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.
When Pat Buchanan said on Chris Mathew's Hardball in 2009, "...I think a devoutly Christian, conservative, traditionalist country, even if it’s a monarchy, is fine with me." I was a bit surprised. After looking into these things a bit closer over the last few years I'm less surprised by some people's desire fore a Christian nation. I guess that it should even be expected.
I wonder though, how many Americans today would be fine with a good ole Christian monarchy, if it would restore a more conservative Christian tradition, in lieu of the representational democratic system we now have?
John Fea is a friend of this blog, but First Things commenter "JLW" is correct. The proposed NC law asserted that the state had the constitutional right to establish a church, not that it was establishing Christianity [or any church] as one.
[Did "jlw" ever comment here? Sounds familiar. Rigorous argument, reprinted below. Our own Jonathan Rowe takes part as well.]
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/04/09/no-surprise-that-32-of-americans-want-a-christian-constitutional-amendment/#comment-97108 _______________ jlw April 10th, 2013 | 8:02 am John:
You said: “Like the current attempt in North Carolina to create a state church…”
Why do you continue to misrepresent that legislation?
jlw April 10th, 2013 | 8:34 am Okay, my just throwing out the question (out of irritation) asking John Fea why he continues to misrepresent the N Carolina legislation requires clarification for those new to the subject.
Anyone familiar with the constitutional law will recognize that the NC legislation, however quixotically (and it is quixotic) is simply an attempt to return to the constitutional arrangements that existed prior to 1947.
That includes the right for states to establish their own church. The last state church to be disestablished was Massachusetts in the 1830s. But, in principle, a state could establish a church all the way until 1947. That was the Constitution before the New Deal court subverted it.
Fea takes the NC re-assertion of the Constitution as it existed from 1789 to 1947 to mean that NC itself wants to establish a church. That is what is called a non sequitur.
2 comments:
When Pat Buchanan said on Chris Mathew's Hardball in 2009, "...I think a devoutly Christian, conservative, traditionalist country, even if it’s a monarchy, is fine with me." I was a bit surprised. After looking into these things a bit closer over the last few years I'm less surprised by some people's desire fore a Christian nation. I guess that it should even be expected.
I wonder though, how many Americans today would be fine with a good ole Christian monarchy, if it would restore a more conservative Christian tradition, in lieu of the representational democratic system we now have?
John Fea is a friend of this blog, but First Things commenter "JLW" is correct. The proposed NC law asserted that the state had the constitutional right to establish a church, not that it was establishing Christianity [or any church] as one.
By "1947" JLW correctly refers to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education
[Did "jlw" ever comment here? Sounds familiar. Rigorous argument, reprinted below. Our own Jonathan Rowe takes part as well.]
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/04/09/no-surprise-that-32-of-americans-want-a-christian-constitutional-amendment/#comment-97108
_______________
jlw
April 10th, 2013 | 8:02 am
John:
You said: “Like the current attempt in North Carolina to create a state church…”
Why do you continue to misrepresent that legislation?
jlw
April 10th, 2013 | 8:34 am
Okay, my just throwing out the question (out of irritation) asking John Fea why he continues to misrepresent the N Carolina legislation requires clarification for those new to the subject.
Anyone familiar with the constitutional law will recognize that the NC legislation, however quixotically (and it is quixotic) is simply an attempt to return to the constitutional arrangements that existed prior to 1947.
That includes the right for states to establish their own church. The last state church to be disestablished was Massachusetts in the 1830s. But, in principle, a state could establish a church all the way until 1947. That was the Constitution before the New Deal court subverted it.
Fea takes the NC re-assertion of the Constitution as it existed from 1789 to 1947 to mean that NC itself wants to establish a church. That is what is called a non sequitur.
Post a Comment