A group blog to promote discussion, debate and insight into the history, particularly religious, of America's founding. Any observations, questions, or comments relating to the blog's theme are welcomed.
With all due respect, Rosman's is a self-published book, by a self-identified “Jew by heritage, atheist by belief, and Unitarian by affiliation,” reviewed by Harmon, "an author, historical Jesus scholar, book reviewer, and liberal Christian, which means I appreciate and attempt to exercise the humanitarian teachings of Jesus without getting hung up on supernatural or religious beliefs.”Huh?I'm just not feeling any possible sympathy for a Christian nation thesis on either of these authors' parts, not expecting any awareness of its basis in Scholastic [Aquinas] thought, Calvinist resistance theory, or the canon law studies of Brian Tierney.This rather seems like a case of the blind leading the stupid.
Are there two ways of viewing the Christian Nation thesis? 1.)liberal-our unity is based in our diversity, therefore tolerance, and religous liberty is the mainstay of our identity...2.)conservatism-our unity is based in the Principles of our Constitutional government, which protects individual rights before the law.It seems the first is 'hung up" on dissolving distinctions for the very reason of unity. Such attempts undermine individual liberty for "group think" identifications, while an elite class runs the show. Government, then becomes the defender of "group rights" or mulit-culturalism, not the defeneder of the Constitution and individual rights.Both sides have erred on group rights; the Progressive on focusing on civil rights, and demanding that government protect them, which causes reverse discrimnaton and isn't about self determination, which is part of inalienability.The conservative has been guilty through granting personhood to corporations, which also undermine personal liberty, but grants great power without recourse (corporate protections).I wonder how much of such liberal bias is a matter of U.N. desires for pushing forward a global agenda? I just read today where the U.N. would tax the more wealthy states (the West) for fairness. Group rights (nation states) then are centralized by global or world government, where an elite class rules, without accountability. These are unelected leaders.....corruption abounds in such systems.
It might not be noteworthy. I thought I'd give it a mention to see what may come of it. On a different note, now that you are back we can get into some more serious stuff like Reid.
Nice to be back, Jon. In case anybody was wondering, I had a serious leg injury a few weeks back and am finally out of the hospital and back home in Los Angeles.Thomas Reid and the Scottish "Common Sense" Enlightenment [SCSE] are very much the prevailing philosophical/theological background for the American American Founding, as taught by Rev. John Witherspoon at the College of New Jersey, later named Princeton.Yes, some writers even abbreviate it with the acronym SCSE. It was a big deal, with all the theories flying around at that time. And to many Americans even to this day, it just seems like common sense.;-)
Sorry to hear about your leg injury. Hope it is all better.
since I believe that the smallest minority is the individual, as Thomas Jefferson claimed, that is my premise; Choice.While I believe that group identifications are bad in one sense, or quotas, or reverse discrimination/special priviledge, I do believe that one has to have a context for identity. There is no such thing as a culture free identity. American identity just happens to be connected to Constitutional government which is a universal as to protecting liberties and balancing power in government.The conservative values of self interest and self determination is affirming to individual choice, which is granted in a liberal government.Both the liberal mulit-cultural bia, and tolerance, civility, as well as the pursuit of property, in self determination of one's vocation are values that are the foundations of human rights.But, I do not believe in centralization of power, because in speading out the costs of something, people in government tend to numb themselves to the "real costs", because of their share seemingly being so small. This makes for using other people's money to underwrite a standard one would not choose, if one was paying themselves. This is human nature for the most part, as it can justify "getting their fair share" by what these attempt to do for their constiuents. And certainly, if there are NO consituents to represent....business interest becomes combined with government protections which lead not to competitive bids for government contracts, but partial treatment.I see a "Christian Nation" as a "symbol" for humane and balanced government. The individual is sovereign in context of the STate, but the State is sovereign in context of the larger world, or the U.N.!
Post a Comment