Look to the beam in your eye, Pilgrim. I spoke, mocking your own bald assertion in response to a carefully crafted exposition supporting the thesis that The Declaration is infused with Judeo-Christian values. Apparently you value your own naked assertions a great deal more than that of others (the mockery exposing the blindness you possess with respect to your own faults) . . . ( ^8 }.
In reality there is a very great deal of Judeo-Christian values in The Declaration and The Constitution. What neither document does is demand adherence to a particular religious denomination. Consequently, there is very little “God” in The Constitution, the Founding Fathers being convinced that government (at least the Federal government) should have little to do with issues of conscience, looking to exercise a minimum control over human action and to exercise no restraint on thought. Ever since that time nihilists have sought to gain advantage of the Founders’ circumspection by insisting the documents are devoid of Judeo-Christian values (and will pitch a fit at any contrary understanding).
You elect to demand that the Founding Fathers’ choice of language must conform to your expectations or you will impose your interpretation on their thoughts. The Founding Fathers spoke as they saw fit without consulting you as to how they might properly phrase their thoughts. Apparently you believe, as Jefferson once wearily observed of the remarks of angry Baptists and Episcopalians, that those who advocate religion’s freedom have no religion.
“Besides, capitalizing the word "Creator" means nothing.”
Not according to Etymology, which in this case, has noted that the word Creator was not capitalized until the publishing of the KJ Holy Bible in 1611. So far as I know, there are at least 35 instances where the KJ refers to God as “Creator.” But you apparently think your knowledge superior to the wisdom of ages. Not, however, to the extent of being able to quote a citation supporting your allegation that John Adams once wrote a letter (when? and to whom?) stating that the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. Which Atheist website did you get that quote from?
But if you think Adams to be an impeccable authority on the spirit that moved the American people to revolution and a new government, his most definitive testimony, of which I am aware, is to be found in a letter written to Thomas Jefferson, dated June 28, 1813 . . . “Who composed that army of fine young fellows that was then before my eyes? There were among them Roman Catholics, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien." 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 Catholics? 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 achieved 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 (emphasis mine), in which all those sects were united; and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all these 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 . . . “ (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh Editor, in 19 volumes)
Jefferson says: “The fundamental principle of all philosophy and all Christianity, is ‘Rejoice always in all things!’ ‘Be thankful at all times for all good, and all that we call evil.’” Those who are today the doubters and defamers of Christianity, might take heed of his word, just as Jefferson wished their antecedents of his day might have done the same. Like the Democrats of today, who could take no solace in anything so long as a Republican resided at 1600 Pennsylvania, the haters of Christianity can take no solace so long as a Christian is permitted to appear in the public square. (see Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Jefferson, December 25, 1813, Ibid)
Oh, we are weary pilgrims; to this wilderness we bring
A Church without a bishop, a State without a King.
anonymous poem, The Puritans’ Mistake, published by Oliver Ditson in 1844
EXCELLENT.
WELL AND ACCURATELY PUT, imho.
Thx.
Evidently the letter kosta50 cites was a diplomatic communiqué to the Sultan of Tripoli in 1785. The United States was then engaged in suing for "peace" with this powerful Islamic ruler in order to get the Barbary Pirates off the backs of American shipping in the Mediterranean. The U.S. simply couldn't afford to pay the tribute necessary to prevent the seizure of American cargos, and the capture and enslavement of American seamen.
Kosta is never very particular about issues of "context." But it seems clear to me that a speech crafted to appeal to the sensibilities of an Asiatic autocrat is probably not the place to go to look for essential statements relative to John Adams' confession of conscience, or for clues as to what the DoI means.
David McCullough — Adams' great biographer — has said that, although Thomas Jefferson was the "pen" of the American Revolution (i.e., of the DoI), John Adams was its "voice." BTW, Adams was not a Hindu, nor a Buddhist, nor a Confucian, Mohammedan, Gaia worshipper, whatever. He was a Christian man, heart and soul.
Kosta's general M.O. is that of a rationalist. He has little use (it appears) for the empirical approach to understanding reality. An analogy might help clarify this point.
It's as if kosta were a butterfly hunter. He goes out there with his net, and captures the little critturs, then immediately takes 'em back to his workshop, and pins them down on display boards. Then he is free to go back anytime and admire these now-dead artifacts, and thinks that they can actually tell him something about butterflies....
An empiricist would say, however, you learn a heck of a lot more about butterflies by observing them in their natural context, in their actual environment, by watching their behavior WRT all the other constituents of natural reality operating within that context. THEN you can form an idea of "butterfly." All those dynamics are missing, of course, from any inspection of a dead artifact on a display board. But kosta does not seem to miss those dynamics! He doesn't think he needs to know anything about them to understand what a "butterfly" is.
In short, to kosta, words are just so many butterflies tacked down dead as doornails on a display board. CONTEXT does not matter at all.
Or so it seems to me. If kosta thinks my analysis here is unfair, he can instruct me as to why that is.
Thank you ever so much, dear YHAOS, for your absolutely marvelous essay/post!