tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post292832388838323015..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Dave Welch Misses on Inaugural PrayersBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-52391970715018976442009-01-23T11:29:00.000-07:002009-01-23T11:29:00.000-07:00Thanks.Thanks.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-90175441717582875202009-01-23T11:06:00.000-07:002009-01-23T11:06:00.000-07:00Okay.Okay.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10950788745974377432009-01-23T10:33:00.000-07:002009-01-23T10:33:00.000-07:00Hey Jon,Do me a favor, and delete my last quote, I...Hey Jon,<BR/><BR/>Do me a favor, and delete my last quote, I will re-post another one.<BR/><BR/>ThanksOur Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-88420256518818642312009-01-23T09:15:00.000-07:002009-01-23T09:15:00.000-07:00OFT = LOL!OFT = LOL!Ravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05504032868942862532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30748296977827274712009-01-23T08:03:00.000-07:002009-01-23T08:03:00.000-07:00The problem with your arguments, OFT, is that you ...The problem with your arguments, OFT, is that you are like Don Quixote, chasing windmills.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48175112627364469492009-01-22T17:25:00.000-07:002009-01-22T17:25:00.000-07:00I'll also point out that while we can debate wheth...I'll also point out that while we can debate whether Washington or Madison were orthodox Christians, their public God talk as Presidents were consistent with J. Adams' and Jefferson's: They didn't invoke Jesus Christ, but rather God generally; see Justice Scalia's acute observation. Further, when they spoke to American Indians who had NO desire to convert, they referred to God as "The Great Spirit." If America were founded on orthodox theology, they wouldn't do that. If the first 4 Presidents were committed to an orthodox Christian political theology, when they spoke to Indians, they would have said you should convert to Christianity because it is true and your pagan religion is false. That's the way the orthodox viewed things.<BR/><BR/>Even when Washington, Jefferson etc. supported converting the natives to Christianity it was NEVER for this reason, but rather because the Indians themselves wanted to convert or the FFs thought it would better assimilate or civilize the Indians. These are secular or utilitarian reasons for converting the Indians NOT orthodox reasons.<BR/><BR/>Again, it's these kinds of things that destroy the orthodox Christian America thesis.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-67556873044415433932009-01-22T17:00:00.000-07:002009-01-22T17:00:00.000-07:00OFT,You can look at Christianity in any way you wa...OFT,<BR/><BR/>You can look at Christianity in any way you want. However, orthodox Trinitarian Christianity is NOT evident in the US Constitution, DOI, Federalist Papers, nor the public utterances and supplications to God of the first four or five Presidents.<BR/><BR/>Further the author of the DOI rejected every single tenet of orthodox Christianity and a majority of the drafting bd. (Jefferson, Franklin and J. Adams) were not orthodox Trinitarian Christians.<BR/><BR/>THAT defeats the orthodox Christian America thesis.<BR/><BR/>All you've offered so far is two references to Christ of the Continental Congress, before the US Constitution was ratified. That's a very weak place to rest the "Christian America" thesis.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22623259710647372102009-01-22T15:59:00.000-07:002009-01-22T15:59:00.000-07:00Issues such as the Trinity, eternal damnation, the...Issues such as the Trinity, eternal damnation, the infallibility of the Bible were not part of this lowest common denominator of public "theism."><BR/><BR/>Sorry Brian, Jon wrote this, I should have referenced him.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-87718834108836976042009-01-22T15:56:00.000-07:002009-01-22T15:56:00.000-07:00Remember Brian,The subjective intentions of a few ...Remember Brian,<BR/><BR/>The subjective intentions of a few guys: Jefferson, Adams, Paine, and Franklin, doesn't hold any weight.<BR/><BR/>It's the belief of the majority of the population that matters, and I haven't seen any evidence that the founding fathers were heterodox. <BR/><BR/>My book will also focus on communion in the 18th century churches.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-85605697616973236262009-01-22T15:52:00.000-07:002009-01-22T15:52:00.000-07:00My point is that the result of their efforts was t...My point is that the result of their efforts was to leave orthodoxy (regardless of the faith) to the individual conscience><BR/><BR/>I agree with you.<BR/><BR/>for the national government at least to remain secular in nature (while guided by and informed by faith-based principles).><BR/><BR/>But, the above statement is definitely not true. The thanksgiving, and prayer proclamations are not secular, they are Christian. Praying in Jesus' name cannot be secular by any means.<BR/><BR/>Okay, let me ask you to set that aside for a moment, and take what Liberty University professor Gary Habermas calls a "minimal facts" approach.><BR/><BR/>I like Gary. <BR/><BR/>This, however, does NOT mean that they wished the GOVERNMENT to be NEUTRAL about God, only that they didn't want the government to FORCE people to practice religion.><BR/><BR/>I agree with this statement one-hundred percent.<BR/><BR/>How many agree with the above? I realize some (like OFT) would go FURTHER than the above, but do a majority of us at least agree with the general outlines of what's written above?><BR/><BR/>Yes.<BR/><BR/>Issues such as the Trinity, eternal damnation, the infallibility of the Bible were not part of this lowest common denominator of public "theism."><BR/><BR/>You see Brian, I, or anyone else cannot make this claim. I have to take Protestant Christianity with what the Reformation says it is, which is what the Bible says it is. Does that make sense?<BR/><BR/>And until this new definition is proven, Christianity is orthodoxy; which the Reformation affirmed. The burden of proof is off my, and the Christian Nation thesis shoulders. <BR/><BR/>My book will rest on this assumption; as of today, it cannot be defeated.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23975041966713755532009-01-22T15:51:00.000-07:002009-01-22T15:51:00.000-07:00OFT:who in the hell are you quoting? I never wrot...OFT:<BR/><BR/>who in the hell are you quoting? I never wrote any of that.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78232059388609857062009-01-22T15:29:00.000-07:002009-01-22T15:29:00.000-07:00Brian,Yes I think we are pretty close. Yours is a...Brian,<BR/><BR/>Yes I think we are pretty close. Yours is a pretty accurate representation of the "publick religion" concept.<BR/><BR/>To put it more simply it's the teaching of the existence of an overriding Providence and a future state of rewards and punishments.<BR/><BR/>Issues such as the Trinity, eternal damnation, the infallibility of the Bible were not part of this lowest common denominator of public "theism."Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-80629855841851809862009-01-22T15:02:00.000-07:002009-01-22T15:02:00.000-07:00Interesting, Brian. I'd hate to see this buried do...Interesting, Brian. I'd hate to see this buried down at comment #49, so I'd like to see an expanded version of this as a fresh post, and leave this thread for Jon and OFT to debate orthodoxy.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-86481513828897725932009-01-22T14:55:00.000-07:002009-01-22T14:55:00.000-07:00I'd like to get this discussion thread back to an ...I'd like to get this discussion thread back to an earlier point...<BR/><BR/>MONOTHEISM<BR/><BR/>I want to find some common ground here. <BR/><BR/>OFT - I understand that you believe the Founders deliberately established a "Christian nation." I don't agree, but I understand your position. Okay, let me ask you to set that aside for a moment, and take what Liberty University professor Gary Habermas calls a "minimal facts" approach. Okay?<BR/><BR/>Let's all try to see if there's at least a minimal baseline position around which we can find general agreement. <BR/><BR/>I propose this....<BR/><BR/>The Founding Fathers established the United States of America on the monotheistic premise that people's "unalienable rights" come from the Creator and that government's role is to "secure" those rights.<BR/><BR/>What's more, the Founders believed that it was vital for the people of the nation to believe in God, pray to God, and remain accountable to God. <BR/><BR/>As such, it was hoped that our rights would be secure and that people would respect one another and live by basic moral values.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, the Founders still believed that people had a right to believe what they wished concerning God and religion (and that included non-belief) without interference from the government.<BR/><BR/>This, however, does NOT mean that they wished the GOVERNMENT to be NEUTRAL about God, only that they didn't want the government to FORCE people to practice religion.<BR/><BR/>At a minimum, this is where 99% of the Framers were in their thinking. (I'll allow that Thomas Paine may have been to the left of this position). <BR/><BR/>How many agree with the above? I realize some (like OFT) would go FURTHER than the above, but do a majority of us at least agree with the general outlines of what's written above?Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17074058267830946562009-01-22T14:49:00.000-07:002009-01-22T14:49:00.000-07:00OFT - As I've said, I'm with you in arguing that a...OFT - As I've said, I'm with you in arguing that a majority of the Founders were Christians - and by that, I mean "orthodox." <BR/><BR/>My point is that the result of their efforts was to leave orthodoxy (regardless of the faith) to the individual conscience and for the national government at least to remain secular in nature (while guided by and informed by faith-based principles).<BR/><BR/>The states also eventually came around to this framework, though some were slower than others.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-71659624588037446582009-01-22T14:34:00.000-07:002009-01-22T14:34:00.000-07:00Underlying the Protestant Reformation lay four bas...<I>Underlying the Protestant Reformation lay four basic doctrines in which the reformers believed the Roman Catholic Church to be in error.</I><BR/><BR/>[...]<BR/><BR/><I>This is a false statement, as every reformer, from Luther, to Zwingli, will testify.</I><BR/><BR/>And by whose authority do we get to decide when the Protestant Reformation stopped and who ceased to be a reformer? The answer is, there is none. At least the Catholic Church has a way "settling" these issues in a top down system. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are part of "Protestant Christianity," because now no one at the top has the power to stop them from so being.<BR/><BR/>I suppose you could rely on "the Bible alone" to "settle" the matter. And if that's the case, the very influential American Protestant Christian reformer, Rev. Charles Chuancy, one of the key pro-revolt preachers, used the Bible alone to deny original sin, the trinity and eternal damnation.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-25056026333615006772009-01-22T14:28:00.000-07:002009-01-22T14:28:00.000-07:00Correction. This should have read:Their state Sup...Correction. This should have read:<BR/><BR/>Their state Supreme Court HELD that the unitarian Congregations were indeed "Protestant Christian" sects deserving establishment aid.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81108736573275252632009-01-22T14:25:00.000-07:002009-01-22T14:25:00.000-07:00As to the other stuff OFT wrote.1) To the extent t...As to the other stuff OFT wrote.<BR/><BR/>1) To the extent that America was a "nation," as opposed to a collection of sovereign states, the documents of the Founding era that contain its principles are the Constitution, DOI and Federalist Papers. And *they don't* rely on orthodox Christianity or chiefly derive their ideas from the Bible. Article VI, Cl. 3 and the First Amendment look nothing like the sectarian religious provisions found in SOME state constitutions.<BR/><BR/>2) Re the states, they were a mixed bag. You would have to prove a uniform policy of orthodox Christianity to make your claim, which you can't. You can't get "orthodox Christianity" out of VA after Jefferson's 1786 Statute on religious liberty. And you arguably can't get "orthodox Christianity" out of the MASS Constitution either that had a "Protestant Christian" establishment. Their state Supreme Court that the unitarian Congregations were indeed "Protestant Christian" sects deserving establishment aid.<BR/><BR/>3) We also need to love at the direction in which those states with explicitly sectarian religious requirements moved: They moved in a direction of more generic theism, less overtly Christian sectarianism.<BR/><BR/>For instance this is what NJ's religious policy became:<BR/><BR/><I>CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY--1844<BR/><BR/>(in regards to religion only)<BR/><BR/>We, The people of the state of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which he hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking To Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this constitution.<BR/><BR/>ARTICLE I.<BR/><BR/>RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES.<BR/><BR/>Three. No person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor under any pretense whatever be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his faith and judgment; nor shall any person be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right, or has deliberately and voluntarily engaged to perform.<BR/><BR/>Four. There shall be no establishment of one religious sect in preference to another; no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust; and no person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of his religious principles.</I>Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23757629821074760832009-01-22T14:22:00.000-07:002009-01-22T14:22:00.000-07:00You shoulda quit with the state constitutions.You shoulda quit with the state constitutions.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-63759110665030444142009-01-22T14:17:00.000-07:002009-01-22T14:17:00.000-07:00Underlying the Protestant Reformation lay four bas...Underlying the Protestant Reformation lay four basic doctrines in which the reformers believed the Roman Catholic Church to be in error. These four questions or doctrines are How is a person saved? Where does religious authority lie? What is the church? And what is the essence of Christian living? In answering these questions, Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, and John Knox established what would be known as the “Five Solas” of the Reformation (sola being the Latin word for “alone”). These five points of doctrine were at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, and it was for these five essential Biblical doctrines that the Protestant Reformers would take their stand against the Roman Catholic Church, resisting the demands placed on them to recant, even to the point of death. These five essential doctrines of the Protestant Reformation are as follows:<BR/><BR/>1-“Sola Scriptura,” or Scripture Alone: This affirms the Biblical doctrine that the Bible alone is the sole authority for all matters of faith and practice. Scripture and Scripture alone is the standard by which all teachings and doctrines of the church must be measured. As Martin Luther so eloquently stated when asked to recant on his teachings, "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."<BR/><BR/>2—“Sola Gratia,” Salvation by Grace Alone: This affirms the Biblical doctrine that salvation is by God’s grace alone and that we are rescued from His wrath by His grace alone. God’s grace in Christ is not merely necessary, but is the sole efficient cause of salvation. This grace is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ by releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from spiritual death to spiritual life.<BR/><BR/>3—“Sola Fide,” Salvation by Faith Alone: This affirms the Biblical doctrine that justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. It is by faith in Christ that His righteousness is imputed to us as the only possible satisfaction of God’s perfect justice.<BR/><BR/>4—“Solus Christus,” In Christ Alone: This affirms the Biblical doctrine that salvation is found in Christ alone and that His sinless life and substitutionary atonement alone are sufficient for our justification and reconciliation to God the Father. The gospel has not been preached if Christ’s substitutionary work is not declared, and if faith in Christ and His work is not solicited.<BR/><BR/>5—“Soli Deo Gloria, For the Glory of God Alone: This affirms the Biblical doctrine that salvation is of God and has been accomplished by God for His glory alone. It affirms that as Christians we must glorify Him always, and must live our entire lives before the face of God, under the authority of God, and for His glory alone.<BR/><BR/>These five important and fundamental doctrines are the reason for the Protestant Reformation. They are at the heart of where the Roman Catholic Church went wrong in its doctrine, and why the Protestant Reformation was necessary to return churches throughout the world to correct doctrine and biblical teaching. They are just as important today in evaluating a church and its teachings as they were then. In many ways, much of Protestant Christianity needs to be challenged to return to these fundamental doctrines of the faith, much like the reformers challenged the Roman Catholic Church to do in the sixteenth century.<BR/>http://www.gotquestions.org/Protestant-Reformation.htmlOur Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91598636290854884112009-01-22T14:09:00.000-07:002009-01-22T14:09:00.000-07:00Jon:No one is going to take you seriously if you g...Jon:<BR/><BR/>No one is going to take you seriously if you go around claiming the law of nature is Jesus Christ. Anyone with an elementary understanding of the history of philosophy knows this isn't true.><BR/><BR/>Philosophy is irrelevant to the issue. Christianity is the issue, and Christianity is what the Bible says. The Bible says Jesus Christ is, was, and always will be, God.<BR/><BR/>As a matter of fact, The Holy Spirit is the Laws of Nature and the Laws of God; for, The Holy Spirit is God. God IS the Laws of God. <BR/><BR/>John 1<BR/><BR/>"In the beginning was the Word [Bible], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.<BR/><BR/>2The same was in the beginning with God. <BR/><BR/> 3All things were made by him [Jesus Christ]; and without him [Jesus Christ] was not any thing made that was made. <BR/><BR/>14And the Word [Bible] was made flesh [Jesus Christ], and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. <BR/><BR/>So glorious, it can scarcely be comprehended.<BR/><BR/>Jon:<BR/><BR/>The Deists, for instance, who utterly rejected Jesus Christ embraced the law of nature. They couldn't do this is the law of nature doctrinally defined as "Jesus Christ."><BR/><BR/>The founding fathers were not Deists, who everyone, including John Adams, ridiculed.<BR/><BR/>Actually heterodoxy DID come out of the Protestant Reformation and indeed "heterodoxy" often presented itself as "Protestant Christianity."><BR/><BR/>This is a false statement, as every reformer, from Luther, to Zwingli, will testify. <BR/><BR/>Mr. Nathan Hatch, President of Wake Forest University, needs to read:<BR/><BR/> Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Beza, Bucer, Bullinger, Cranmer, Farel, Flacius, Jonas, Knox, Melancthon, Tyndale, Vadian, Petri, Paleario, Oecolampadius, Jonas, Chemnitz, etc.<BR/><BR/>The reformers adhered to orthodoxy, not to the imaginations of so called "professors."Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21048088445755196922009-01-22T13:37:00.000-07:002009-01-22T13:37:00.000-07:00Protestant Christianity is the established religio...<I>Protestant Christianity is the established religion of New Jersey. Heterodoxy did not come out of the Reformation, nor is it Christianity.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually heterodoxy DID come out of the Protestant Reformation and indeed "heterodoxy" often presented itself as "Protestant Christianity."<BR/><BR/>As Nathan Hatch, President of Wake Forest University, wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>DENYING HISTORIC CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE FROM THE “BIBLE ALONE”<BR/><BR/>The first Americans to underscore the right of private judgment in handling Scripture were, oddly enough, ministers who opposed the evangelical tenets of the Great Awakening. As New Lights in New England worked to make people more theologically self-conscious, often by rewriting church covenants to include strict doctrinal standards, theological liberals increasingly resisted strict creedal definitions of Christianity. The future president of the United States, John Adams, like many of his generation, came to despise theological argumentation. He reported in his diary in 1756,<BR/><BR/>“Where do we find a precept in the Gospel requiring Ecclesiastical Synods? Convocations? Councils? Decrees? Creeds? Confessions? Oaths? Subscriptions? and the whole cart-loads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?” [6]<BR/><BR/>To gain leverage against the entrenched Calvinism of the Great Awakening theological liberals redoubled their appeal to depend on the Scriptures alone. “Why may not I go to the Bible and learn the doctrines of Christianity as well as the Assembly of Divines?” the prominent Boston clergyman Jeremy Belknap asked in 1784. Simeon Howard, a more liberal minister, exhorted his colleagues to “keep close to the Bible” and to “avoid metaphysical additions.” He also advised clergyman to “lay aside all attachment to human systems, all partiality to names, councils and churches, and honestly inquire, ‘what saith the scriptures.’” [7]<BR/><BR/>Charles Chauncy, pastor of Boston’s First Church for sixty years (1727-1787), is the most prominent example of an exclusive appeal to Biblical authority in order to unravel theological orthodoxy. Chauncy was persuaded to emphasize Bible study by reading the works of English divines, such as Samuel Clarke’s The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity (London, 1712) and John Taylor’s The Scripture-Doctrine of Original Sin (London, 1740). <B>Both authors used a “free, impartial and diligent” method of examining Scripture to JETTISON, respectively, the doctrines of the Trinity and of Original Sin. [8]</B></I> [Bold mine.]Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-66881932916537737352009-01-22T13:28:00.000-07:002009-01-22T13:28:00.000-07:00OFT,No one is going to take you seriously if you g...OFT,<BR/><BR/>No one is going to take you seriously if you go around claiming the law of nature is Jesus Christ. Anyone with an elementary understanding of the history of philosophy knows this isn't true.<BR/><BR/>The Deists, for instance, who utterly rejected Jesus Christ embraced the law of nature. They couldn't do this is the law of nature doctrinally defined as "Jesus Christ."Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69555327928947745782009-01-22T11:02:00.000-07:002009-01-22T11:02:00.000-07:00Brad:I disagree with you that they (the Founders) ...Brad:<BR/><BR/><I>I disagree with you that they (the Founders) intentionally founded the United States to be a "Christian nation" and that they founded it directly on the Bible.<BR/><BR/>The historical evidence is simply not there to support that. And, frankly, neither is the theology<BR/><BR/>Our government operates according to a secular Constitution and not the Bible - and this is the doing of the Founders! We are not (in any official sense) a Christian nation, and we never were</I>. <BR/><BR/>Well, this is the issue the secularists support. But, you provided no evidence to support your assertions, and the burden of proof is on you. Religion is left to the states in a republican government, and the states formed Christianity as their religion. <BR/><BR/>They said "Christianity" not hinduism. You need to prove the majority of framers were not orthodox, which I don't believe you can; feel free to try.<BR/><BR/>The historical evidence is all over the place, you can't miss it; even in public declarations of Congress.<BR/><BR/>The law of nature is Jesus Christ, which is who the framers prayed to. Reason is the first revelation, the Bible, the second. There is no other God, the Law of Nature could be, and the Bible <B>clearly</B> presents Jesus Christ as God.<BR/><BR/>neither is the theology><BR/><BR/>Really? Question that to the framers:<BR/><BR/>The Constitution of the State of Delaware (until 1792) stated: Article XXII Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust… shall… make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:“I, _______, do profess faith in <B>God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore</B>; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.” [p.203]<BR/><BR/>Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated: There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other. Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the <B>truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments</B>, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)<BR/><BR/>Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated: Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and <B>a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion</B>.” That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian <B>religion</B>, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]<BR/><BR/>Constitution of the State of New Hampshire (1784,1792), required senators and representatives to be of the: <B>Protestant religion</B>. (in force until 1877)The Constitution stipulated: Article I, Section VI. And every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good citizens of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the laws. And no subordination of any one sect of denomination to another, shall ever be established by law. [p.469]<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>The Constitution of the State of Connecticut (until 1818), contained the wording: The People of this State… by the Providence of God… hath the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State… and forasmuch as the free fruition of such liberties and privileges as humanity, civility, and <B>Christianity</B> call for, as is due to every man in his place and proportion… hath ever been, and will be the tranquility and stability of Churches and Commonwealth; and the denial thereof, the disturbances, if not the ruin of both. [p.179]<BR/><BR/>You need to prove the MAJORITY of the people of Connecticut were not orthodox.<BR/><BR/>NEW JERSEY 1776 (until 1844) XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that <B>all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect</B>, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.<BR/><BR/>Protestant Christianity is the established religion of New Jersey. Heterodoxy did not come out of the Reformation, nor is it Christianity.<BR/><BR/>Good luck proving these are not orthodox statements. <BR/><BR/>A couple framers were heterodox, big deal!Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57812316068331008482009-01-22T10:57:00.000-07:002009-01-22T10:57:00.000-07:00Brad, good points. I'm not saying that religion wi...Brad, good points. I'm not saying that religion will prevent crime. I believe religion HELPS prevent or at least reduce crime and violence, but it won't prevent it. <BR/><BR/>The reason is that, deep down, human beings are self-centered sinners. <BR/><BR/>Government has to deal with this reality on a multi-front approach. We can't just "cuff'em and stuff'em" (to quote Sheriff Roscoe from the great 80s show 'Dukes of Hazzard'). You have to fight crime on the economic front, community front, moral front, and law enforcement front.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.com