation has been stamped with the seal of Christianity.
While it is fascinating and helpful to look at the minutia of the lives of our founders, the results of their work are clearly evident to any who are willing to look.
That is, until recently. Now, forces hostile to Christianity are seeking to gradually expunge from our culture every reminder of our Christian heritage and every working aspect of Christian influence in our society and government. Prayer in school is now outlawed; the Bible is no longer used in our public school classrooms or even tolerated there; our Christian history is ignored in the classroom in favor of more current and “enlightened” subjects; students are rebuked for even mentioning Christ or God. Instead they are taught to scorn traditional Christian values and then encouraged to engage in the most gross forms of immorality.
In this atmosphere of deliberately promoted ignorance, it is not surprising that our Christian heritage is called into question. For many students, it is rapidly becoming an unknown fact, thanks to our public school “educators,” from kindergarten through the university level.
In your skewed perspective, I don’t know whether you are a victim of this ignorance or a willing participant Jon. In either case, I see you as someone who cannot or will not see and promote objective history. You do thorough research, but I believe that your interpretation and presentation is so twisted by your personal bias that you cannot see the forest for the trees. That is most unfortunate, both for yourself and your students.
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
Believe it or not I actually rarely get into this stuff with my students as it is not part of the course objectives in most of the courses that I teach. I am doing more political science work, but the words “unitarian” “theistic rationalist” and “idea of a Christian Nation” rarely come up. This is mostly part of an armchair historical research project, an “avocation” if you will.
But you’ll be glad (or perhaps not so glad) to know that my understanding of history is to the right of the prevailing view in the historical academy which is even more sympathetic to a “deistic” and a “secular” understanding.
I do not see much of what occured before 1776 as relevant because America was founded to some significant degree in repudiation of the 17th Century colonial charters, which were covenants to the Triune God under the doctrine of Divine Right of Kings. Nothing could be more anathema to the 1776-1800 Founding of America.
Re the states, you do have a point which we can explore in more detail. The “Christian Heritage” comes far more from the state legal level NOT the US Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Federalist Papers and the ideas which animinated them.
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
I would note that your post in 240 is hardly objective and seems so blinded by the Christian Heritage notions that you can’t take an objective look at the evidence and see the forest for the trees. That plus there are numerous mistatements of facts and distortions in 240 which we can, over time, discuss. We should begin with this:
The constitutions of every state of that period incorporated the principles of Christianity into their text. These include MA, SC, VA, PA, NC, DE, MD, NJ, NH, GA, VT, CT, RI, and NY. For example, New Hampshire, the first state to establish its own constitution in Jan of 1776, included these words in its constitution:…
Report comment to moderator
OK, where is the mistake?
Report comment to moderator
Some of those states’ laws profoundly differed on religion, and you presented all together as supporting your “Christian Heritage” position. RI and VA certainly weren’t “Christian” by the time the Constitution was ratified. The states were a mixed bag. RI was one of the first quasi secular states. Jefferson’s VA Statute on religious liberty in 1786 secularized that state. Note: It wasn’t pure ACLU style secularism. But both of those states repudiated the notion of a Christian Commonwealth. Jefferson’s VA Statute on religious liberty does, like the Declaration, appeal to God, but specifically rejects appealing to “Jesus Christ” in order to send the message home that equal religious rights apply to all not just Christians.
Likewise Roger Williams of RI was indeed an orthodox Christian. However, what he argued for re religion & govt. was 180 degrees from John Winthrop’s MA. Indeed both made a “Christian” case for their respective positions. However, grouping them together on religion & govt issues under the rubric of “Christian Heritage” is like noting one figure who used Christianity to make pro-slavery arguments, and then another who used Christianity to make anti-slavery arguments and saying “look our wonderful Christian heritage.”
Williams it should be noted made a Christian case for religious liberty AND separation of Church & State and rejected John Winthrop’s idea of a “Christian Commonwealth” (or “Shining City on a Hill”) as blasphemous.
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#’s 241, 242, 244),
Jon (#241): ” I do not see much of what occured before 1776 as relevant…”
Mike: I disagree because when I speak of America’s Christian heritage I am referring to the totality of America’s Christian experience that was first brought to this continent by its principal founders. The fact that the war for independence repudiated the idea of the Divine Right of Kings does not mean that the Christianity of America’s principal settlers before 1776 can be disregarded. On the contrary, it is very important. They were the foundation from which that war eventually erupted. Even though the earliest settlers supported their English king and his supposed divine right, their departure from England was the later war in nascent form. They found the religious climate of England under its kings repressive. So they left without actually being pushed to the extent that they were then willing to break the political bonds. That would come later. When repression followed them, their descendents of the war period brought to fruition the seeds that their parents had planted in the 1600’s. Then the total repudiation of the Divine Right of Kings became a full-blown and Biblically correct fact.
Their understanding of Christianity had matured beyond that of their parents in the 1600’s. I doubt that there is a Christian today who would support the Divine Right of Kings as practiced by the English of those periods. The European concept of the Divine Right of Kings was a convenient, aristocratic, human corruption of earlier Biblical practices that were applicable to Old Testament patriarchal days only. But having grown up under that yoke, it was not easy for the American settlers of the 1600’s to see that (although they certainly felt it). However, their children of 1776 had grown into a better Biblical understanding than their parents.
So, contrary to your view, the period before 1776 cannot be brushed aside as unimportant to America’s Christian heritage. It was very much a part of that developing heritage.
Jon (#242):”…there are numerous mistatements of facts and distortions in 240…”
Mike: I disagree. In your next post (#244) you have shown no misstatement of fact—no misquotes, no wrong dates, etc. What you do show in #244 is your personal point of view that you try to present as the truth in order to label mine as a distortion.
Jon (#244): ”Some of those states’ laws profoundly differed on religion, and you presented all together as supporting your “Christian Heritage” position.”
Mike: You persist in your misunderstanding and misstatement of my definition of Christian heritage as if it is the same as yours. In the first paragraph of #240 I said this:
”Step back from the trees and see the forest. In the academic world you often get so immersed in the minutia that you become blind to the larger picture. It is not so difficult to see the Christian heritage of this country if you look at what its people have produced—the evidence of their passing. The details of each individual life may be lost to us, but not what they have done.”
I speak of a much larger picture than you and the evidence of what all the Christians of this country have left as our heritage. In contrast, you seem to be speaking of Christian heritage as if it were some kind of formal, monolithic, theistic state, run exclusively by a narrow band of Christian autocrats. See my discussion of the Divine Right of Kings (above) and the development of Christian thought on that subject. When you concentrate on the minutia of the lives of a few specially selected founders and ignore all the rest, you are the one who presents the distorted picture, not me.
Jon (#244): ”The states were a mixed bag.” I agree, but the mixture was Christian at its base. Their differences were a mixture akin to denominational differences today, plus a different mixture of how their Christianity was to be expressed in political terms. Such differences reached their extreme in our Civil War, as you have noted. None would doubt the Christianity of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Joshua Chamberlain, or Harriet Beecher Stowe. Yet these four, and many other Christians of equally sincere faith, fought or supported differing sides in that war. Thankfully, the correct understanding of Christianity (on the subject of slavery) eventually prevailed politically, just as it did before with the Divine Right of Kings. However, there are still differences on the subject of “States Rights” that remain to this day.
But despite these temporary differences, the fact remains that basic Christianity was the major influence that gave us our independence from England, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, the abolition of slavery, our economic freedom and its attendant physical prosperity. That is not to say that non-Christians haven’t made significant contributions in each of these areas. They most certainly have, but the single most identifiable and significant force, by far, has been Christianity. So, we Christians have differences, but we adhere to a basic faith that has transformed the entire world and through which the sovereign God has brought us the gift of America.
We must not forget our Christian heritage because it correctly identifies the source of our success as a nation. The road to where we are today has had its bumps along the way, but we must not veer off course. Remembering the correct history of our heritage will help keep us on track and correct us when we err.
”Those who honor Me I will honor, but those who despise Me will be disdained.” (2 Sam 2:30)
Report comment to moderator
1) Well it remains utterly debatable whether its fair describe this land before 1776 as “USA” as opposed to a bunch of British Colonies. I think of David Horowitz — not one of my favorite guys, but I like him sometimes — and his retort to the notion that the US practiced slavery for two hundred and some odd years: He takes 1776 or 1787 and subtracts from 1865 and notes with the other years, your beef is with Great Britain.
2) Re your “basic Christianity” or “broad Christianity” — “Protestantism” in some broad or formal sense — I’ll grant you thank. However, ON THESE THREADS especially (one reason why I come to these threads) that does not a “real Christian” make. The Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Barack Obama (who denies that there is just one way to God) are all “Christians” in this broad sense. One problem I’ve found with this notion of “Christianity generally” is we can’t agree on how to define it. But evangelicals tend to be especially insistent that it defines as “orthodox Trinitarian,” hence the Mormons aren’t Christians, the JW’s aren’t Christians, even if they call themselves such. And btw, I’m not an expert on the Civil War but I know Unitarians played a tremendous role in the heritage of abolition.
And if it does indeed define as “orthodox Trinitarian” and purely “biblical” then indeed, America was not Founded as a Christian Nation and the key Founders were not “Christians.”
So ultimately what we are left with is a public heritage of formal, nominal “broad way” Christianity that includes you evangelicals, along with Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other deniers of the Trinity and “Christians” in name only like the kind who think it would be just fine to perform a same sex wedding in their Churches. If that’s “Christianity” I don’t think we disagree over its public heritage in America.
Report comment to moderator
And again I’ll reiterate, there is nothing distinctively Christian about Rhode Island from the very beginning or Virginia after 1786, unless you define “Christian” as establishing a secular state that grants liberty and equality rights to all regardless of religion. Now, the Baptists in VA did indeed support such a position (after Roger Williams in RI). So it’s the “Christian” idea of rejecting the concept of a “Christian Nation” or a “Christian States.” That’s something in our Christian Heritage that I can appreciate.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a quote from HBS to keep in mind:
“All the literary men of Massachusetts were Unitarian,” the daughter of Lyman wrote in retrospect; “all the trustees and professors of Harvard College were Unitarian; all the elite of wealth and fashion crowded Unitarian churches; the judges on the bench were Unitarian.” (The Autobiography of Lyman Beecher, II, 82; rpt. in Ahlstrom and Carey, 19.)
In the 18th Century Harvard, like Yale, William & Mary and other places, was a hotbed of “infidelity.” Harvard officially became unitarian in 1805-06.
It relates to the notion that America can’t be a “Christian Nation” because you have to first define it and that’s something about which we disagree. The Unitarians insisted they were “real Christians,” but the orthodox tended to say, (as they oft-do with Mormons today) you aren’t Christians, you are “Unitarians.”
Unitarians were part of the Standing Order of Established Congregational Churches in Mass. — the last state to disestablish in 1833. And this occurred because the orthodox thought that infidel Unitarians were getting state establishment aid under the auspices of being a “Christian” Church unacceptable; it was a poison pill.
I’ve found an astonishing # of key Founders to be either unitarian or likely unitarian and their unitarian faith inspired their Founding actions and policies [Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris, Marshall, Story and others]. If this — the unitarian heresies — notions that reject original sin, the trinity, the incarnation, the atonement, eternal damnation, the infallibility of the Bible, and Jesus as the only way to God — have a proper place in America’s “Christian Heritage,” then I don’t think we have anything over which to argue.
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#246),
The labels USA (which I did not use) or British colonies are not pertinent to my point. Those are political distinctions that can change in a single day while the people remain the same. I am talking about the people and their religious beliefs which were distinctly Christian both before and after the war for independence. A Christian patriot in the colonies of 1770 did not become important to our history only on July 4th, 1776, when the independence he worked for and finally brought about became something officially recognized. For all your supposed academic sophistication, I am surprised you would advance the notion that the period before 1776 was “irrelevant” or even debatable.
It was the Christian beliefs of these patriots that brought the political change and the blessings that followed. You are wrong to ignore the Christian faith of those people who gave us the Mayflower Compact, the Christian character of MA, CT, RI, et al, the Christian character of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.
By the way, Harvard began in 1630 as a distinctly Christian school, long before the Unitarian takeover (170 years later) that you mentioned. From a Christian perspective, Harvard has been going downhill ever since. Unfortunately, they have been an increasingly anti-Christian influence throughout this last century.
Although your points about the Unitarians are relevant, your introduction of Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses into this debate is out of touch with reality, which you should know. They had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of our country. The Mormons did not come on the scene until the 1830’s and the JW’s in the 1870’s.
You seek to detract from our Christian heritage by the point that some (probably less than 10%) of our founders were Unitarians and hence not orthodox Christians. I’ll grant you that, but that in no way reduces the importance of the much higher percentage of orthodox Christians. Nor does it reduce the impact on our heritage of the correct Biblical beliefs of those who were Unitarians. For example, much of Jefferson’s important influence came straight out of the Bible. Both John Adams and J.Q. Adams were devout men of the Bible and incorporated that into their politics. They got it right on many, many things. I, as an orthodox Christian, applaud them and stand with them on that—and I consider that part of our Christian heritage. I would have voted for them, just as I would today vote for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#247),
You are wrong when you say that, “…there is nothing distinctively Christian about RI from the beginning.”
Their original charter of 1683, continued to be their Constitution until 1843. It said, in part:
”The object of the colonists is to pursue, with peace and loyal minds, their sober, serious, and religious intentions of godly edifying themselves and one another in the holy Christian faith and worship, together with the gaining over and conversion of the poor ignorant Indian natives to the to the sincere profession and obedience of the same faith and worship.”
There is just no way that you can get around the predominant role that Christianity has played in the foundation of this nation. It is so strong that referring to America as a “Christian nation” in our early years is absolutely correct. Unfortunately, this is part of our heritage that we have lost over the years. We can no longer call ourselves a Christian nation. Undoubtedly, this makes many people happy as they seek to distance us even further from that heritage. I see you as part of that group.
One of the valid concerns of today’s Christian community is the example of Old Testament Israel. They started with a wonderful heritage and a wonderful God, which they also abandoned. The results were disastrous for them. We see many parallels in America today, accompanied by similar and growing elements of social and cultural disintegration. The warnings are everywhere around us. If these trends are not reversed, we will suffer a similar fate geared to the horrible realities of our age.
Report comment to moderator
Dear Michael (#250): First, we did not abandon our God. We are continually chastised by Him, but that is because we are His eternal people, bound to Him by a covenant, and at times we violate that covenant or disregard its spirit. God, for His part, does not break or walk away from his covenants. Ever. I can quote you 10,000 proof texts on that point.
Second, while we have suffered disastrous treatment from the gentiles in EVERY Christian country in which we have ever lived, at one time or another, look at our resurgence. Look at the millions of Jews who today are keeping the commandments, who have dedicated their lives to learning Torah, living Torah, and raising large, Torah observant families.
Not bad for a people that God has “abandoned!”
Report comment to moderator
Hareidi,
Thanks for your post. You offer a different and valuable perspective on this debate about America’s Christian heritage. Jon and I differ on that of course. Foundational to my concern is the overall direction in which our nation seems to be heading. The current candidates for President signify two different directions. McCain, in many ways, would confirm our heritage. Obama, though claiming to be Christian, would lead us further down the road to abandonment. Choices have consequences.
I used Old Testament Israel as an example of bad choices and bad consequences related to the same choices that confront America today. Will we keep faith with the God of our heritage or will we continue down the road the road of abandonment? Old Testament Israel is a valid example of God’s chastisement of His people when they abandon Him. The prophets speak constantly of that abandonment, even likening Old Testament Israel’s behavior to that of an adulterous wife.
When you speak of covenants, you must keep in mind the difference between conditional and unconditional covenants. God’s covenant with Abraham was unconditional. Therefore, I agree with you. He has not abandoned His covenantal promises to Abraham, even though Israel has an opposite, roller coaster history of spiritual adultery.
The Diaspora and thousands of years of Jewish persecution that you mention are seen by most Christians as evidence of the God’s chastisement upon an unfaithful Israel. The fact that some Christians have been among the gentile persecutors is deplorable and indefensible. It is a wretched stain upon the history of Christianity. However, I would argue with you as to the degree of guilt shared by the American nation in that regard. American Jews have found more freedom, prosperity, and acceptance here than in any other nation on earth, save modern Israel itself. And that freedom has been based on the Judeo Christian principles embodied in our Constitution. America was also a vital factor in ending Israel’s Holocaust persecution, her rebirth as a nation state in 1948, and her subsequent survival. Do not be so quick to include us in your “EVERY” list of persecutors.
As to Israel’s current prosperity, it is undeniable in many respects. Israel has blossomed like a rose, yet a fragile one in a sea of predators. Is this due to Israel’s faithfulness to God or to His faithfulness to the unconditional promises He made to Abraham? How will this turn out? Things are often hanging on a thread over there and that question cannot be answered with much specificity at this point. Paul gives an answer in Romans 11 and I’m sure you will find that debatable, but I think that is off the subject of this thread.
In the meantime, we can all be thankful for the blessings God has showered upon this country. We must not throw it all away!
Report comment to moderator
Fact is, I would put up the record of service to God and man of the “unfaithful, adulterous” children of Abraham, against the record of marauding and murderous Christian Europe, any day.
Report comment to moderator
Hareidi (#253),
Are you going to address my points, or ignore them and attempt to change the subject?
Ezekiel 6:8-11: “But I will spare some, for some of you will escape the sword when you are scattered among the lands and nations. 9Then in the nations where they have been carried captive, those who escape will remember me—how I have been grieved by their adulterous hearts, which have turned away from me, and by their eyes, which have lusted after their idols. They will loathe themselves for the evil they have done and for all their detestable practices. 10And they will know that I am the LORD; I did not threaten in vain to bring this calamity on them.
11“‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Strike your hands together and stamp your feet and cry out “Alas!” because of all the wicked and detestable practices of the house of Israel, for they will fall by the sword, famine and plague.”
As for the poor and service to mankind:
Is 3:14,15: “The LORD enters into judgment
against the elders and leaders of his people:
“It is you who have ruined my vineyard;
the plunder from the poor is in your houses.
15 What do you mean by crushing my people
and grinding the faces of the poor?”
declares the Lord, the LORD Almighty.”
I bring these things to your attention Hareidi, not to condemn the Jewish people across the board as you do Christians, but to point out the fact that ANY people who ignore God, as the Jews have done in the past, will suffer serious consequences.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!