tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post6151798138296709533..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Of Kings, Popes, Ecclesia and MundusBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-18136871298067987432012-01-06T10:02:30.840-07:002012-01-06T10:02:30.840-07:00From Humanism and the Culture of Renaissance Europ...From <i>Humanism and the Culture of Renaissance Europe</i> (Nauert, 2006):<br /><br /><i>“As the German emperors lost effective control of Italy, many cities in the north and central parts of the peninsula had become self-governing republics. Although these city-republics were often unstable because of class rivalries and old political enmities, all of them passed through a stage of republican political life. Even if the came under the rule of and authoritarian ruler (as most eventually did), they still retained some republican institutions and practices. In a rough way, therefore, their political structure and practices came to resemble the condition of ancient Greece and ancient Italy. Literate people quickly saw this similarity and turned to the history of Rome for inspiration and guidance.<br /><br />“Any republic formulates and applies public laws and policies through a process of discussion and debate. Thus the Roman educational system, which had no appeal for the aristocratic and clerical rulers of the [earlier] Middle Ages, provided exactly the kind of training in oratorical skills and fostered exactly the sense of obligation to public service needed for those who governed the Italian communes. At first, this attraction to humanistic studies was felt mostly by judges, lawyers, and notaries. In time, however, as the chaotic political conditions of the thirteenth century gave way to established republics or despotisms in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the social groups who dominated political life found in a humanistic education precisely the kind of education needed to prepare their sons to govern. The humanist programme [sic] of education was conceived by an intellectual who was also a great poet, Petrarch. But its eventual success in becoming the educational <i>padeia</i>[1] of the Italian elite classes resulted not from its being artistically appealing but from its being practical”</i><br /><br />[1] – this is my note in order to back up a bit and put <i>padeia</i> in context: “…the phrase <i>studia humanistis</i> implied a programme [sic] of education for the ruling elite of the republic, somewhat akin to the Greek term <i>padeia</i> or the modern German term <i>Bildung</i>, a word that is properly translated as not only education but also as culture.”jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-2898577049143391142012-01-06T08:37:37.501-07:002012-01-06T08:37:37.501-07:00...not the Renaissance or Enlightenment.
TVD - I ...<i>...not the Renaissance or Enlightenment.</i><br /><br />TVD - I think that you would enjoy (and find useful) <i>Humanism and the Culture of Renaissance Europe</i> by Charles G. Nauert (2nd ed. 2006). Starting with the Italian Renaissance and spreading north and east, the rise of <i>studia humanitatis</i> (humanistic studies) is the rise of the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Medieval humanism was not so much a philosophy as a way of viewing humanity in a positive light - as being capable of greater intellectual realization. <br /><br /><i>Studia humanitatis</i> was a break with Scholasticism and relied heavily on uncovering and disseminating classical Roman and Greek culture. It wasn't separate from the church and indeed many churchmen were behind the movement. <i>Studia humanitatis</i> did not displace the Scholastic authority (more traditional and conservative) altogether but opened the door wider to what was acceptable. In essence, whether the Church realized it or not, it opened the door to human individualism including accessing the Bible and being free from a central authority established orthodoxy. It kick started the rise of Calvin and Luther and eventually free thinkers of a more secular variety.<br /><br />As to Isabel and Ferdinand, they were both pious Catholics, her probably more than him, and when they "started" the Spanish Inquisition they were calling on Church tradition going back to at least the 13th century. Although there was probably ulterior motives involved, such as land acquisition by forcing out the pagans, Jews and Muslims, Ultimately, I think that they both thought that they were serving God. And, of course, however reluctantly, the Church did give the Spanish Inquisition sanction.<br /><br />We can quibble over the "true heir" of Constantine's legacy, but his actions greatly benefited the Latin Church, laying the ground for its later dominance in the west. And the Latin Church doesn't call him "the Great" for nothing.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22290673454214387922012-01-05T17:01:11.338-07:002012-01-05T17:01:11.338-07:00JRB, church and state were always intertwined in t...JRB, church and state were always intertwined in the West. Socrates gets the hemlock for impiety toward the gods of the city, the Roman Emperor was <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_Maximus<br /><br />King ferdinand started the Spanish Inquisition, not the Pope; Henry VIII took over the Roman church in England.<br /><br />And the true heir of Constantine was the Byzantine Empire, where church and state were a co-dominion. It had a pretty good run, 1000 years or so.<br /><br />http://www.historydoctor.net/Advanced%20Placement%20World%20History/byzantine_religion_and_influence.htm<br /><br /><br />We were just discussing Hobbes, <br /><br />http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/01/04/hobbes-a-first-note-on-faith-and-skepticism/<br /><br />who argued the king should be the final arbiter on theology.<br /><br />But I blame those pesky Calvinists for slipping out from state dominion, not the Renaissance or Enlightenment. The latter might have talked about it, but the Calvinists did something about it.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-43197752201628738262012-01-05T11:22:33.631-07:002012-01-05T11:22:33.631-07:00.
You can send all the lecture links you think are....<br />You can send all the lecture links you think are appropriate. I attend to them when I'm exercising on my peddler.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81776075873813644472012-01-05T11:07:45.145-07:002012-01-05T11:07:45.145-07:00Phil, I've bookmarked your link and will look ...Phil, I've bookmarked your link and will look into the DVD. I'll pass on a couple of links to a series of lectures (New and Old Testaments by Yale faculty - free access):<br /><br />http://academicearth.org/courses/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible<br /><br />http://academicearth.org/courses/new-testament-history-and-literature<br /><br />I'm guessing that there's a wealth of other possibilities also.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59698875537767531802012-01-05T11:06:44.045-07:002012-01-05T11:06:44.045-07:00I also have this course taught By Professor Dorsey...I also have this course taught By Professor Dorsey Armstrong, Ph.D., Duke University,<br />Purdue University <br /><br />http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=8280<br /><br />I've lent it out to a friend; but, will be attending to her lectures again as soon as I get them back.<br /><br />.<br />I am very interested in the Medieval World, so, thanks to you JRB for reading Cantor's book and blogging on it here.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-70470913735196404332012-01-05T10:54:04.337-07:002012-01-05T10:54:04.337-07:00As to the "civil" authorities (again fro...As to the "civil" authorities (again from Cantor):<br /><br /><i>"We can look back over the whole period between the death of Constantine and the end of the pontificate of Leo the Great and see that, unintentionally, the Christian Roman emperors had laid the foundation for the power of the medieval papacy. During the fourth century, the bishops of Rome were a succession of weak and incompetent men who used the great traditions and inherently vast power of their office to little advantage. Fortunately, the emperors did the pope's work for them. They crushed paganism and made Rome into a Christian city...<br /><br />"The emperors destroyed heresy and assured the doctrinal unity of the western church. They endowed the church with enormous material benefits and corporate privileges."</i><br /><br />It is impossible to look at this period without seeing that the source of sanctifying the divine right of Kings lies as much within the western Church as it does in the civil authorities. I had made this point in a discussion with KOI some time ago but the above fleshes it out a bit more.<br /><br />It is also impossible to credit Christianity (whether Roman Catholic or Protestant) or the Judeo-Christian tradition alone with undoing this relationship. If the authoritarian gridlock of state & church unity had not been broken by looking back to classical sources and reclaiming humanity and the human condition (Renaissance humanism, and I'm not talking secular humanism), I don't think we could have gotten where we are today (a kind of liberty and freedom of one's own mind that I enjoy). <br /><br />The intellectual seeds to rebellion against tyranny were planted in Mediterranean cultures and Greek and Roman republican philosophy/politics and pagan religion as much as in early Judaism or the latecomer Christianity. It is all our inheritance.<br /><br />So, I hereby claim that the founding fathers fully intended that we not be a Christian nation or a secular nation but a nation that could grow and safeguard our vast intellectual inheritance. There, now that <i>that's</i> settled for all time, it's time to fire up the coffee. :)jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-58406290956319858192012-01-05T10:53:31.233-07:002012-01-05T10:53:31.233-07:00.
I am currently attending to thirty-six Great Cou....<br />I am currently attending to thirty-six Great Courses lectures on DVD given by Professor Tyler Roberts of Grinnell College: <i>Skeptics and Believers: Religious Debate in the Weswtern Intellectual Tradition</i>. He touches on the Medieval World.<br />.<br />Nice thing about lectures of DVD, you can play them as often as you like.<br />.<br />http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=4670<br />.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-39834479581118035362012-01-05T10:17:38.505-07:002012-01-05T10:17:38.505-07:00So few of us today are aware of the history of the...<i>So few of us today are aware of the history of the government taking over the church [and its "cosmic" authority over men's allegiance] instead of vice versa.</i><br /><br />Cantor begins the Medieval period at 300 AD (CE if you prefer). It is the period from roughly 200 to 600 AD that defines the relationship between the Church and state in the west. During this period the growing institution of the Christian church willingly coopt the institutional nature of imperial Roman society and the waning Roman imperial state coopts the institution of the Church. This was not a period in which the Church resisted (I'm only referring to the western or Latin church). And this is the Church that steadily grew in temporal wealth and power and assumed the mantle of the state in attempting to bring and maintain order once the Roman state power was gone. It is this church that engaged in the conflicts with kings and princes in the 12th - 16th centuries where most people seem to start the story. <br /><br />But, to truly understand the relationship and tension between the western Latin church and extra-church authority, you really have to understand how the 12th century became the 12th century and what the seeds of discontent were and when they got planted and why they split the western world apart in later Medieval times.<br /><br />This is how Cantor frames the relationship of the Church to the state(1):<br /><br /><i>"The differences between Christianity and imperial Rome were implicit from the beginning of the Christian era, but churchmen tended to avoid direct confrontation with the imperial authorities - partly because they lacked the wherewithal to defy the empire and partly they believed sincerely that the end of the world was at hand...<br /><br />"By the end of the second century A.D., however, Christians were no longer convinced that the end of the world was necessarily imminent and that pagan culture could be ignored... Their attitude was one of accommodation: They believed in the identification of church and empire...<br /><br />"Eusebius, adviser to Constantine and chief spokesman for the newly established church, explained that Christ's birth in the reign of Augustus proved that the church and the empire were partners. Born at the same time, the two institutions would coexist in triumph until the Second Coming. Eusebius and his colleagues sanctified the empire, and they were as lavish in support of the state as the Christian emperor had been generous to the church. These fourth century churchmen gave moral and religious sanction to imperial rule; priests and bishops preached the divine appointment of the emperor and his representatives to rule Christians."</i> <br /><br />It is apparent that the Church was not passive in the transformation and became as authoritarian as the roman imperial state had been. As Cantor says, "...neither institution expressed any concern for the rights of individual conscience." <br /><br /><i>"One of the most progressive factors in the Middle Ages was the continuing struggle between church and state. Both institutions were authoritarian, both wanted to control the people's mind. but because there was tension between them, there was the possibility of emancipation. Later rebellious men could play off pope against emperor, church against state, and thus make room for intellectual freedom."</i> <br /><br />Fast forward to the Italian Rennaissance and the introduction of the humanistic studies(2) and then fast forward through the Enlightenment to the American founding and the next 220 or so years and we finally see the fullest flowering of the individual's right of conscience since....well, ever, theoretically unhindered by church and state.<br /><br />As Ben F. said, if we can keep it.<br /><br />1) From Cantor's <i>Civilization of the Middle Ages</i>, pages 66-74.<br /><br />2) and the reintroduction and inspiration of classical Greek and Roman thought inside the academy, the Church and the expanding civil societies.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-7540794052266918892012-01-04T07:47:17.915-07:002012-01-04T07:47:17.915-07:00.
As a fairly regular visitor at this site, I will....<br />As a fairly regular visitor at this site, I will be interested in reading JRB's posts regarding Cantor's <i>Civilization of the Middle Ages</i>.<br />.<br />I've said it before; but, it bears repeating that I come here to learn.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57067783689128924462012-01-04T06:59:04.662-07:002012-01-04T06:59:04.662-07:00Brad,
I look forward to sitting down and reading ...Brad,<br /><br />I look forward to sitting down and reading the post now that the holidays are over - I've only had a chance to scan it so far. I recently started Cantor's <i>Civilization of the Middle Ages.</i> I keep pushing back in time. At least in the final centuries of the Western Roman Empire, since Constantine, it's apparent that the emerging Church and the imperial state become entwined and it's impossible to untangle which institution called on the other more before they finally merged for all intents and purposes in the 5th-6th centuries.<br /><br /><i>"Finally, when fanatic Christian bishops convinced the emperors in the fourth century that there was only one true religion and all others must be proscribed, the empire began to control thought. In the end, Roman Catholicism alone could be practiced in the West and Greek Orthodoxy in the east, and there was an end to freedom of religion and culture.</i> (p.47 1994 ed.)jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-4550392181665045882012-01-03T18:23:02.896-07:002012-01-03T18:23:02.896-07:00I reread Brad Hart's article.
.
I think I COMP...I reread Brad Hart's article.<br />.<br />I think I COMPLETELY missed his point.<br />.<br />Please accept my apologies.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-9559889033798717332012-01-02T18:35:39.323-07:002012-01-02T18:35:39.323-07:00.
I belierve the big picture here is that it is wi....<br />I belierve the big picture here is that it is with the Founding of the United States of America that the separation of church and state is finally--once and for all time--begun.<br />.<br />Elsewhere the church played the final card in mattes of state. But, it was an ever weakening card ever since Martin Luther's "Here I stand" statement.<br />.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-63300940963439796032012-01-02T18:26:28.626-07:002012-01-02T18:26:28.626-07:00Great history lesson, Brad. Such a separation, or ...Great history lesson, Brad. Such a separation, or division of labor, or spheres of influence, does seem to be part of a long story perhaps going back to "Render unto Caesar ..." It's back and forth is interesting. I'm less knowledgable of the Middle Ages. But my interest picks up in the 16th century. I still find it astonishing that Pope Julius II commanded an army into battle against the French King.Jason Pappashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18233796281520274898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-77239715313383499412012-01-02T14:22:59.906-07:002012-01-02T14:22:59.906-07:00I think you COMPLETELY missed the point of my post...I think you COMPLETELY missed the point of my post, Phil. Of course matters of church and state were the same in Medieval times, but the Investiture Controversy was one of the first times that people saw a problem with it. Every Medieval historian sees this. <br /><br />I would brush up on Medieval history.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50667009515678661372012-01-02T14:05:36.989-07:002012-01-02T14:05:36.989-07:00.
I hesitate to make any contrarian statements re.... <br />I hesitate to make any contrarian statements regarding Brad Hart here; but, I think he builds his entire case on a false assumption and that is seen in this paragraph:<br /><br /><i>To better understand the depth and the importance of this church/state conflict let us travel back to a time when it wasn't constitutions and congresses that made law but rather kings and popes. Of course I am speaking of Medieval times. This was a time of passionate religious and political bickering, as heads of state (or kingdoms) and vicars of Christ jockeyed with one another for ultimate control. The question of who possessed ultimate authority became the central theme of almost all Medieval politics. Pontiffs and princes, priests and politicians, spend centuries arguing over this singular issue in the futile effort to seize a measure of control over the other. </i> and followed by this statewment, <i>Ever since the day that Constantine the Great saw his famous vision and heard the voice "En Hoc Signo Vinces", the battle between church and state has been a raging fire throughout the Western world</i>.<br />.<br />The only arguments that took place in Medieval times were almost always between individuals regarding the authority of the pope or of some local ruler and they were invariably settled on religious grounds. The church and the rulers all operated under the power and authority of God. As far as any people were concerned, there was no difference--no separation. Matters of state were matters of the church as they were so closely integrated a difference was not able to be seen. Can anyone show where the question of separation of church and state was ever the subject of any quesiton during the Medieval era? To paint the pope's struggle to have infallible authority as something between church and state is wrong. The struggle was within the framework of a church and state that were not separatede from each other.<br />.<br /><br />.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56293327241917740092012-01-01T20:29:45.038-07:002012-01-01T20:29:45.038-07:00I haven't understood our country to be structu...I haven't understood our country to be structured after the hereditary Kings of Europe, but this is why the Founders encouraged an involved citizen, so that government would not run away with the Treasury...<br /><br />Should there be campaign finance reform....should there be term limits in Congress?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-45723185351378341932012-01-01T20:04:12.665-07:002012-01-01T20:04:12.665-07:00Tom,
If leadership is to represent "God"...Tom,<br />If leadership is to represent "God" to the people, then you would believe that leaders are responsible to not bully, true? This is how "Providence" really was understood, wasn't it? (as nothing gets accomplished without good leadership). And our Founders did not serve the country, but their own ideals, of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (as the country did not exist yet and after it did, there were various understanding of what these ideals meant, which split the country as to the economic issues at hand.)<br /><br />What does it mean to be representative of God in our political realm? The political realm is the arena of power, and absolute power corrupts, would that not apply to "God" as well? or is he above the law...and arbitrary? Our Founders again understood that men were limited and prone to corruption without accountability, therefore the divided and separated powers, as the natural needs of government to protect itself, not be overseen by a religious authority. These believed that Providence was destiny.<br /><br />If one looks at nature, which is how most theologians argue for "general/common revelation", then arbitrariness is what we find, as to natural disasters and diverse scientific laws do not affirm a monistic order to the universe. But, Order was how the Founders understood nature's God, because they were just beginnning to understand the laws of science.<br /><br />An Absolute Being has problems, just as an absolute Egoist. Most anyone would argue that we have to live in social relationships, therefore, an absolute Egoist isn't compliant to the rules of the "social game". Therefore, there are no absolutes, only contingencies, variable, probabilities, etc. And these uncertainties lead not to predictablity but a "uncertainty principle". Therefore, though the Founders understood the need for forming a government, they also understood the result of a static class structure, where the elites rule and reign. We are far from what the Founders first envisioned, aren't we?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21213550324233353392012-01-01T18:35:17.225-07:002012-01-01T18:35:17.225-07:00Angie, your conception of God as a bully isn't...Angie, your conception of God as a bully isn't how the Founding saw divine providence.<br /><br />Pls stop. You need another blog to say such things in the comments section, not American Creation.<br /><br />"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge."<br /><br />---George Washington, First Inaugural Address<br /><br />Pls, Angie. Stop it.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-16426803887129472872012-01-01T14:44:50.243-07:002012-01-01T14:44:50.243-07:00John,
Religious conservatives are social conservat...John,<br />Religious conservatives are social conservatives, as these don't like to circumvent the social order, as it is "God's". But, this is the question isn't it? Religious conscience regarding discrimination based on "faith claims"!!! "Faith claims" are claims based on text or tradition.<br /><br />Marriage, and family values underline such commitments and values and they believe that laws should prevent homosexual marriage and change Roe v. Wade. And some would believe that homeschool is the best policy as that is the place for religious indoctrination, as the public sphere would undermine "creationist accounts" of scriptures, ETC. And homosexuality is forbidden, as an abomination, therefore, there is no "civil union" for homosexuals allowed! These believe that even if nature has endowed homosexuals with a different biology, then because of GOD, they should not be allowed the liberty to find happiness with a same sex partner in life long commitment. But, why, apart from "God" or "faith claims"? Religion is given "free reign" and right to Rule over another person's conscience....<br /><br />I much more prefer "secular conservative" as these don't pretend to make claims for or about "god"....but they deal with their arguments based on the realities of the politcal world, and not some "Big Guy" (or Bully?) in the sky.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-67395854444033632032012-01-01T12:58:56.772-07:002012-01-01T12:58:56.772-07:00Roddie: A point of clarification, I don't thin...Roddie: A point of clarification, I don't think a "Christian Nationalist" is synonymous with a religious conservative. There are many religious conservatives from meat and potatoes Republican voters to more politically independent types who disagree with Christian Nationalism.<br /><br />For the space of sake I'm not going to describe what Christian Nationalism is (I'd suggest John Fea's new book on the matter), but it's basically a "line" that is pushed by folks like David Barton and the late Peter Marshall and D. James Kennedy.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59871569833352493052012-01-01T12:58:18.056-07:002012-01-01T12:58:18.056-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3946719572180579822012-01-01T12:30:35.880-07:002012-01-01T12:30:35.880-07:00Should the Church discriminate because of their pa...Should the Church discriminate because of their particular opinion regarding issues of "faith"?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3721682264849656322012-01-01T12:28:17.988-07:002012-01-01T12:28:17.988-07:00The question in my mind is: Should the government ...The question in my mind is: Should the government be used by the Church to bring about discipline? Or should the government intervene when the Church does not respect civil liberties?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-52729183199288836982012-01-01T11:42:59.080-07:002012-01-01T11:42:59.080-07:00Roddie,
Sorry that you didn't like what I said...Roddie,<br />Sorry that you didn't like what I said.Please, if you will, let me explain.<br /><br />The Constitution is "godless" in the sense of its differing function in society. It arbitrates disagreements regarding civil liberties, as it does not take a stand on the definiton of "God", because our Founders themselves differed as to how they understood "God".<br /><br />As to "Christian Nationalists", because the Christian Nationalists believes that God really exists and intervenes in the affairs of man, unlike Deists, government is granted authority by God to carry out punishments, etc. as stated in Scripture. Therefore, Kings DID have a DIVINE and APPOINTED RIGHT to RULE or Govern. And resistance or rebellion was rebellion agaiinst God. Reformers were those that worked within the social structures to bring about change, but there were also revolutonaries that wanted wholesale change.<br /><br />Revolutionaries argue that God Transcends the Political realm. These take the argument that God has a "higher law", and didn't want men to submit or have ANY authority other than His! These were the early Christian resistors to the Caesars and these were called "atheists". Revolutionaries defened their resistance to the political authority of Great Britain or the defining status quo, as the status quo is unacceptable. The challenge is to know when or whether reform or revolution is necessary. Social order is a value for civilization. So such change should not be done without foresight and a commitment to see it through.<br /><br />So, it becomes a slippery slope when one uses the argument of "God", because one can use Scripture anyway he wants to defend his position.<br /><br />But, the form of government that is balanced and limited, that grants civil liberties is a government that allows for ALL VIEWS EQUALLY!!! This the "rule of law" or equality before the law. Definitions about God are a mute point, because the Founders themselves disagreed! But, those that believe that their view is the ONE and ONLY, will be resistant to diversity or plurality of views.<br /><br />I apologize again for not explaining myself and being so direct about my understanding. History is a fact based art, as one has to piece together the 'facts' that are found and interpret these facts within the context of men's minds (understanding) within a certain period of time....Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com