Posted on 07/25/2010 1:37:12 PM PDT by betty boop
I know we are not going to agree on this, betty boop, but there seems to be evidence to the contrary. How else can we interpret the letter signed by John Adams which begins:
? Or shall we split hairs and claim that christian "heritage" is not the same as Christian "religion"? :)
Oh so beautifully (and truthfully) said, dear marron!
And they are vandals. They don't know how to build. But surely they know how to destroy.
Thank you oh so very much for writing!
I wouldn't call it "hair-splitting." The fact is the United States of America does not have an established religion. But that it has a Christian heritage is obvious to anyone who can read the Declaration of Independence and understand what it says.
Do you have some difficulty with the DoI that I might perchance be able to help you with?
Yeah, I can't find any refreence to Christ. All I see is a deist document.
Did you happen to read David McCullough's magisterial, Pulitzer prize-winning biography of John Adams? If not, maybe you should.
In the middle of readlng -- or writing?
In either case, it sounds like something I would greatly like to read...
(FReepMail if you'd care to discuss it privately...)
The DoI makes no specific reference to Christ. It makes reference to the Creator God of Genesis. The Christian Framers would instantly know that the Creator is the Father, Who has a Son, and a Holy Spirit, too. TJ didn't have to explain to the people what they already knew.
Was Jefferson a deist? He has been called "The American Sphinx." Meaning (among other things) it's difficult to pin him down, theologically speaking.
But you seem pretty sure about his "credentials." It must be nice to have such certainly so cheaply....
Make that “certainty,” not “certainly”.... [last line]
I am thinking of you, dear YHAOS. I thought you might find this post interesting. I haven’t heard from you in a while, and am missing you.
WELL PUT.
THX FOR THE PINGS.
I am a "seeker after root causes".
IIUC, the author is identifying the basing of our successful American Republic on the rights -- and right behavior of -- moral individuals as the key element that fostered its success and superiority over that of the "amoral libertine mob" foundation of the French Republique.
And, for America, both the essential, individual rights and the absolutely requisite individual moral absolutes proceed directly to the individual from our Creator (as opposed to being force-fed through the "intellectual" filter of any human-staffed organization or hierarchy).
~~~~~~~~~~~
Once the "bedrock" of our success to date is established and defined as Divinely moral independence, the terribly destructive danger of the amoral (or, more precisely, anti-moral collectivism promulgated by the current usurping regime is repugnanly evident!!
An awful question faces us: will national restoration and revival be possible via the ballot box -- or, (heaven forbid!) must it be through recourse to the bullet box?
~~~~~~~~~~~
IMHO, we face death as a nation. If survival requires "swallowing" one of the two remedies above, then, let us proceed forthwith to "take our medicine"!
EXTREMELY SOBERING ISSUES.
THX.
One was child of the Reformation, the other was child of the Enlightment.
“”John Adams recognized that America is not founded on any particular religion. But that it was founded in a system of ideas that finds its root in God, as Christians understand Him, was perfectly obvious to him, and to the people of his time.””
Adams and the founders compromised Christianity in lieu of a system of pluralism and did not really understand what TRUE liberty really meant,thus the US is failing in a mere 234 years.
Pope Leo XIII understood true and false liberty
Excerpt from Libertas
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html
5. Liberty, then, as We have said, belongs only to those who have the gift of reason or intelligence. Considered as to its nature, it is the faculty of choosing means fitted for the end proposed, for he is master of his actions who can choose one thing out of many. Now, since everything chosen as a means is viewed as good or useful, and since good, as such, is the proper object of our desire, it follows that freedom of choice is a property of the will, or, rather, is identical with the will in so far as it has in its action the faculty of choice. But the will cannot proceed to act until it is enlightened by the knowledge possessed by the intellect. In other words, the good wished by the will is necessarily good in so far as it is known by the intellect; and this the more, because in all voluntary acts choice is subsequent to a judgment upon the truth of the good presented, declaring to which good preference should be given. No sensible man can doubt that judgment is an act of reason, not of the will. The end, or object, both of the rational will and of its liberty is that good only which is in conformity with reason.
6. Since, however, both these faculties are imperfect, it is possible, as is often seen, that the reason should propose something which is not really good, but which has the appearance of good, and that the will should choose accordingly. For, as the possibility of error, and actual error, are defects of the mind and attest its imperfection, so the pursuit of what has a false appearance of good, though a proof of our freedom, just as a disease is a proof of our vitality, implies defect in human liberty. The will also, simply because of its dependence on the reason, no sooner desires anything contrary thereto than it abuses its freedom of choice and corrupts its very essence. Thus it is that the infinitely perfect God, although supremely free, because of the supremacy of His intellect and of His essential goodness, nevertheless cannot choose evil; neither can the angels and saints, who enjoy the beatific vision. St. Augustine and others urged most admirably against the Pelagians that, if the possibility of deflection from good belonged to the essence or perfection of liberty, then God, Jesus Christ, and the angels and saints, who have not this power, would have no liberty at all, or would have less liberty than man has in his state of pilgrimage and imperfection. This subject is often discussed by the Angelic Doctor in his demonstration that the possibility of sinning is not freedom, but slavery. It will suffice to quote his subtle commentary on the words of our Lord: “Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin.”(3) “Everything,” he says, “is that which belongs to it a naturally. When, therefore, it acts through a power outside itself, it does not act of itself, but through another, that is, as a slave. But man is by nature rational. When, therefore, he acts according to reason, he acts of himself and according to his free will; and this is liberty. Whereas, when he sins, he acts in opposition to reason, is moved by another, and is the victim of foreign misapprehensions. Therefore, `Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin.’ “(4) Even the heathen philosophers clearly recognized this truth, especially they who held that the wise man alone is free; and by the term “wise man” was meant, as is well known, the man trained to live in accordance with his nature, that is, in justice and virtues
What naturalists or rationalists aim at in philosophy, that the supporters of liberalism, carrying out the principles laid down by naturalism, are attempting in the domain of morality and politics. The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of the human reason, which, refusing due submission to the divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth. Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man’s individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority. But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason. To refuse any bond of union between man and civil society, on the one hand, and God the Creator and consequently the supreme Law-giver, on the other, is plainly repugnant to the nature, not only of man, but of all created things; for, of necessity, all effects must in some proper way be connected with their cause; and it belongs to the perfection of every nature to contain itself within that sphere and grade which the order of nature has assigned to it, namely, that the lower should be subject and obedient to the higher.
16. Moreover, besides this, a doctrine of such character is most hurtful both to individuals and to the State. For, once ascribe to human reason the only authority to decide what is true and what is good, and the real distinction between good and evil is destroyed; honor and dishonor differ not in their nature, but in the opinion and judgment of each one; pleasure is the measure of what is lawful; and, given a code of morality which can have little or no power to restrain or quiet the unruly propensities of man, a way is naturally opened to universal corruption. With reference also to public affairs: authority is severed from the true and natural principle whence it derives all its efficacy for the common good; and the law determining what it is right to do and avoid doing is at the mercy of a majority. Now, this is simply a road leading straight to tyranny. The empire of God over man and civil society once repudiated, it follows that religion, as a public institution, can have no claim to exist, and that everything that belongs to religion will be treated with complete indifference. Furthermore, with ambitious designs on sovereignty, tumult and sedition will be common amongst the people; and when duty and conscience cease to appeal to them, there will be nothing to hold them back but force, which of itself alone is powerless to keep their covetousness in check. Of this we have almost daily evidence in the conflict with socialists and members of other seditious societies, who labor unceasingly to bring about revolution. It is for those, then, who are capable of forming a just estimate of things to decide whether such doctrines promote that true liberty which alone is worthy of man, or rather, pervert and destroy it.
Whether the founders of the U.S. saw this clearly or not depends on the founder..
Some were probably religious others may not have been..
For sure, Jesus formed a family, some may have been smart assed groupies..
Nope. His letter says otherwise.
Did you happen to read David McCullough's magisterial, Pulitzer prize-winning biography of John Adams? If not, maybe you should
No, but I read his letter form 1797 that says "As the Government of the United States of American is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."
INDEED.
Nope. John Adams' letter of 1797 clearly says "As the Government of the United States of American is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."
Do you have some difficulty with this that I might perchance be able to help you with?
And DoI is a deist document that does not mention Christ, even God, let alone Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. U.S. Constitution doesn't mention Christ, Father, Son, or the Holy Ghost, and iirc not even the Creator.
Then please post the letter so other readers can form their own impression of its meaning.
You rip a phrase possibly out of context, and assert that your understanding of it is the only way it can be understood.
I'm not buying. And talk is cheap. Especially nowadays.
1797 had 365 days in it. On which day did John Adams post this letter? To whom was it written? What was the context?
When you've done your homework, please do feel free to get back to us. You evidently expect your readers to simply accept your "authority" on such matters. But I want to see your evidence.
All the more so when some finger talk
is all over the water front from the opposite of what most people think words mean to every weasel meaning possible to claim for every nuance of every word in the most convoluted ways possible . . .
all the while pretending to be erudite, wise, logical etc.
What a farce.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.