American Government and Christianity - America's Christian Roots

Your own words prove that you do not believe in the principles this nation was founded upon.

161 posted on 09/01/2004 2:15:10 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe (Mr. Paine has departed altogether from the principles of the Revolution - J.Q.Adams)

To: risk; EdReform

"You can't enforce spirituality with the government."

Certainly not. But basic moral absolutes which are common to all monotheistic religions in the world can be enforced, to the betterment of society as a whole and all individuals within it, except those who want to destroy morals.

Basic moral absolutes are what keep human civilization human. We are witnessing the destruction that ensues what such moral absolutes are jettisoned. Islamic Jihadis are not the only enemy at the gates.

(Thanks, EdR, for pinging me!)

162 posted on 09/01/2004 2:15:56 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Islamo-Jihadis and Homosexual-Jihadis both want to destroy civilization.)

To: Tailgunner Joe

TJ, when you post an article, ping me, ok?

I'm a little late to this party but it's my kind of party.

163 posted on 09/01/2004 2:24:55 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Islamo-Jihadis and Homosexual-Jihadis both want to destroy civilization.)

To: Tailgunner Joe

Tailgunner Joe wrote:

Your own words prove that you do not believe in the principles this nation was founded upon.

BS. -- Post em if you got them.

164 posted on 09/01/2004 2:39:40 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)

To: little jeremiah

risk wrote:
"You can't enforce spirituality with the government."

Certainly not. But basic moral absolutes which are common to all monotheistic religions in the world can be enforced, to the betterment of society as a whole and all individuals within it, except those who want to destroy morals. Basic moral absolutes are what keep human civilization human. We are witnessing the destruction that ensues what such moral absolutes are jettisoned.
162 -jeremiah-

Could you list the "basic moral absolutes" that are not enforced by the current State, local, or federal laws in this country?
Which ones have been "jettisoned"?

165 posted on 09/01/2004 2:53:20 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)

To: little jeremiah

But basic moral absolutes which are common to all monotheistic religions in the world can be enforced, to the betterment of society as a whole and all individuals within it, except those who want to destroy morals.

I suspect that you and I furiously agree on a number of tertiary issues to this comment. But the real question your sweeping declaration raises requires us to think again on what sets the west apart from the eastern monotheists who would destroy our freedoms and our own laws, supplanting them with theirs. What makes our law different from theirs? The answer is right at hand. Freedom of conscience is the key, and the other differences are related. Without this distinction prisons overflow with the dissenters and criminals alike. Without this distinction, men in authority can justify their oppressive actions in terms of values that are beyond debate. To be precise, it is not on what we agree that allows us to be free from oppression in the name of "higher purpose" or "moral clarity," it is how we deal with our disagreements about those matters.

Freedom of conscience is an expensive freedom, isn't it? Aside from the cost in lives it has incurred, it is often excruciating to know what is right and be unable to require that behavior of others. This matter strikes deep into the issue of the rule of law. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, democracy would be the worst form of government, except that everything else fails. I'm sure he was thinking to some extent about the liabilities a society incurs from its commitment to freedom of conscience.

Laws are continually measured against this yardstick in a free society. So why is law a source of strength to democracies, and not a weakness? And why is law something that enables freedom in a democracy, yet puts a sword to the throats of citizens in other kinds of government structures? You know why. The law in democratic systems has three, and only three requirements:

To protect the sacred rights of the people.
To restrain the strong from oppressing the weak.
And finally, to contain government power.

I could argue that the second and third items are specific cases of the first. If law in a democracy does nothing else, it protects you from me.

What of freedom of conscience and the law? How else would we decide to handle situations where our government or our fellow citizens appeared in our own personal estimation to violate one of the three directives? What divides an issue of individual conscience from a matter of legal consequence in a democratic system of government? I refer to the list of requirements above. Given strong moral convictions, we are bound to disagree in our categorization of these matters. Without a strong commitment to that single sense of self-restraint, the whole structure of democratic rule would fall apart. For if I were free to declare that my beliefs were the only acceptable ones, and if I were free to impose my personal convictions on others, at that point, freedom of conscience would cease to exist.

And so we come to the most important requirement of a free people: that it both share enough of a common set of beliefs that they have a basis for widespread agreement on most issues, and that the people respect valid differences of opinion among themselves. This is where the law emerges as a cornerstone of freedom. This is what distinguishes us from other civilizations, including the one to our east, that poses as advanced and sophisticated but is mere camouflage for savagery. With a commitment to legal tenets that set their fellow citizens free, one can rely on the law to guide society from disagreement to disagreement while debate rages, especially when those disagreements form deep faultlines. Given these constraints, a strict limit on the scope and invasiveness of law should guide us in their authorship. A free people would want to minimize the reach and power of their differences in these respects. If one truly believes in freedom of conscience and in any democratic system's basis in the rule of law, it places us in a situation where our own beliefs and convictions must be tempered by our respect for other opinions, even when we ourselves believe we are right.

American government in its founding documents, if not always in its subsequent addendums, embodies a pure dedication to freedom of conscience. Therefore, each Constitutional amendment from the Bill of Rights forward, places a restraint on government in its ability to reach into the lives of individual citizens. None of these laws proscribes anything that would not infringe on another's basic rights.

Laws in the eyes of our Founding Fathers were the superstructure of a protective wall against tyranny, both of the governmental form, and of the rule of the mob. If the bricks in that structure were made of faith in a higher purpose in human existence, the mortar itself is the sense of restraint we all must feel in our judgment of others. It is no accident that our religious texts support these values.

Moral absolutes are critical in the establishment and defense of a democratic form of government because they instill a fierce sense of duty and inspire powerful convictions and faith, all of which is needed to fight through the obstacles that are ever present within and without a national struggle to find and keep freedom. Perhaps as much as we value our individual moral clarity, we must respect and defend another's right to decide for himself what is moral and correct.

We can measure the justice in our judgment in how it propels us to limit our interference in private matters of conscience. To argue otherwise is to argue for Shar'ia. When my personal moral conviction, derived from my own private understanding of the moral law become more important than protecting my fellow citizen's right to his own personal convictions, that is when oppression begins. In the west, we believe that all such convictions, while ultimately governed by universal truth, are still subjective when viewed from our own personal perspective. We know that no matter how deeply held our beliefs are, we may be asked to explain them, and to persuade others to reaffirm their agreement with us. And we know that sometimes we may lose the argument.

As my fellow citizen is protected from my personal convictions by the rule of law, he also may not impose anything of the sort on me. What protects you from me, also protects me from you. And you can bet that the most insidious and oppressive laws ever written had the express intent of protecting groups of people instead of individual conscience. You can bet that some of the most vicious tyranny often lurks under the guise of men's professed attempts to protect freedom and "collective" rights, as opposed to the individual himself.

I think of gun control laws in particular, but efforts to redefine marriage by fiat instead of widespread consensus also come to mind. When the minority attempts to dictate morality to the majority, it can be just as oppressive as mob rule. In the matter of marriage, a couple asks its community for a blessing for its union, and for economic incentives of one sort or another as it joins together. In a democracy, the community freely offers this blessing. Under the guise of "equal rights," activists today are trying to sell the idea that we must impose a new meaning to the ceremony of marriage. But that meaning is most significant not to the couple, to whom these activists ascribe collective rights, but to the community itself that bestows the privilege of marriage on a couple that meets its standards. In other words, activists today are not seeking an individual protection. They seek to impose on everyone in our land an acceptance of these new marital definitions.

Every law, every change to every law, and every exercise in justice must be examined carefully. What is often conducted in the name of freedom or community protection is often done for some other purpose, such as authoritarianism or reforming society by force. This is why governments must above all be restrained from being used as tools against individuals. Some of us would sell the American birthright of freedom for a mere sense of false security, or personal feeling, fleeting as it were, of satisfaction that our own individual values were being served.

The law is not there to be used as a tool for personal satisfaction. Finally, it is there to protect us from government and from each other.

166 posted on 09/01/2004 9:33:03 PM PDT by risk

I couldn't read your comment tonight, too tired. Will tomorrow. But I did start reading it, and until I read the whole thing, let me add:

1. Due to the violent, repressive, fanatical and hateful nature of Islam since its inception, I pretty much leave it out of the equation when referring to moral absolutes of every monotheist religion.

2. Yet, even in Islam, fornication, homosexuality, adultery, murder, neglect and/or abuse of dependents and the helpless, theft, lying and the like are condemned as abhorrent and immoral. How they practice, we're not discussing (see #1).

3. Even non-theistic "religions" such as Buddhism and Taoism have similar moral guidelines. Every religion (including the two just mentioned) has its own version of the Golden Rule. How much more similar can you get?

4. I find that the real argument most people have against moral absolutes are that they like to either practice or promote or leave open the option of illicit sex.

167 posted on 09/01/2004 9:40:34 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Islamo-Jihadis and Homosexual-Jihadis both want to destroy civilization.)

To: little jeremiah

I do not argue against the concept of moral absolutes. What I argue against is the notion that the state may be used as a tool for me to impose my presonal opinions of what a moral absolute is on you. I argue that the same-sex marriage movement is just such an initiative. After all, such activists liken themselves to abolitionists during the civil war. Anyone can claim to have moral superiority. The way to judge laws is how they protect us from mob rule or from the government. This isn't to say that legal contracts aren't binding or anything else like that. Those are related issues. The bottom line is that government isn't my moral tool of righteousness to lord over you. It's there to protect you from me.

168 posted on 09/01/2004 9:47:41 PM PDT by risk

More tomorrow, after I read your comment above. But note your inconsistency; on the one hand you say:

"I do not argue against the concept of moral absolutes."

But then you state:

"What I argue against is the notion that the state may be used as a tool for me to impose my presonal opinions of what a moral absolute is on you."

So on one hand you say you agree that moral absolutes exist (and I assume you consider them valuable or important) but on the other hand you infer that anyone's opinion about their "personal ideas" of moral absolutes are as valid as someone else's idea of moral absolutes.

Which negates the entire meaning of moral absolutes.

Which is why we are being lowered into the cesspool as we speak. Taking the position that moral absolutes exist and are necessary to human civilization is NOT equivalent to claiming moral superiority. There is no relationship between those two things. Like apples and rutabagas, except those are related because they are both round.

Once moral absolutes are rejected as the necessary basis and unchangeable foundation of human civilization, the only thing left is each individual's mental desires. Which can change every moment, and which can (and do, witness the homo-cannibals in Germany, and the push to promote child/adult sex or "inter-generational sex" among psychologists and NAMBLA supporters) lead to the most horrible and destructive acts being normalized by defining deviancy down.

If a tiny group of people says that consensual cannibalism is good, who are we to say it's wrong? There's no such thing as "wrong". But the problem is that moral relativists still have absolutes. They absolutely condemn traditional moral absolutes as being absolutely wrong, so their entire philosophy is built on a lie and an internal inconsistency that can never be overcome.

169 posted on 09/01/2004 11:33:46 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Islamo-Jihadis and Homosexual-Jihadis both want to destroy civilization.)

To: little jeremiah

Which negates the entire meaning of moral absolutes.

Not at all, and I didn't argue that the absolutes don't exist independently of our opinions. Since we are mortals and may make mistakes, it is our opinions which may be wrong.

In a democratic system of government, my job as a moralist is to persuade you to recognize the same moral absolute that I do, one that you appear to have missed. You're free to reject my arguments, however! I should respect your right to differ with me. I may not respect you, and I may even feel that you are making a grave mistake in your lack of concern for my moral position.

I have a way forward. Once I've realized that I cannot change your mind, it is my duty to move on to the next citizen and try to change his mind. I can use the same tactics with him that I used with you. I can quote bible texts. I can paint pictures of the consequences of this immorality. I can make all manner of appeals to his sympathies and his character.

But finally, I have to persuade my countrymen to agree with me instead of you. I can't just quote a single bible text and impose a law on you from that one reading. For one thing, I don't have the authority. This is the difference between Shar'ia and America, between Islam and the west. And ultimately it is what has made our system of government the most effective in the world. No immam can tell us what to believe. No bearded one can step out on a high balcony and wave a symbolic gesture at us and announce our laws without any dissent, or debate, simply on his personal interpretations of a sacred text.

History has proven that people's moral convictions shift with the winds. You are correct to denounce moral relativism. But one thing you haven't taken into consideration is our own human faillibility, even when we think we are right.

The American Constitution protects us against others who declare that their morals are supreme as well as those who have none at all. The latter often leads to abuse of property rights and physical violence independent of the government. The former often try to harness the government to do their dirty work. Sometimes their roles reverse. In any case, our legal system is a bulwark against both. It's not perfect, but then again, nothing on earth ever is.

170 posted on 09/02/2004 12:38:46 AM PDT by risk

171 posted on 09/02/2004 12:52:48 AM PDT by lockeliberty ("Oh, golly, if that doesn't put the shaz in shazam. "-Flanders)

To: risk; little jeremiah

Litte jeremiah claims that:

"---- basic moral absolutes which are common to all monotheistic religions in the world can be enforced, to the betterment of society as a whole and all individuals within it, except those who want to destroy morals. Basic moral absolutes are what keep human civilization human. We are witnessing the destruction that ensues what such moral absolutes are jettisoned.
162 -jeremiah-

Yet he cannot list the "basic moral absolutes" that are not enforced by the current State, local, or federal laws in this country.

-- Still, - he insists that we obey his vision of them, as - "We are witnessing the destruction that ensues what such moral absolutes are jettisoned."

As you well said:

"--- In a democratic system of government, my job as a moralist is to persuade you to recognize the same moral absolute that I do, one that you appear to have missed. ---"

We agree. - Jeremiah has failed in his job.

172 posted on 09/02/2004 7:16:54 AM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)

173 posted on 09/02/2004 7:46:15 AM PDT by BallparkBoys

Our Constitution does not presuppose that our inalienable rights come from our Creator.

This statement proves that you do not believe in the principles which the Founders established this nation upon.

We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven cannot be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained. - George Washington, First Inaugural Address
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. - James Madison, 1778, to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia

you have reservations.. --Unless 'WE' all agree that your "hand of God" give us our rights, you can not accept our Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land.

So now no one who believes that their rights come from God can be loyal to the nation? I'm sure you won a lot of FRiends with that stupid assertion. I'm sorry to hear that you have such a low opinion of the men who founded this Christian Nation.

Here's a newsflash Pain, it doesn't matter what you "accept." Nobody cares what you think about the origin of our rights. It won't change the fact that they are inalienable because they come from God, and not from the tyranny of men as you would have it. The Founders fought and died for this truth and those who follow them will do the same.

174 posted on 09/02/2004 11:49:35 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe (Mr. Paine has departed altogether from the principles of the Revolution - J.Q.Adams)

To: Tailgunner Joe

Tailgunner Joe wrote:

You are the one who has reservations. You cannot swear an oath to accept our Constitution as the supreme law of the land because it presupposes that our inalienable rights come from our Creator.

I swore that oath in Jan of '55, joe. I still honor it.

Our Constitution does not presuppose that our inalienable rights come from our Creator.
That wording is used in our Declaration, and I have no problem at all in its use as written.
You are using that wording as a reservation to avoid supporting the Constitutions principles as written, joe. Admit it.

Begone, louse.
This statement proves that you do not believe in the principles which the Founders established this nation upon.

No, our Constitution makes no 'presuppositions' on where our rights originated. It principally states that our rights to life, liberty, or property shall not be infringed upon, and sets up a form of of government to insure that end.

We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven cannot be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained. - George Washington, First Inaugural Address
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. - James Madison, 1778, to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia

Nice quotes. -- I have no problems with those opinions.

-- You have reservations.. -- Unless 'WE' all agree that your "hand of God" give us our rights, you can not accept our Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land.

So now no one who believes that their rights come from God can be loyal to the nation?

Not at all. But those who insist, like you, that you cannot unreservedly accept our supreme Law of the Lands principles, -- can certainly be viewed with distrust.

I'm sure you won a lot of FRiends with that stupid assertion.

I don't want friends like that, joe..

I'm sorry to hear that you have such a low opinion of the men who founded this Christian Nation.

I hold them in highest regard. Your attempt to say otherwise is pathetic.

We all, saints & sinners alike, have inalienable rights joe. You think they came from your God? -- Fine.
-- History tells that since men became self aware we have developed a moral code based on the logic of the golden rule.. This rule has nothing to do with any form of religion. It is based on pure reasoned self interest.

Why you object to my opinion is beyond my pay grade..

175 posted on 09/02/2004 12:44:14 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)

You have maligned my loyalty to my nation with outright lies, but I have shown that it is you who are a liar and a fabricator with no evidence for your disinformation and someone who holds this nation's true foundations and traditions in contempt.

176 posted on 09/02/2004 12:55:59 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe (Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.)

>> Can you swear an oath to support the Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land?

I have.

>> Is our Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land" to you, without reservations?

Of course. That means I do not support judicial tyrants that have stripped our nation of it's religious and moral heritage via usurpation of power.

Let's cut to the chase, tpaine. Is our Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land" to you, without reservations?

177 posted on 09/02/2004 1:04:04 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau

To: Tailgunner Joe

Joe, you imangine that you've 'shown' proofs. Dream on.

178 posted on 09/02/2004 4:35:00 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)

To: PhilipFreneau

179 posted on 09/02/2004 4:37:31 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)

I have presented evidence whereas you have presented none, because your assertions are unsupportable disinformation.

180 posted on 09/02/2004 5:56:18 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe (Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794