If We Erase The Christian Basis Of Governance, Then What Do We Unleash?

[boedicca]

I'm hoping that this is a fun topic. A century ago G.K. Chesterton observed:

“The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.” ​

Christians have this quaint belief that God created Adam and Eve and that all of mankind is equal in the eyes of God. A King and a Pauper shall be judged equally by God once in Heaven. This God inspired notion has informed our governing philosophy ever since we began as a nation.

The evidence of reality however is abundantly clear that we are not all made equal, so what higher principle can we turn to to guide us and prevent us from a utilitarian reform of our laws and customs which recognizes and enshrines what the real world is SCREAMING at us - we are not all equal?

We have past experiments where legislatures have tried to impose the will of man over reality, such as when the Indiana Legislature came close to passing a bill legislating a method to derive pi to a value of 3.2. Any engineer will tell you that if forced to use an imagined value for pi while building a bridge or an airplane, the product will be unstable. Man's will can't override reality. Disaster follows.

So we have a society where the great majority of people believe in God and the belief that God created us all equally. Once that belief is crushed into dust, why on Earth would we close our eyes to what nature is telling us about human inequality? Some will try to argue that appealing to the nature as a model for how society should be constructed is fallacious thinking but what then in its stead? We see the negative ramifications today of a world where we treat all people as equal when they in fact are not, but when God's command is being honored, who are mere men to know better and so we suffer through.

Once the foundational beliefs which created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are shown to be false, how shall we proceed to reform society? The problem with merely appealing to the Religion of Liberalism is that it's unmoored from independently derived higher principles - it is actually formed by appealing to Christian foundational beliefs. How do we justify the notion of one man, one vote when some men are better and wiser than other men? The rational course is to acknowledge this reality and construct a society reflective of what nature has created. We no longer have to fear God's displeasure because we no longer cling to silly superstitions like "we are all created equal."

They didn't say God they said Creator because they weren't convinced God existed. If they had said God then the lack of belief in God would have meant that the constitution was invalid.

So they did a good thing there. No ones religious beliefs can either validate or invalidate the constitution.

But you go right ahead and keep on trying.

Divine Providence and Supreme Judge are names for God.

I believe that Ravi was hinting that the Founders where referring to Glabatrus, Overlord of the Thosiry Sector and Starlord-Emperor as the Creator.

Plasphemer. Xenu sent us our thetans...and the rest is giant mess.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Plasphemer. Xenu sent us our thetans...and the rest is giant mess.

Is that some kind of freaky Starlord-Creator concept - a combination of blasphemy and plasma blaster?

 

[Antares]

I'm hoping that this is a fun topic. A century ago G.K. Chesterton observed:

“The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.” ​

Christians have this quaint belief that God created Adam and Eve and that all of mankind is equal in the eyes of God. A King and a Pauper shall be judged equally by God once in Heaven. This God inspired notion has informed our governing philosophy ever since we began as a nation.

The evidence of reality however is abundantly clear that we are not all made equal, so what higher principle can we turn to to guide us and prevent us from a utilitarian reform of our laws and customs which recognizes and enshrines what the real world is SCREAMING at us - we are not all equal?

We have past experiments where legislatures have tried to impose the will of man over reality, such as when the Indiana Legislature came close to passing a bill legislating a method to derive pi to a value of 3.2. Any engineer will tell you that if forced to use an imagined value for pi while building a bridge or an airplane, the product will be unstable. Man's will can't override reality. Disaster follows.

So we have a society where the great majority of people believe in God and the belief that God created us all equally. Once that belief is crushed into dust, why on Earth would we close our eyes to what nature is telling us about human inequality? Some will try to argue that appealing to the nature as a model for how society should be constructed is fallacious thinking but what then in its stead? We see the negative ramifications today of a world where we treat all people as equal when they in fact are not, but when God's command is being honored, who are mere men to know better and so we suffer through.

Once the foundational beliefs which created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are shown to be false, how shall we proceed to reform society? The problem with merely appealing to the Religion of Liberalism is that it's unmoored from independently derived higher principles - it is actually formed by appealing to Christian foundational beliefs. How do we justify the notion of one man, one vote when some men are better and wiser than other men? The rational course is to acknowledge this reality and construct a society reflective of what nature has created. We no longer have to fear God's displeasure because we no longer cling to silly superstitions like "we are all created equal."

They didn't say God they said Creator because they weren't convinced God existed. If they had said God then the lack of belief in God would have meant that the constitution was invalid.

So they did a good thing there. No ones religious beliefs can either validate or invalidate the constitution.

But you go right ahead and keep on trying.

They were SO "unconvinced" the VERY first thing they did after Washington's Inauguration was go to Church and Pray.

"Three days before George Washington took the oath of office as the first president of the United States, Congress passed the following resolution: Resolved, That after the oath shall have been administered to the President, he, attended by the Vice President and members of the Senate and House of Representatives, shall proceed to St. Paul’s Chapel, to hear divine service.[13] Accordingly, the Right Rev. Samuel Provoost (1742–1815), newly appointed chaplain of the United States Senate and first Episcopal bishop of New York, performed “divine service” at St. Paul's Chapel on April 30, 1789, immediately following Washington’s inauguration.[14]"

First inauguration of George Washington - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[boedicca]

Plasphemer. Xenu sent us our thetans...and the rest is giant mess.

Is that some kind of freaky Starlord-Creator concept - a combination of blasphemy and plasma blaster?

Oh my dear friend...I'll let the Scientologists know that you interested in learning about XENU and the Thetans (which would make a great name for an ironic punk cover band, btw).

 

[Care4all]

I'm hoping that this is a fun topic. A century ago G.K. Chesterton observed:

“The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.” ​

Christians have this quaint belief that God created Adam and Eve and that all of mankind is equal in the eyes of God. A King and a Pauper shall be judged equally by God once in Heaven. This God inspired notion has informed our governing philosophy ever since we began as a nation.

The evidence of reality however is abundantly clear that we are not all made equal, so what higher principle can we turn to to guide us and prevent us from a utilitarian reform of our laws and customs which recognizes and enshrines what the real world is SCREAMING at us - we are not all equal?

We have past experiments where legislatures have tried to impose the will of man over reality, such as when the Indiana Legislature came close to passing a bill legislating a method to derive pi to a value of 3.2. Any engineer will tell you that if forced to use an imagined value for pi while building a bridge or an airplane, the product will be unstable. Man's will can't override reality. Disaster follows.

So we have a society where the great majority of people believe in God and the belief that God created us all equally. Once that belief is crushed into dust, why on Earth would we close our eyes to what nature is telling us about human inequality? Some will try to argue that appealing to the nature as a model for how society should be constructed is fallacious thinking but what then in its stead? We see the negative ramifications today of a world where we treat all people as equal when they in fact are not, but when God's command is being honored, who are mere men to know better and so we suffer through.

Once the foundational beliefs which created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are shown to be false, how shall we proceed to reform society? The problem with merely appealing to the Religion of Liberalism is that it's unmoored from independently derived higher principles - it is actually formed by appealing to Christian foundational beliefs. How do we justify the notion of one man, one vote when some men are better and wiser than other men? The rational course is to acknowledge this reality and construct a society reflective of what nature has created. We no longer have to fear God's displeasure because we no longer cling to silly superstitions like "we are all created equal."

They didn't say God they said Creator because they weren't convinced God existed. If they had said God then the lack of belief in God would have meant that the constitution was invalid.

So they did a good thing there. No ones religious beliefs can either validate or invalidate the constitution.

But you go right ahead and keep on trying.

Divine Providence and Supreme Judge are names for God.

And yet they didn't put God in the constitution.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven​

Article VII

A.D., Anno Domini is the abbreviation for the Year of our Lord, in Latin..... 2014 A.D. means 2014 ''In the Year of our Lord''....does that mean if a Jewish Nation uses A.D. or all the different Nations use the A.D., that this means they are Christians?

It doesn't....

B.C.-A.D. Meaning

 

[Care4all]

Again, what is the Christian basis of governance? What exactly does this term mean?????

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would no more Mormons or Baptists or Muslims running things politically than I would atheists or agnostics.

Government is deliberately faith free, folks: believe or not, it does not matter at the court house.

 

[MaxGrit]

I'm hoping that this is a fun topic. A century ago G.K. Chesterton observed:

“The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.” ​

Christians have this quaint belief that God created Adam and Eve and that all of mankind is equal in the eyes of God. A King and a Pauper shall be judged equally by God once in Heaven. This God inspired notion has informed our governing philosophy ever since we began as a nation.

The evidence of reality however is abundantly clear that we are not all made equal, so what higher principle can we turn to to guide us and prevent us from a utilitarian reform of our laws and customs which recognizes and enshrines what the real world is SCREAMING at us - we are not all equal?

We have past experiments where legislatures have tried to impose the will of man over reality, such as when the Indiana Legislature came close to passing a bill legislating a method to derive pi to a value of 3.2. Any engineer will tell you that if forced to use an imagined value for pi while building a bridge or an airplane, the product will be unstable. Man's will can't override reality. Disaster follows.

So we have a society where the great majority of people believe in God and the belief that God created us all equally. Once that belief is crushed into dust, why on Earth would we close our eyes to what nature is telling us about human inequality? Some will try to argue that appealing to the nature as a model for how society should be constructed is fallacious thinking but what then in its stead? We see the negative ramifications today of a world where we treat all people as equal when they in fact are not, but when God's command is being honored, who are mere men to know better and so we suffer through.

Once the foundational beliefs which created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are shown to be false, how shall we proceed to reform society? The problem with merely appealing to the Religion of Liberalism is that it's unmoored from independently derived higher principles - it is actually formed by appealing to Christian foundational beliefs. How do we justify the notion of one man, one vote when some men are better and wiser than other men? The rational course is to acknowledge this reality and construct a society reflective of what nature has created. We no longer have to fear God's displeasure because we no longer cling to silly superstitions like "we are all created equal."

They didn't say God they said Creator because they weren't convinced God existed. If they had said God then the lack of belief in God would have meant that the constitution was invalid.

So they did a good thing there. No ones religious beliefs can either validate or invalidate the constitution.

But you go right ahead and keep on trying.

Divine Providence and Supreme Judge are names for God.

And yet they didn't put God in the constitution.

That's because it is in the Declaration of Independence.
__
The Birth of a Nation
by David Barton

For 235 years, America has been blessed as the longest on-going Constitutional Republic in the history of the world. These blessings are not accidental – they are blessings of God. This is evident as we look at the turmoil in other nations and contrast that to the stability we see in America. Preserving American liberty depends first upon our understanding of the foundations on which this great country was built, and then it depends on preserving the principles on which it was founded.

On July 2, 1776, Congress voted to approve a complete separation from England. Two days later, the early draft of the Declaration of Independence was signed. Four days later, members of Congress took the document and read it out loud from the steps of Independence Hall, proclaiming it to the city of Philadelphia, and afterwards they rang the Liberty Bell. The inscription on the top of the bell is Leviticus 25:10, which reads, "Proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof."

John Adams said, "The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity." Probably the clearest identification of the spirit of the American Revolution was given by John in a letter to Abigail the day after Congress approved the Declaration. He wrote her two letters that day: One was short and jubilant that the Declaration had been approved; the other letter was much longer and gave serious consideration to what had been done that day. Adams could already foresee that their actions would be celebrated by future generations.

A Different Holiday

Adams also noted: "This day will be the most memorable epic in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival." He felt the celebration should be in a manner that would commemorate the day as a "day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty." John Adams believed that the Fourth of July should be a religious holiday. The two top holidays celebrated in this country are Christmas and the Fourth of July. According to John Quincy Adams, the two dates are connected. On the Fourth of July, the Founding Fathers simply took the precepts of Christ and His birth (Christmas) and incorporated those principles into civil government.

The Declaration of Independence was the birth certificate for this nation, but the men who signed it knew it could be their death warrant. The closing paragraph states, "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance of the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." The 56 Founding Fathers, 27 of whom were trained as ministers, took their pledge seriously. On the morning of the signing, there was silence and gloom as each man was called up to the table of the President of Congress to sign the document, knowing that it could mean their death by hanging.

Most wars have a motto. The motto of World War II was "Remember Pearl Harbor." The motto during the Texas war for independence was "Remember the Alamo." The spiritual emphasis, directed towards King George III who violated God’s laws, gave rise to a motto during the American Revolution: "No King but King Jesus." The Founding Fathers passed the torch to us. It is our responsibility to not let it go out.

Independence Day Our Christian Heritage -- Spiritual Life in God

 

[Rikurzhen]

Again, what is the Christian basis of governance? What exactly does this mean?????

Do you honestly believe that American-European culture developed in a manner independent of Christianity?

If you have a beautiful tapestry hanging on your wall but you really hate the yellow threads woven throughout and you start cutting out and pulling out the yellow threads, what do you imagine happens to the remainder of your tapestry?

 

[MaxGrit]

Declaration of Independence and US Constitution - Lawyers.com

Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence (or, the "Declaration"), is the document that told the King of Great Britain that the 13 colonies would no longer be ruled by Great Britain, and particular King George III. At the very beginning of the document, the colonies are identified as the "13 united states of America." From then on, there can be no mistake that the colonies wanted to be separate from England.

It says that "all men are created equal" and "have unalienable rights," such as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Declaration then explains that citizens form governments to protect and guarantee those rights, and that when a government doesn't protect or even destroys those rights, it's the "right of the people to" change or overthrow it and to "form a new government." . . .

At the time the Declaration was written, the Second Continental Congress ("Congress") acted as the official "government" of the colonies. It was made up of delegates or representatives from each of the 13 colonies. The Congress selected a small group of delegates to write the Declaration, and that group in turn selected Thomas Jefferson to write it. It took him 17 days to complete it, and on July 2, 1776 he presented it to the Congress for a vote. Two days later, after some debate and minor changes to Jefferson's original work, the Congress voted and adopted the Declaration and announced that the 13 united states of America were free from British rule.

 

[MaxGrit]

Declaration of Independence Conservative Educator

Is the Constitution of the United States a godless document? This idea stems from modernism. Modernism is the belief that the way things are now is the way they have always been. Fortunately that is simply fallacious thinking. Here are a few reasons that show the Founders did not write a godless Constitution.

First of all, the Constitution is not our original founding document. It is based on the Declaration of Independence, which clearly acknowledges God. What is the evidence we can use to see that the Declaration of Independence is our original founding document? Besides its historical significance in breaking our ties with the British monarchy, there are 27 grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence as the reasons we were making that break. Each of those grievances are dealt with and resolved by various clauses in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution explained that there was a problem/solution relationship between the two.

Here is an example:

Declaration: “He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.”

Constitution: “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.”

The problem (listed fourth in the Declaration) of King George requiring the colonial legislatures to convene in far away locations is dealt with in Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution. This is just one such example; there are 26 others.

Another reason involves an acknowledgement of God in the text of the Constitution. The attestation clause (VII) reads,

“Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.”

While some might argue that it was simply the convention of the time, the acknowledgement of Jesus Christ (our Lord) in the date, is an example of the intentions of the signers. The numbering of twelve years sets the Declaration as the beginning of the United States; laying the foundation as it were. The Constitution is filling out the form; giving structure to the government of the new nation.

The twelve years mentioned above is another piece of evidence for the Declaration being our founding document. The Declaration of Independence is quite clearly a document that recognizes God’s sovereignty over human governments:

“When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness…”

There is more evidence that demonstrates that the Constitution was a document acknowledging God. David Barton explains several more in his teaching: God and the Constitution. Please check it out. Read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence for yourself. There’s an app for that! Become informed on the intended structure of our government.
American Exceptionalism

September 30, 2011

WallBuilders Live! aired a three part recording of Tim Barton this week speaking to Patriot Academy on American Exceptionalism. What makes America great… or rather, what made America great? “If we forget what we’ve done, we won’t know who we are.” – Ronald Reagan.

Tim makes the point that this war was not just fought because of taxation without representation. That is a modern deconstructivist, revisionist fallacy. The Founders had deep convictions about their splitting from England. If you look at the Declaration of Independence (Click here), of the 27 abuses listed as reasons to assert our independence from England, 8 were judicial abuses, 8 were legislative abuses, 9 were military abuses, and only 2 were economic abuses. However, if you ask anyone why we had the revolution, most people know the answer to be taxation without representation. We have forgotten where we came from.

Tim colorfully weaves stories throughout his explanation of what made America great. He tells several stories of American heroes from the Revolution that we never hear nowadays. For example, Elizabeth Lewis, wife of Francis Lewis, signer of the Declaration, stood at the door of her home while being fired on by cannon. She was thrown into a British POW camp, and fed bread and water once a day, became malnourished, and died shortly after her release. Do you suppose she stood up before cannon fire because her family was being taxed without representation? No. There was a deeper conviction than this. If we actually read the Declaration,we understand better.

Mr. Barton related stories like Naphtali Daggett, pastor and pro tempore president of Yale, who went out to meet the British with 100 other men to hold them off and give the towns people a chance to evacuate New Haven, CT. The 100 man set up along a hillside to hold back the British, but Naphtali Daggett climbed a hill way ahead of them and began sniping the British troops. The 100 men were driven back and the British advanced. Daggett was left alone in his position. The British commanding officer journaled that he had heard shots ring out every few minutes, and he was going to ignore them, except that one of his men was getting taken out with each shot. They went back and found this old man shooting at them. They captured Daggett but when the commanding officer saw that it was just a one old man by himself he offered to let them go free if he would promise not to shoot at them anymore. Naphtali Daggett said there was nothing more likely than that he would keep on shooting the soldiers. That answer cost him his life. This is just one example of a story of sacrifice and courage from our War for Independence.


Principles behind our American Government

September 22, 2011

WallBuilders had Frank Miniter as a guest this week. They discussed rebuilding our weakened Bill of Rights which had a lot of good ideas. However, David Barton and Rick Green opened the show with a discussion of American Exceptionalism and the basic principles upon which America was built. I appreciated their explanation and pass them on here.

American Exceptionalism – a set of ideas and philosophy that produce institutions and policies which lead to unprecedented levels of stability and prosperity. Six principles upon which our American system was built: 1. There is a divine creator. 2. That creator gives individuals certain unalienable rights. These are not rights to groups. They are not collective rights. They are individual rights, endowed by the creator not by the government. 3. Government exists to protect these rights. 4. There are moral absolutes that govern our lives known as the laws of nature and of nature’s God. 5. Below the moral law is the social compact which makes up our body of non-moral laws such as the speed limit, building codes, and so forth. 6. If a system of government doesn’t do it’s job you can abolish it and form a new one.

It is not hard to believe that these are the principles upon which our Declaration of Independence was formed. The language closely parallels what we find there. Unfortunately we have been fed the lie so long that our founders were atheists, agnostics, and deists that we are slow to believe our nation had such God-centered founding principles. Please listen to WallBuilders to get a new insights on our founding (which are actually an older, better historically supported perspective).

 

[ricechickie]

Again, what is the Christian basis of governance? What exactly does this mean?????

Do you honestly believe that American-European culture developed in a manner independent of Christianity?

If you have a beautiful tapestry hanging on your wall but you really hate the yellow threads woven throughout and you start cutting out and pulling out the yellow threads, what do you imagine happens to the remainder of your tapestry?

That's a bad analogy. Saying that our government is "Christian-based" is like saying that that tapestry is "yellow-based."

 

[Antares]

I would no more Mormons or Baptists or Muslims running things politically than I would atheists or agnostics.

Government is deliberately faith free, folks: believe or not, it does not matter at the court house.

Government and the LAW itself are indeed faith free and you are right, they SHOULD be.

But the "principles" of the Law are indeed based in Christianity and you know this very well.

 

[Care4all]

Again, what is the Christian basis of governance? What exactly does this mean?????

Do you honestly believe that American-European culture developed in a manner independent of Christianity?

If you have a beautiful tapestry hanging on your wall but you really hate the yellow threads woven throughout and you start cutting out and pulling out the yellow threads, what do you imagine happens to the remainder of your tapestry?

My oh my, don;t you LOVE jumping to conclusions and speaking for someone else....

So, are you saying the yellow threads, in your example is this "Christian basis of governance" meaning?

WOW, that certainly answered my question!

 

[Rikurzhen]

Again, what is the Christian basis of governance? What exactly does this mean?????

Do you honestly believe that American-European culture developed in a manner independent of Christianity?

If you have a beautiful tapestry hanging on your wall but you really hate the yellow threads woven throughout and you start cutting out and pulling out the yellow threads, what do you imagine happens to the remainder of your tapestry?

That's a bad analogy. Saying that our government is "Christian-based" is like saying that that tapestry is "yellow-based."

Fair point. You're misunderstanding my point though. The discussion here is evolving. You've decontextualized my response and leaped back to the OP.

Look at what I wrote. Can you separate out European culture from Christianity? They're interwoven, just like that yellow thread is woven throughout the tapestry.

 

[Care4all]

I would no more Mormons or Baptists or Muslims running things politically than I would atheists or agnostics.

Government is deliberately faith free, folks: believe or not, it does not matter at the court house.

Government and the LAW itself are indeed faith free and you are right, they SHOULD be.

But the "principles" of the Law are indeed based in Christianity and you know this very well.

Now that, I can accept....since most of the founders grew up as Christians or in Christian communities...

but Enlightenment is what many founders believed in, and this movement in no way shape or form, was a thing that supported religion of any kind, ruling the government or in the pockets of government....or a theocracy rule. They believed in the separation of church and State as far as governance....

BUT NOT as far as wiping out the mention of God, in everything the government did....as there are some atheist movements to do such and are claiming.... the founders were fine with religion in the Public Square....they just did not want Established Religions as being a part of government rule, imo.

 

[Antares]

I would no more Mormons or Baptists or Muslims running things politically than I would atheists or agnostics.

Government is deliberately faith free, folks: believe or not, it does not matter at the court house.

Government and the LAW itself are indeed faith free and you are right, they SHOULD be.

But the "principles" of the Law are indeed based in Christianity and you know this very well.

Now that, I can accept....since most of the founders grew up as Christians or in Christian communities...

but Enlightenment is what many founders believed in, and this movement in no way shape or form, was a thing that supported religion of any kind, ruling the government or in the pockets of government....or a theocracy rule. They believed in the separation of church and State as far as governance....

BUT NOT as far as wiping out the mention of God, in everything the government did....as there are some atheist movements to do such and are claiming.... the founders were fine with religion in the Public Square....they just did not want Religions as being a part of government rule, imo.

Here's the thing, they did what they did BECAUSE in the Old Country the Monarchy had co-opted the Church and DECLARED it to be the "Official Church" of England.

It regulated what was taught.

THAT is the reason for our 1st Amendment protections.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I would no more Mormons or Baptists or Muslims running things politically than I would atheists or agnostics.

Government is deliberately faith free, folks: believe or not, it does not matter at the court house.

Government and the LAW itself are indeed faith free and you are right, they SHOULD be.

But the "principles" of the Law are indeed based in Christianity and you know this very well.

Now that, I can accept....since most of the founders grew up as Christians or in Christian communities...

but Enlightenment is what many founders believed in, and this movement in no way shape or form, was a thing that supported religion of any kind, ruling the government or in the pockets of government....or a theocracy rule. They believed in the separation of church and State as far as governance....

BUT NOT as far as wiping out the mention of God, in everything the government did....as there are some atheist movements to do such and are claiming.... the founders were fine with religion in the Public Square....they just did not want Religions as being a part of government rule, imo.

The Enlightenment is a European creation in response to what was happening in European culture and religion. Where do you see Enlightenment values having the deepest roots? In the lands of Islam? In the tribal cultures of Africa? In Hindu India?

We haven't seen indigenous Enlightenment revolutions in any other cultures or religions, it only arose in Christendom. The Enlightenment is a child of the cultures nurtured by Christendom.

 

[ricechickie]

Again, what is the Christian basis of governance? What exactly does this mean?????

Do you honestly believe that American-European culture developed in a manner independent of Christianity?

If you have a beautiful tapestry hanging on your wall but you really hate the yellow threads woven throughout and you start cutting out and pulling out the yellow threads, what do you imagine happens to the remainder of your tapestry?

That's a bad analogy. Saying that our government is "Christian-based" is like saying that that tapestry is "yellow-based."

Fair point. You're misunderstanding my point though. The discussion here is evolving. You've decontextualized my response and leaped back to the OP.

Look at what I wrote. Can you separate out European culture from Christianity? They're interwoven, just like that yellow thread is woven throughout the tapestry.

Perhaps I've missed a chunk of the conversation.

Of course culture is interwoven with religion (beliefs and ritual and imagery). But those things can change and the culture can still withstand.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Perhaps I've missed a chunk of the conversation.

Of course culture is interwoven with religion (beliefs and ritual and imagery). But those things can change and the culture can still withstand.

Chesterton's Fence:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.​