No God, No Rights? You betcha.

Status
Not open for further replies.

HGM

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2003
Messages
19
In reviewing the referenced thread entitled, "No God, No Rights"... I thought it important to post this information.

One of the most successfull propoganda themes in American history is one that started in the mid 1940s, which claims that our founding fathers were "non-believers" and that reiligion, and more specifically, Christianity, was to be kept seperate from our secular government institutions, including education. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it just so happens that the founders who are the most frequently quoted and mentioned while making said argument just so happen to be the ones who were the least Christian, of their time, that is.

How many of you are aware of these simple facts:

1) The 10 Commandments are chisled into the walls of the Supreme Court building in Washington D.C.?

2) The Capitol Building was once used by Congressman for Church services.

3) The House Chamber, at the Capitol Building, is adorned along the top of the walls with the side-view profile reliefs of 23 great lawgivers, including Hammurabi, Justinian, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, William Blackstone, Hugo Grotius, George Mason, and 16 others. Significantly, there is only one relief of the 23 that is full faced rather than in profile, and that one relief is placed where it looks directly down onto the House Speaker’s rostrum, symbolically overseeing the proceedings of the lawmakers. That relief is of Moses.

There are many, many other simple facts that exist, physically, of our heritage as a nation founded upon Christian principles. But for now, please read the following article as a primer. For those who are truly interested in the REAL history of our founding, visit the source link at the bottom of this page.

____________________________

The Importance of Morality and Religion in Government



John Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

t 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.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)

John Quincy Adams

Sixth President of the United States

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.

(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams, to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), p. 61.)

There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.

(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), pp. 22-23.)

Samuel Adams

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.

(Source: William V. Wells, The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1865), Vol. I, p. 22, quoting from a political essay by Samuel Adams published in The Public Advertiser, 1749.)

Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.

(Source: Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)

Benjamin Franklin

Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence

[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

Source: Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, April 17, 1787.

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a 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 labor 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: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from tis unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one of more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

(Source: James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, pp. 450-452, June 28, 1787.)

* For more details on this quote, click here.

Thomas Jefferson

Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States

Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for your to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all you virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. 5, pp. 82-83, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr on August 19, 1785.)

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383.)

I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)

Richard Henry Lee

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

It is certainly true that a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people.

(Source: Richard Henry Lee, The Letters of Richard Henry Lee, James Curtis Ballagh, editor (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1914), Vol. II, p. 411. In a letter to Colonel Mortin Pickett on March 5, 1786.)

James McHenry

Signer of the Constitution

[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.

Source: Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.

Jedediah Morse

Patriot and "Father of American Geography"

To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.

(Source: Jedediah Morse, Election Sermon given at Charleston, MA, on April 25, 1799.)

William Penn

Founder of Pennsylvania

t is impossible that any people of government should ever prosper, where men render not unto God, that which is God's, as well as to Caesar, that which is Caesar's.

(Source: Fundamental Constitutions of Pennsylvania, 1682. Written by William Penn, founder of the colony of Pennsylvania.)

Pennsylvania Supreme Court

No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.

(Source: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1824. Updegraph v. Cmmonwealth; 11 Serg. & R. 393, 406 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1824).)

Benjamin Rush

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)

We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), pp. 93-94.)

By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18]

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.)

Remember that national crimes require national punishments, and without declaring what punishment awaits this evil, you may venture to assure them that it cannot pass with impunity, unless God shall cease to be just or merciful.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America Upon Slave-Keeping (Boston: John Boyles, 1773), p. 30.)

George Washington

"Father of Our Country"

While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.

(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)

[T]he [federal] government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, and oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people.

(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1939), Vol. XXIX, p. 410. In a letter to Marquis De Lafayette, February 7, 1788.)

* For the full text of Geo. Washington's Farewell Address, click here.

Daniel Webster

Early American Jurist and Senator

f we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity.

(Source: Daniel Webster, The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1903), Vol. XIII, p. 492. From "The Dignity and Importance of History," February 23, 1852.)

Noah Webster

Founding Educator

The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality and religion, are to be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have truth, immutable truth, for their foundation. . . . All the evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible. . . . For instruction then in social, religious and civil duties resort to the scriptures for the best precepts.

(Source: Noah Webster, History of the United States, "Advice to the Young" (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 338-340, par. 51, 53, 56.)

James Wilson

Signer of the Constitution

Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.

(Source: James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), Vol. I, p. 106.)

Robert Winthrop

Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives

Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.

(Source: Robert Winthrop, Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1852), p. 172 from his "Either by the Bible or the Bayonet.")


source:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=21


--------------------------------------------------------------------



Hopefully, the TRUTH of our history will once again be taught to our children.

HGM



"[T]o promote true religion is the best and most effectual way of making a virtuous and regular people. Love to God and love to man is the substance of religion; when these prevail, civil laws will have little to do."

--signer of the Declaration, John Witherspoon, who served on over 100 committees while in Congress
 
Graystar,

But seriously, in reviewing the title of my thread, I realized that it wasn't worded very wisely to say the least.

I simply picked up on the "Founders were all non- believers" theme in the referenced thread and figured it might be a good time to inject a bit of little know history into the argument.

I didn't intend to put forth the notion that those who choose NOT to believe should have no rights.

I do apologize for the misconception. As I stated, my choice of words for this thread title weren't very well thought out.

But, at least the history is interesting.

Regards,

HGM
 
Graystar,

Yep, you got me on the thread title. But you are deadly silent on the subject matter at hand.



HGM
 
The founding fathers were believers. What they had in mind is that there should be no state sponsored religion. They remember all too well the French-Indian War (1755-1760) and the French colonist, being largely Catholic, had to be persuaded to be neutral during our Revolution. The fathers didn't want to favor one religion over another for fear of tearing the young republic apart. They knew history, knew of the purge of the Hugenots in France, of the Thirty-Years War and wanted to avoid it.
 
I don't think anyone was asserting that the FFs were non-believers. It is inescapable that many colonists originally made for these shores for religious freedom, to be free from a synergistic alliance between the state and the preferred sect of the moment. Puritans, Quakers, Shakers, Catholics and some Jews all came here early to get away from perceived religious oppression and suffering the forebearance of a different sort of tyranny to leave them alone.

The bar against "establishment" is the distillation of that principle. Yes, the "wall" metaphor has been taken too literally in many cases, in the sense that Congrees could make laws that finance all sects and beliefs equally and not suffer a fatal inconsistency with a literal reading of the First Amendment. However that type of scheme would be fraught with its own perils that many in this country simply do not recognize by their absence.

Where that sort of system would break down would come in two areas. First, larger and more ideological faiths, for lack of a better term, would inevitably demand the defunding of "anti-American" beliefs such as Buddism or Islam. Two, and by far the more underapppreciated danger, is that as in Europe, where establishment has survived in various forms, dependence on the state for support saps the vitality of religious sects, leading to stagnation and irrelevancy, just like any other socialistic enterprise does to initiative. It could be argued that disestablishment is what makes religious life much more vibrant here than in other Western style democracies.

Besides, why endorse the public expressions of faith at secular functions that require no invocation, such as high school commencement ceremonies, especially in religiously diverse communities? What is gained by being in the face of people who believe differently or not at all? At least the reliquary on public buildings and whatnot can be viewed as inconsequential anachronisms by those who might find a more pervasive governmental endorsement highly offensive. Bas reliefs on buildings stand as mute testimonials to faith. Witnessing is important to many Christians, but should not at the expense of community sectarian peace. That is the genius of the disestablishment idea incontrovertably present in the First Amendment. Like all expressions of policy, it does have its overbearing moments that clash with common sense, but on the whole it turned out to be a pretty good idea. We have nothing approaching the religious indifference of most of Europe and none of the sporadic sectarian violence of the Third World where many political parties are nakedly faith based and on some level incapable of treating other sects fairly.
 
Graystar,

And does what you think correspond with what the Founders thought, or with what you've been taught in today's enlightened and "sophisticated" America?

You see, as the French learned and are still learning, freedom doesn't work without God. It's that simple. The French basically attempted to replicate what America had done. The one primary, and obvious difference is that they intentionally, from the beginning, did it without God and without so much as a reference to God. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in great detail on the subject.

Without instilling virtue into our people and without embracing the true source of virtue, a Replublican form a government cannot and will not last very long. Our Founders knew this over 200 years ago.

As proof, I give you modern day America. Simple truths never change, no matter which Harvard professor says so.


HGM
 
Without instilling virtue into our people and without embracing the true source of virtue, a Replublican form a government cannot and will not last very long. Our Founders knew this over 200 years ago.

As proof, I give you modern day America. Simple truths never change, no matter which Harvard professor says so.

But for the fact that civilization "as we know it" has been in degeneracy since it was first established anywhere, you might have a point. Ancient Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Chinese, while not always or ever "Republicans" in their forms of government, all had leading thinkers and common folk who left writings lamenting the decay of society or reacting to the charge that the decay was so. Just read the Apologia by Plato where the Athenian leaders all accuse Socrates of being a corrupting influence on the youth of the city-state. The parallels to latter day complaints in the same vein made by Plato in his later works via his description of the ideal society are hilarious if you are into seeking that kind of irony out. What is even more amusing is St. Augustine making many of the same compliants about the state of man as the Athenian leadership was against Socrates many centuries later in a different context.

Hadn't Socrates already destroyed the "civilization" Augustine was living in through being a radically free-thinking libertine?

We'll all muddle through I suspect. After all, Greece and Italy are still there.

BTW I am feeling really overeducated today.:uhoh:
 
Graystar,

The purpose of this information isn't to debate with you the source of true virtue. You'll have to figure that out for yourself, and you will, someday. My intention here is to expose the myth that our Founders were deiests for what it is, a myth. This myth is so common know that it has become true even amongst those of our society who should know better... like "expert historians", professors, and such.

A classic example of the adage, ' a lie told often enough becomes the truth...." I forget the rest.


HGM
 
Boats,

Should we compare the democracy of Ancient Greece with the Constitutional Republic of the US?


Regards,

HGM
 
The purpose of this information isn't to debate with you the source of true virtue.
But you are the one that raised such a debate with your statement:
Without instilling virtue into our people and without embracing the true source of virtue, a Replublican form a government cannot and will not last very long.
That's a very definitive statement that just begs to be debated. I can't just sit here and accept it as "truth" because I don't believe it.
 
Graystar,

How can there exist a respect for the law if the population has no virtue?
If the law is simply something created by other men and women to keep us all in line, then what motivation is there for us to obey the law when nobody's watching?

Here's another thing to ponder. If there exists no higher power, then what is the purpose of an Oath? Do you see why this is very important for the survival of our nation?

HGM
 
Should we compare the democracy of Ancient Greece with the Constitutional Republic of the US?

No. I was only illustrating that the "war" between new ideas, or reinterpretations of old ones, and traditionalists, is an eternal one that nobody will win. It is a pendulum and we are definitely on a rather societally liberal swing here. Nothing suggests that the interplay of forces is static however.

Traditionalism will become vogue again, just wait. It will swing back when the point of excess is reached. We are feeling "degenerate" to many observers at the moment. The exact opposite problem is taking place in Iran at this instant, where the populace has gorged itself on being retrograde and is about to overthrow the traditional order of the last quarter century.

Society always seeks balance as it needs order and defined rules to exist, combined with enough freedom to not strangle itself through despair. If it has to exist in a different form, that was not something most of the Founders feared. They weren't handing down tablets from the mount. If this system fails to work, it will fail. Rest assured that something else will take its place, influenced by getting "back to basics" if it has to reconstitute itself.

I am just not worried about the impending "collapse of America." The world has been ending since it was formed and its institutions created by man will thrive or die irrepsective of my wishes.
 
How can there exist a respect for the law if the population has no virtue?
I don't argue the need for virtue, only the idea that the true source of virtue is god.
If the law is simply something created by other men and women to keep us all in line, then what motivation is there for us to obey the law when nobody's watching?
Virtue.
Here's another thing to ponder. If there exists no higher power, then what is the purpose of an Oath?
An oath is a personal commitment. An oath may call upon god as a witness, but that is not a requirement of taking (and keeping) an oath.
Do you see why this is very important for the survival of our nation?
Nope.
 
Boats,

I appreciate your taking the time to debate this issue. I can tell that you truly do care about the future of America, as I do.

Everything you said above is true. The cycle of traditionalism and liberalism will always exist. The pendulum (sp?) will forever swing in one direction or the other. I'm not particularly worried about it though, as you imply. I do, however, think it is extremely important for us, as Americans, to understand tha basics of how and why our system works.

My point is this. Without a true understanding of the importance of virtue in the hearts of our people as a whole, our form of government simply cannot survive. The best, and most proven source of true virtue is documented at the beginning of this thread.

Please consider these questions, as posed to Graystar above.

1) If the law is simply something created by other men and women to keep us all in line, then what motivation is there for us to obey the law when nobody's watching?

2) If there exists no higher power, then what is the purpose of an Oath? Do you see why this is very important for the survival of our nation?


Regards,

HGM
 
1) If the law is simply something created by other men and women to keep us all in line, then what motivation is there for us to obey the law when nobody's watching?

2) If there exists no higher power, then what is the purpose of an Oath? Do you see why this is very important for the survival of our nation?

A British professor once asked a sage in India, "How is it that the world is here?"

He replied, "The world rests on the back of a gigantic turtle we can only guess at."

"What holds up the turtle?" asked the professor.

"An ocean."

"What holds up the ocean?"

The sage just stared at him.

I am not an atheist, but I do not necessarily subscribe to the notion that the fear of extraworldly punishment or a belief in earning "merit points" towards an eternal reward are necessary preconditions to being good. I have known many good people and some of them were atheists. Some of the biggest liars and hypocrites I have ever known were devout.

God makes the man, the man makes the human being what he is. Notions of honor, duty, devotion to an ideal or principle can and have existed in atheistic, polytheistic, monotheistic, and spirit worship societies. From literature, Gilgamesh was a stand-up guy. So was Beowulf, many of the Greek heroes were paragons of virtue like Prometheus, others were not.

A list of real people who didn't necessarily believe in God in the way most do, if at all? Confucius, Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, Chuang Chou, Epicurus, Lucretius, Epictetus, Sextus Empiricus, S'ankara, Benedictus de Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Rosseau, Schopenauer, Kierkegaard, Mill, Nietzsche, Santayana, Wittgenstein, Popper, Alfred Jules Ayer, Russell, Sartre, Suzuki, Camus, Tillich, and Rawls. I am certain there were some women along the way, but I haven't had a chance to make their acquaintance as a sailor is wont to do.;)

Not all angels, but none of them devils either.

I once took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It was only "so help me God" at the tag end. God earned an assist if I needed to lean on Him to keep my oath. However, I have proven to my own satisfaction that I can keep my word "merely" on the basis of the desire to be honorable, to avoid self-loathing, and to not disappoint others who are counting on me to perform. In those cases God would only be a crutch for the failure of my own will, not an enforcer of it.

The same goes for laws. I respect them to the point that they deserve it. There are no secular codes I am aware of that we set down in the United States by God. They are a construct of men, and as such, have the capacity to transmit wickedness. I will not let an appeal to God for obedience to tyrannical laws deter me from not honoring them when they do not merit observance.
 
Boats,

You say, "I once took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It was only "so help me God" at the tag end. God earned an assist if I needed to lean on Him to keep my oath. However, I have proven to my own satisfaction that I can keep my word "merely" on the basis of the desire to be honorable, to avoid self-loathing, and to not disappoint others who are counting on me to perform. In those cases God would only be a crutch for the failure of my own will, not an enforcer of it."

-- It's interesting you mention the "so help me God" phrase at the end of the traditional American oath. Here's an interesting tidbit for you on the phrase's origin...

George Washington provides a succinct illustration. During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words “So help me God!†to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible.

Washington Irving, Life of George Washington 475 (New York: G. P. Putnam & Co., 1857); Mrs. C. M Kirkland, Memoirs of Washington 438 (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1870); Charles Carleton Coffin, Building the Nation 26 (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1882); etc.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You then say,

"The same goes for laws. I respect them to the point that they deserve it. There are no secular codes I am aware of that we set down in the United States by God. They are a construct of men, and as such, have the capacity to transmit wickedness. I will not let an appeal to God for obedience to tyrannical laws deter me from not honoring them when they do not merit observance."

----- I totally agree with your first two sentences above. There are thousands upon thousands of stupid laws on the books. However, how many of these laws existed in the original Constitution? Most of our stupid laws have come about since we began to turn our backs on God... around the mid 1940s. Where there is less virtue in the people, more laws seem to become a necessity. Here's an appropriate quote for reference as John Witherspoon explains, "[T]o promote true religion is the best and most effectual way of making a virtuous and regular people. Love to God and love to man is the substance of religion; when these prevail, civil laws will have little to do." --signer of the Declaration, John Witherspoon, who served on over 100 committees while in Congress

However, as I stated earlier, and as the Founders have indicated in so many of their personal and public writings, they themselves felt that the inspiration for the Constitution was Divine in origin. I couldn't agree more, and the laws we've seen passed over the last 60 years or so are, for the most part, devoid of Divine inspiration, as you can tell.

Take care,

HGM
 
"Hopefully, the TRUTH of our history will once again be taught to our children.

The 10 Commandments are chisled into the walls of the Supreme Court building in Washington D.C.?"

A little context is needed to fully flesh this out.

Your message implies that the 10 Commandments are chisled into the walls of the Supreme Court building (which, by the way, wasn't built until the 1930s) out of some sense of Judeo-Christian sense of religion.

That's simply not true, or Moses certainly wouldn't be sharing equal wall time with individuals such as:

Mohammed

Napoleon Bonapart

Menes (first Pharo of Egypt)

Blackstone

Draco

And others.

Moses also is holding only a PARTIAL text of the SOME of the 10 Commandments, not all 10. The text is also in.... Hebrew.

Inside the Court buidling are tableture representations of what we think of when we think of the 10 commandments, but there are only Roman Numberals, no text of the commandments. These representations are also small, and located in rather inconspicuous locations.


"A carving of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, if that is the only adornment on a courtroom wall, conveys an equivocal message, perhaps of respect for Judaism, for religion in general or for law."

"The addition of carvings depicting Confucius and Muhammad may honor religion, or particular religions, to an extent that the First Amendment does not tolerate. Placement of secular figures such as Caesar Augustus, William Blackstone, Napoleon Bonaparte and John Marshall alongside these three religious leaders, however, signals respect not for great proselytizers but for great lawgivers." (Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in a 1989 decision regarding placement of religious figures in public government buildings).


The contextual reference is clear as it relates to the Supreme Court -- Moses is one of many of the world's great lawgivers, and the great lawgivers of history was the message intending to be conveyed, not the Judeo-Christian dogma as a founding principle of the United States.

In the House of Representatives it should also be noted that Moses is shown WITHOUT the 10 Commandments. If his stature as a religious figure, instead of a lawgiver, were to be paramount, it would be more logical for him to be depicted with the full text of the 10 Commandments, not as a simple figural depiction.

Finally, it must also be noted that Moses isn't important only to Christians. His role as an important agent of God is recogized by three of the world's major religions -- Judiasm, Islam, and Christianity.

There's no doubt that many of the Founders and the Framers were religious men. I've been to the Church where George Washington regularly worshiped many times. Kind of odd to actually sit in his pew.

There's also no doubt that the Founders and Framers intentions regarding religion have been perverted by later courts which seek to excise all religion from public life.

But I think it's also safe to say that the Founders did not intent for any single religion, or religious doctrine, to be paramount in the lives of every individual at the expense of other religious doctrines, or the practicants of those religions.

Morality and viture are not, in any way, shape, or form, solely defined by a Christian religion, or necessarily by any religion, for that matter.
 
Mike,

As stated previously, "Significantly, there is only one relief of the 23 that is full faced rather than in profile, and that one relief is placed where it looks directly down onto the House Speaker’s rostrum, symbolically overseeing the proceedings of the lawmakers. That relief is of Moses."

You see, all the others are facing Moses in a half circle. Their faces are profiles, or side shots. Moses' face is the only full frontal and Moses is in the center of the half circle, which is symbolic of the notion that all law originated with Moses.

Do you see the significance? It's hard to picture, unless you've seen it, I suppose.


HGM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top