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.
Read his remarks here. He was far more explicitly Christian in his remarks than the Founding era Presidents. Indeed, as this Reason article notes, Obama is as explicitly Christian in Presidential remarks as his predecessor George W. Bush.
. Now that YOU bring the subject up, I have a comment to make. . The present issue on the national table has to do with the Catholic bishophy raising a ruckus about the insurance policies they provide to employees of their business enterprizes. All the politicians that think they can garner support from the religious right have jumped on board. Ones like Santorum are playing it for all its worth with Boehner accusing the president of carrying on an attack against religion.
WHAT? Are we going to give into those radical Islamists that want to perform their so-called Honor Killings because it is part of their faith based conscience? Or, will we give into the Jehovah's Witnesses that don't believe in blood transfusions? How about the Christian Scientists who don't believe in medicine? . I read your link to the Scottish Enlightenment in your James Wilson post. I learned about Civil, Manorial, and Canonical Law--that such exists and how that influenced men like James Wilson. I was very impressed. . I think there needs to be some deep honesty here on this subject. . It most certainly has to do with American Creaiton. . .
. From John Fea's article: Yet Williams was no atheist. He was a devout Puritan minister who, like other Massachusetts Puritans, fled religious persecution in England. Upon his arrival in 1631 he was considered so godly that Boston Puritans had asked him to lead their church. . Just in case you still believe I was wrong is stating that Williams was a Puritan. But, you stated he was a Baptist. I know he came to be a Baptist.
I had debated posting it at AC because of its political sensitivity, but I'm quite angry at the president's unnecessary jerking of the Roman Catholic Church.
It was unnecessary, and that's not how they did things at the Founding.
I'll just park it here. I think the president did bad.
...that's not how they did things at the Founding.
Obviously, since the president is clearly Protestant in religious conviction, this is a Protestant-Papist war. No?
- Just another attack by heretics against the Magisterium led by His Holiness, the true defender of the faith and seat of Peter.
- No, this is obviously an attack by the Whore of Babylon and his satanic heretical followers - atheists all - on the rights of God-fearing, righteous Protestants.
I think the issue has to do with civil libertes and civil rights(altho I have yet, to finish the article on the Scottish Enlightenment). We live under a Constitutional Republic that grants civil liberties, but when laws are created to define civil liberties via civil rights, then, we make for legal wars, over who has the greater power; the State, the Church, or conscience!
Conscience is individually understood, socially/culturally conditoned, as well as morally developed. Those at the conventional level of moral development (ala Thomas Kohlburg) will defend religion's definitions, while those that understand our Founder's values, of liberty, will understand the value of a diverse society that doesn't sanction the State over the Church, or the Church over the individual. One's understanding of government and the State will be a political and philosophical position.
. Re: Angie's post. . I am no lawyer and, in the past, have had a very poor opinion of the lebgal fraternity. The Scottish link has given me some insight I never realized in the past. I have gained quite a bit of respect. . I think, in this issue, some very important questions are being tested out. Today's N. Y. Times has an article that shows the Catholic Bishops were ready and waiting for this decision by our president. This article explains it quite well. . .
My guess is that JRB has an over the top sense of humor.
Humor? Yes, I was going for a dab. I appreciate the recognition. But as to historical accuracy, weeeelllllll, I think we've all read enough primary sources (and secondary) to draw a conclusion (see also election of 1803). See, it can be brought on topic.
Obama's already putting out a work around to accommodate religious sensibilities. Danged wars of persecution have gotten lame. Lame I tells ya.
. And, here, I was thinking he must have set up the opposition and out snookered them. . His speech this noon was short and straight to the point--succinct. .
10 comments:
.
Now that YOU bring the subject up, I have a comment to make.
.
The present issue on the national table has to do with the Catholic bishophy raising a ruckus about the insurance policies they provide to employees of their business enterprizes. All the politicians that think they can garner support from the religious right have jumped on board. Ones like Santorum are playing it for all its worth with Boehner accusing the president of carrying on an attack against religion.
WHAT? Are we going to give into those radical Islamists that want to perform their so-called Honor Killings because it is part of their faith based conscience? Or, will we give into the Jehovah's Witnesses that don't believe in blood transfusions? How about the Christian Scientists who don't believe in medicine?
.
I read your link to the Scottish Enlightenment in your James Wilson post. I learned about Civil, Manorial, and Canonical Law--that such exists and how that influenced men like James Wilson. I was very impressed.
.
I think there needs to be some deep honesty here on this subject.
.
It most certainly has to do with American Creaiton.
.
.
.
From John Fea's article: Yet Williams was no atheist. He was a devout Puritan minister who, like other Massachusetts Puritans, fled religious persecution in England. Upon his arrival in 1631 he was considered so godly that Boston Puritans had asked him to lead their church.
.
Just in case you still believe I was wrong is stating that Williams was a Puritan. But, you stated he was a Baptist. I know he came to be a Baptist.
.
His rhetoric is all the better to mask his hostility to Catholicism.
Mark, I'm currently taking bigtime heat for this over @ my political blog:
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/02/09/obamas-separation-of-church-and-state/
Which is OK, it's a political blog.
I had debated posting it at AC because of its political sensitivity, but I'm quite angry at the president's unnecessary jerking of the Roman Catholic Church.
It was unnecessary, and that's not how they did things at the Founding.
I'll just park it here. I think the president did bad.
...that's not how they did things at the Founding.
Obviously, since the president is clearly Protestant in religious conviction, this is a Protestant-Papist war. No?
- Just another attack by heretics against the Magisterium led by His Holiness, the true defender of the faith and seat of Peter.
- No, this is obviously an attack by the Whore of Babylon and his satanic heretical followers - atheists all - on the rights of God-fearing, righteous Protestants.
I believe that's how the founders did it.
I think the issue has to do with civil libertes and civil rights(altho I have yet, to finish the article on the Scottish Enlightenment). We live under a Constitutional Republic that grants civil liberties, but when laws are created to define civil liberties via civil rights, then, we make for legal wars, over who has the greater power; the State, the Church, or conscience!
Conscience is individually understood, socially/culturally conditoned, as well as morally developed. Those at the conventional level of moral development (ala Thomas Kohlburg) will defend religion's definitions, while those that understand our Founder's values, of liberty, will understand the value of a diverse society that doesn't sanction the State over the Church, or the Church over the individual. One's understanding of government and the State will be a political and philosophical position.
.
Wooooeeeee Buster Keaton!
.
My guess is that JRB has an over the top sense of humor.
.
.
.
Re: Angie's post.
.
I am no lawyer and, in the past, have had a very poor opinion of the lebgal fraternity. The Scottish link has given me some insight I never realized in the past. I have gained quite a bit of respect.
.
I think, in this issue, some very important questions are being tested out. Today's N. Y. Times has an article that shows the Catholic Bishops were ready and waiting for this decision by our president.
This article explains it quite well.
.
.
My guess is that JRB has an over the top sense of humor.
Humor? Yes, I was going for a dab. I appreciate the recognition. But as to historical accuracy, weeeelllllll, I think we've all read enough primary sources (and secondary) to draw a conclusion (see also election of 1803). See, it can be brought on topic.
Obama's already putting out a work around to accommodate religious sensibilities. Danged wars of persecution have gotten lame. Lame I tells ya.
.
And, here, I was thinking he must have set up the opposition and out snookered them.
.
His speech this noon was short and straight to the point--succinct.
.
Post a Comment